Discussion
tenohfive said:
Both were at fault - the overtaker shouldn't have overtaken past a junction (and shouldn't have overtaken if they couldn't see that the whole stretch was free of junctions) and the second driver should still have checked both ways.
That being said the overtaker is more at fault in my eyes.
I agree, but the the car at the junction had a restricted view to the left anyway if I'm reading the OP correctly.That being said the overtaker is more at fault in my eyes.
Rightly or wrongly, few people in my experience look left when turning left out of a junction.
GC8 said:
Exactly as I see it. Pull outer is primarily responsible and the overtaker contributed.
Depends on the visibility imho. There are many junctions where the front of your car would be committed before you had visibility, so not a lot else you can do. If the main road had a warning sign then he shouldn't have been overtaking.I don't want to sound holier than thou here but if you can't see that there aren't any junctions then the overtake isn't on. When you pull out for a look you don't just look for oncoming traffic - you look for junctions as well. Never mind that they're often either physically signposted or their presence indicated by the only streetlight in miles, and their very nature (a gap in the roadside) means spotting them is made as easy as possible. If you aren't sure you shouldn't go.
Especially on the right. It's a fact of life (as others have said) that a lot of people come to the junction, look right and just go left.
Especially on the right. It's a fact of life (as others have said) that a lot of people come to the junction, look right and just go left.
Puddenchucker said:
TSRG said:
Except as provided by paragraphs (3) to (6), the requirement conveyed by the transverse lines shown in diagram 1003, whether or not they are placed in conjunction with the sign shown in diagram 602 or 1023, shall be that no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident.
1003
602
So, whilst it's inadvisable to overtake approaching a junction, it us up to the driver entering the main road to ensure it's safe to do so.
Edited by Puddenchucker on Saturday 14th September 16:30
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
Puddenchucker said:
1003
602
So, whilst it's inadvisable to overtake approaching a junction, it us up to the driver entering the main road to ensure it's safe to do so.
We don't know whether there was ANY signage or road markings - only the OP can answer that point .602
So, whilst it's inadvisable to overtake approaching a junction, it us up to the driver entering the main road to ensure it's safe to do so.
Edited by Puddenchucker on Saturday 14th September 16:30
On many 'country roads' junctions are unmarked and there is no priority . In such cases it is up to all road users to exercise caution and courtesy .
Having said that , it is normally held that a side road joining a 'straight' road is treated as the 'minor' road - even though both roads may be unclassified and therefore equal - and that drivers emerging from them should accord priority to traffic on the 'major' road .
A lot hinges on the manner of the driver emerging - if visibility is severely restricted and there is no option other than to 'edge out' until visibility is achieved , then a driver doing so is not negligent and cannot be held at fault . Since the driver overtaking did not need to be overtaking , and chose to do so where it was unsafe , then he bears most of the responsibility - being on the wrong side of the road when he would have hit the other vehicle would not help his case either .
Pontoneer said:
A lot hinges on the manner of the driver emerging - if visibility is severely restricted and there is no option other than to 'edge out' until visibility is achieved , then a driver doing so is not negligent and cannot be held at fault . Since the driver overtaking did not need to be overtaking , and chose to do so where it was unsafe , then he bears most of the responsibility - being on the wrong side of the road when he would have hit the other vehicle would not help his case either .
You're contradicting yourself there. The overtaker saw the road to be clear when he made his move. The guy pulling out from the junction may not be able to see fully until committed to pulling out, granted, but as one driver made a perfectly legitmate move (the clear overtake) and one driver did not, the fault lies with the guy pulling out, especially as the onus is on him to ensure both ways are clear before pulling out. I would imagine (hope!) that SOME of the blame would lie with the overtaker making the move near a junction but at the end of the day the guy joining the main carriageway failed to ensure he had a clear road, trees or not.
I have vague recollections of reading something, possibly on PH, about a guy that ploughed into somebody in one of those right-turn only lanes that are preceeded by hatched chevrons, the type you're "allowed to enter if clear and safe to do so". I seem to recall him being absolved of most of the blame, if not all of it as the onus was on the person turning right to check that it was safe to do so. Like I said, vague recollections so I could be talking balls!
Centurion07 said:
You're contradicting yourself there. The overtaker saw the road to be clear when he made his move.
But it's not sufficient to make sure the road itself is clear when planning an overtake- you need to take into account other dangers which may change the situation during the overtakeMave said:
Centurion07 said:
You're contradicting yourself there. The overtaker saw the road to be clear when he made his move.
But it's not sufficient to make sure the road itself is clear when planning an overtake- you need to take into account other dangers which may change the situation during the overtakeAs I mentioned, I'm fairly sure with a bit of googling that you would come up with various similar cases and find more than one verdict to prove what I'm saying, especially the specific one I mentioned. I know I couldn't believe it when I read it.
The law says that drivers have to take the road as they find it; essentially if the overtaker couldn't see that there wasn't a junction, even if there were no white lines or signposts marked, they should have assumed that there was a hazard and stayed behind. The same applies for the person at the junction, so if they couldn't see if it was clear they had to assume it wasn't.
In that case, probably equal blame. And certainly not this guy:
In that case, probably equal blame. And certainly not this guy:
Centurion07 said:
Pontoneer said:
A lot hinges on the manner of the driver emerging - if visibility is severely restricted and there is no option other than to 'edge out' until visibility is achieved , then a driver doing so is not negligent and cannot be held at fault . Since the driver overtaking did not need to be overtaking , and chose to do so where it was unsafe , then he bears most of the responsibility - being on the wrong side of the road when he would have hit the other vehicle would not help his case either .
You're contradicting yourself there. The overtaker saw the road to be clear when he made his move. The guy pulling out from the junction may not be able to see fully until committed to pulling out, granted, but as one driver made a perfectly legitmate move (the clear overtake) and one driver did not, the fault lies with the guy pulling out, especially as the onus is on him to ensure both ways are clear before pulling out. I would imagine (hope!) that SOME of the blame would lie with the overtaker making the move near a junction but at the end of the day the guy joining the main carriageway failed to ensure he had a clear road, trees or not.
I have vague recollections of reading something, possibly on PH, about a guy that ploughed into somebody in one of those right-turn only lanes that are preceeded by hatched chevrons, the type you're "allowed to enter if clear and safe to do so". I seem to recall him being absolved of most of the blame, if not all of it as the onus was on the person turning right to check that it was safe to do so. Like I said, vague recollections so I could be talking balls!
The overtaker may have thought he saw a clear road ahead , but he either failed to see or take account of the junction and did not consider the potential for something to appear there . He ought to have seen the junction and exercised due caution .
You are supposed to base your driving plan on :
what you can see
what you cannot see
and the circumstances you can reasonably expect to develop
Therefore sight of an empty road straight ahead , but with a junction on the right that you cannot see into should immediately ring alarm bells and make you consider that there might be a vehicle in there hidden from sight , and moreover that the circumstance of that vehicle either poking its nose out or actually emerging can reasonably be expected to develop - as it did in the case outlined by the OP
to not consider these things is negligent .
The driver trying to emerge can do nothing other than edge out if visibility is restricted ; he can't be expected to sit there all day wondering if something is going to come along the road ; all he can do is move out a little bit at a time and keep looking both ways until he has sufficient visibility such that he can see far enough to emerge . If an overtaker hits him whilst he is edging cautiously out , it will be 100% the fault of the overtaker since he was negligent in overtaking where it was unsafe to do so and he was also on the wrong side of the road when he hit the emerging car . The emerging car was in no way negligent if he exercised utmost caution and was , correctly , on his own side of the road : he cannot be faulted in anything he did - unlike the overtaker .
I'm not sure about the other case you cited , but if a driver was in a central refuge , waiting to turn right OFF a main road , and turned right across the path of an oncoming car , hitting it , then of course he is at fault - how could it be otherwise as he should have seen the oncoming car and accorded it priority ?
There is , however , case law supporting the position I made above .
Loon recently quoted a case where a driver emerging from a side road , adjacent to a bend on a main road , was struck by a car which came around the bend on the main road as he was halfway across , there was some confusion as the driver on the main road had crossed to the other side to try to avoid the car which emerged from his left , but that was of little relevance . It was held that , while the car on the main road did have priority , the car emerging from the side road could only emerge cautiously based on the road being clear as far as he could see and , notwithstanding that he pulled out into the path of the unsighted car before it appeared around the bend ( at a speed such that it could not stop in the distance it could see to be clear ) there was no negligence and therefore no fault on the part of the emerging driver .
I did say that it hinges on the manner of the emerging : if the emerging driver edges out slowly and cautiously , he has fulfilled his duty of care , but if he just blunders out without even bothering to look for traffic on the main road , then fault would be 100% with him .
As in many crashes , a little more care on the part of EITHER driver might avoid an unfortunate outcome .
Edited by Pontoneer on Sunday 15th September 12:00
Mave said:
Puddenchucker said:
TSRG said:
Except as provided by paragraphs (3) to (6), the requirement conveyed by the transverse lines shown in diagram 1003, whether or not they are placed in conjunction with the sign shown in diagram 602 or 1023, shall be that no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident.
1003602
So, whilst it's inadvisable to overtake approaching a junction, it us up to the driver entering the main road to ensure it's safe to do so.
Edited by Puddenchucker on Saturday 14th September 16:30
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
Which do you believe will carry more weight in a Court of Law?
Mave said:
Puddenchucker said:
You're quoting a rule (guidance) from the Highway Code, I'm quoting from legislation.
Which do you believe will carry more weight in a Court of Law?
Go on then, what's the legislation for overtaking?Which do you believe will carry more weight in a Court of Law?
But, as far as I am aware there is no specific law regarding overtaking - it would be covered by either careless or dangerous driving, or by traffic signs (e.g. ignoring no-overtaking signs or solid white lines), but I'll let others with more knowledge of the law than me confirm or correct that belief.
However, I will quote this, from the Road Traffic Act:
RTA said:
(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the M1Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M2Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I'm not saying that the overtaker is absolved from any responsibility in the event of an incident involving a vehicle emerging from a side road, just that the emphasis is on the person joining from the side road to do so safely. The courts would, I hope, look at the circumstances and apportion blame accordingly.
Pontoneer said:
No contradiction at all.
Of course it's a contradiction. On the one hand you say that the driver pulling out is not at fault as he couldn't see yet you blame the overtaker even though HE (possibly) couldn't see the junction/emerging vehicle.You blame the overtaker saying he should have anticipated a vehicle emerging from the junction yet you don't think that the car emerging from the junction should anticpate there being traffic on the main carriageway?
GC8 said:
The majority of responsibility has to lay with the driver pulling out from the side road.
Agree with this 100 percent. This driver is entering a road. The other driver is already on the road. The driver already on the road has right of way. If it was illegal to overtake at this point then he would be in the wrong, but I doubt it. On many back roads the only place you can safetly over take is on a straight, and many straights have roads coming off them, for obvious reasons.Puddenchucker said:
Mave said:
Puddenchucker said:
You're quoting a rule (guidance) from the Highway Code, I'm quoting from legislation.
Which do you believe will carry more weight in a Court of Law?
Go on then, what's the legislation for overtaking?Which do you believe will carry more weight in a Court of Law?
No point apportioning blame based on legislation if you don't know all of the relevant legislation.
Anyhoo, if the law says that the guy pulling out of the side road is always to blame, then I think the law is unfair in some cases.
There are many side roads near me where you need to peep and creep to get out of them. If someone drove into me whilst overtaking before I had sufficient visibility to see up the road, I'd consider them at fault
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff