Hypothetical - who would be at fault?
Discussion
Am curious to know the answer to or opinions on the following:
You are on side road approaching T-junction. You intend to turn right. Arriving at junction you stop.
There is one car - car X - visible on main road, approaching you from the right. As it nears you its left indicator flashes and it distinctly slows in order to turn onto road that you are about to leave.
You begin to pull out onto main road and commence your right turn. As you are doing this, car Y, which was positioned behind car X and not visible to you as you sat at the junction, begins to overtake the slow-moving car X by going into its offside lane - which is the lane that you are about to occupy.
If there was a collision, would the fault lay with you, for failing to give way (even though you could not have seen car Y)? Would the fault lay with car Y for leaving its lane without ensuring that it was safe to do so? Would the fault be apportioned?
Apologies if the answer is obvious or well-known to regulars.
You are on side road approaching T-junction. You intend to turn right. Arriving at junction you stop.
There is one car - car X - visible on main road, approaching you from the right. As it nears you its left indicator flashes and it distinctly slows in order to turn onto road that you are about to leave.
You begin to pull out onto main road and commence your right turn. As you are doing this, car Y, which was positioned behind car X and not visible to you as you sat at the junction, begins to overtake the slow-moving car X by going into its offside lane - which is the lane that you are about to occupy.
If there was a collision, would the fault lay with you, for failing to give way (even though you could not have seen car Y)? Would the fault lay with car Y for leaving its lane without ensuring that it was safe to do so? Would the fault be apportioned?
Apologies if the answer is obvious or well-known to regulars.
A colleague of mine did this and unfortunately car Y wasn't a car at all but the lead of a group of bikers. Luckily for biker Y he wasn't badly hurt but my colleage did have to make the choice offered to him by the BiB of being summonsed for DWDCOA or going on one of those driver training courses being offered to drivers instead of points.
flemke said:
Am curious to know the answer to or opinions on the following:
You are on side road approaching T-junction. You intend to turn right. Arriving at junction you stop.
There is one car - car X - visible on main road, approaching you from the right. As it nears you its left indicator flashes and it distinctly slows in order to turn onto road that you are about to leave.
You begin to pull out onto main road and commence your right turn. As you are doing this, car Y, which was positioned behind car X and not visible to you as you sat at the junction, begins to overtake the slow-moving car X by going into its offside lane - which is the lane that you are about to occupy.
If there was a collision, would the fault lay with you, for failing to give way (even though you could not have seen car Y)? Would the fault lay with car Y for leaving its lane without ensuring that it was safe to do so? Would the fault be apportioned?
Apologies if the answer is obvious or well-known to regulars.
Blame is almost always apportioned and would depend on the speed of car y and possibly car x (wrongly IMO) One thing is certain Professor David Beggs civil servants would record it as a speed related accident and slmost certaily apportion blame to the vehicles on the main road. Incidentally they would do this while gossiping about holdays in Spain and last nights East Enders.
Hard as it may seem, it would be you at fault for pulling out - lost count of times I have seen this one happen, moral is -trust no-one elses manoeuvres until they've finished them. I've even seen the driver with the l/hand indicator on slow up, then change his mind at last minute and go straight on !
Let's be careful out there
Let's be careful out there
stubydoo said:
Hard as it may seem, it would be you at fault for pulling out - lost count of times I have seen this one happen, moral is -trust no-one elses manoeuvres until they've finished them. I've even seen the driver with the l/hand indicator on slow up, then change his mind at last minute and go straight on !
Let's be careful out there
No your wrong this is Blairs Britain and it is us speedophiles who have to be careful out there, remember voting labout was stupid
parrot of doom said:
Wouldn't the driver of the car doing the overtaking be done for DwDcaA, as he failed to see the danger of overtaking on a junction?
Not normally, because both car x and y are on the main road, it is the driver entering the main road that should 'give way' or 'stop' at the stop sign.
Always expect the unexpected - car pulling out at the junction would be at fault in eyes of law. Insurance company may possibly try to argue vicarious liability on the part of the car overtaking the slower car and driving on the wrong side of the road to do so? Also they may even argue that he should have anticipated that a chap might pull out.
(They do try anything to decrease pay-outs!)
But in any case... indicating and slowing does not necessarily mean driver intends to turn left either ... so a wait until sure and then a second look to make sure no idiot is about to overtake....
(They do try anything to decrease pay-outs!
) But in any case... indicating and slowing does not necessarily mean driver intends to turn left either ... so a wait until sure and then a second look to make sure no idiot is about to overtake....
I did this once when down in Cornwall, someone was indictaing left to go into where I was pulling out of, they slowed, so I pulled out and they decided to go straight on, no accident but he did use some rude signs.
So now I NEVER pull out until it is completely clear, even if there is someone behind me honking their horn because I dont go, which was the case last week
So now I NEVER pull out until it is completely clear, even if there is someone behind me honking their horn because I dont go, which was the case last week
Mad Moggie said:
Always expect the unexpected - car pulling out at the junction would be at fault in eyes of law. Insurance company may possibly try to argue vicarious liability on the part of the car overtaking the slower car and driving on the wrong side of the road to do so? Also they may even argue that he should have anticipated that a chap might pull out.
(They do try anything to decrease pay-outs!
But in any case... indicating and slowing does not necessarily mean driver intends to turn left either ... so a wait until sure and then a second look to make sure no idiot is about to overtake....
No the insurance company would pay the guy on the main road who T boned numptie pulling out of the junction. The government would however record another speed related accident. (No I am not joking thats what they do)
stubydoo said:
Hard as it may seem, it would be you at fault for pulling out -
Why? Open and shut case. You are at T Junction you are obliged to give way, you haven't. Whether this is because
a) You are stupid or
b) Blind or
c) Had vision obscured by other car
d) any of the above
doesn't really matter in my eyes.
While not exactly clever I don't think it is illegal to overtake at a junction. In fact I would go further, if the car was indicating to turn left you should expect the other car to pull out and go around it as this is what a significant number of drivers would do. The error is that you have not been able to postively show that a vechicle was not following the car ('cos your view was obstructed). In these circumstance you should assume there is and plan accordingly.
Most accidents can be avoided if at least one driver is thinking correctly.
Nonegreen looks to have it sewn up for government spin purposes...
The car at the junction should only emerge when the road is clear, and doing so won't force a change of speed or direction on other traffic. A car approaching with its indicators on and slowing down may not turn (as per posts) and may obscure other traffic to the rear (as per flemke's description) so emerging before the car has completed its turn and the road can be seen to be clear puts that driver at fault. Maybe any dues to the overtaker would be reduced as they should not have been overtaking approaching a junction, but they were on the major road and had right of way. Isn't this the basics of a question in the theory test?
The car at the junction should only emerge when the road is clear, and doing so won't force a change of speed or direction on other traffic. A car approaching with its indicators on and slowing down may not turn (as per posts) and may obscure other traffic to the rear (as per flemke's description) so emerging before the car has completed its turn and the road can be seen to be clear puts that driver at fault. Maybe any dues to the overtaker would be reduced as they should not have been overtaking approaching a junction, but they were on the major road and had right of way. Isn't this the basics of a question in the theory test?
Highway Code said:
at junctions you should...not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure
and
Highway Code said:
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
As both actions are contrary to the HC the overriding factor would be the requirement of traffic on a minor road to give way to vehicles on the major road and not enter it under the circumstance described by flemke. The fact that a car or bike couldn't be seen doesn't remove the requirement to give way to it. To display due care you would be expected to anticipate the possiblilty of its presence.
The chap pulling out into traffic would be at fault as no guarantee the left hand indicator und slow speed means turning into road. He could be inteneding to park up past the junction.
Und not illegal to overtake as you pass car turning left or slowing to pull in at kerb past junction either.
Overtaking car - as Nonners aptly says - would be a "speed" stat. They do this in LanCASH£re to justify the nonsense scams under some obsure 15% guideline spin garbage.
But as Mad Doc said .... insurance company und numpty pulling out will try it on to try to get out of liability to pay. Ist common. We do not trust any insurance company after our darkest experience damit... They are sharks in that business.
Und not illegal to overtake as you pass car turning left or slowing to pull in at kerb past junction either.
Overtaking car - as Nonners aptly says - would be a "speed" stat. They do this in LanCASH£re to justify the nonsense scams under some obsure 15% guideline spin garbage.
But as Mad Doc said .... insurance company und numpty pulling out will try it on to try to get out of liability to pay. Ist common. We do not trust any insurance company after our darkest experience damit...
They are sharks in that business. Thanks to all for your replies.
I think that in my example car X's slowing is a distraction.
What bemuses me is this:
You (driving car that stopped at junction) are able and expected to judge speed of any oncoming car X and, if X is not indicating a left turn, if there is enough time/space for you to make your right turn in front of X, you may do so. This happens millions of times a day, and quite often when there is a car Y behind X.
In this situation, if you have begun to leave the junction and enter main road in the normal way, Y may not then begin an overtake of X because his offside lane is about to be occupied. You are not obliged to anticipate Y's overtake. It is Y's obligation to ensure that nothing ahead (car emerging from driveway or sideroad, car in offside parking area, cyclist) will be in his path. Right?
Why would the hypothetical be different? Why should you, leaving junction, be required to anticipate that Y is about to do overtake? Does the obligation shift because, as bluepolarbear says, an overtake is more likely when X is indicating and slowing?
Reverting to the example where X does not intend to turn, if Y appeared to be travelling much faster than X, you might not leave the junction even if Y was still in his nearside lane. It seems to me, however, that if you did leave the junction and Y then attempted an overtake and caused a collision, it would be Y's fault.
Therefore shouldn't some part of the legal interpretation rest on which car was first in the space that they ultimately both occupied?
Cheers.
>> Edited by flemke on Sunday 6th February 12:33
I think that in my example car X's slowing is a distraction.
What bemuses me is this:
You (driving car that stopped at junction) are able and expected to judge speed of any oncoming car X and, if X is not indicating a left turn, if there is enough time/space for you to make your right turn in front of X, you may do so. This happens millions of times a day, and quite often when there is a car Y behind X.
In this situation, if you have begun to leave the junction and enter main road in the normal way, Y may not then begin an overtake of X because his offside lane is about to be occupied. You are not obliged to anticipate Y's overtake. It is Y's obligation to ensure that nothing ahead (car emerging from driveway or sideroad, car in offside parking area, cyclist) will be in his path. Right?
Why would the hypothetical be different? Why should you, leaving junction, be required to anticipate that Y is about to do overtake? Does the obligation shift because, as bluepolarbear says, an overtake is more likely when X is indicating and slowing?
Reverting to the example where X does not intend to turn, if Y appeared to be travelling much faster than X, you might not leave the junction even if Y was still in his nearside lane. It seems to me, however, that if you did leave the junction and Y then attempted an overtake and caused a collision, it would be Y's fault.
Therefore shouldn't some part of the legal interpretation rest on which car was first in the space that they ultimately both occupied?
Cheers.
>> Edited by flemke on Sunday 6th February 12:33
Complicated? Yes and a fun way to spend a Sunday! But how about not starting from there, and working from the premise that if both X and Y knew their Highway Code - or just basically drove with a large dose of common sense which is apparently also known as advanced driving - then no-one would pull out into the major road as described, nobody would overtake approaching a junction, and for 5 seconds of patience the various sharks mentioned get to keep their teeth out of everybody. And no bent metal or broken bones as a bonus.
Ist as turbobloke says ... if all drivers were applying COAST skills - crunch would not occur ... as all three drivers will have observed, anticipated und rapidly decided what to do on that basis.
If driver pulled completed his right turn und car Y decided to do his overtake after the bloke turning right had successfully negotiated his way into road ... then driver Y ist to blame as he has not noted an oncoming car, und not adjusted position of approach or speed for hazard ahead, und we are talking a second or two. Average reaction to get foot to feather brake ist 0.7 second ...nicht?
If driver pulled completed his right turn und car Y decided to do his overtake after the bloke turning right had successfully negotiated his way into road ... then driver Y ist to blame as he has not noted an oncoming car, und not adjusted position of approach or speed for hazard ahead, und we are talking a second or two. Average reaction to get foot to feather brake ist 0.7 second ...nicht?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff