So – in the car in a side street waiting to turn right into a main road. It’s a reasonably busy road.

It’s clear to my left and there’s a car approaching from my right, signalling and slowing down to turn into the side street I am coming out of. The turning car (a Golf) is a reasonable distance away – probably wouldn’t go if he wasn’t turning but I reckon I have time as he clearly is going to turn.

So I pull out but just as I do that, a taxi behind the Golf pulls out and starts to overtake the Golf as it slows (but before it starts to turn) – so me and Taxi are both heading for the same bit of road. I stop about 2/3 of the way across the road and he goes past my bonnet well over on the wrong side of the road.

If we had collided who would have been to blame? Me, taxi, or both?

Should I not have turned right although it looked like had a decent gap and/ or should the taxi not have overtaken as the Golf turned right given he was approaching a junction and obviously traffic waiting to turn right?

Interested in your views here…

Taxi driving on the wrong side of the road? Seems pretty obvious.

Taxi drivers are normally at fault, but especially in this case

I would say Taxi but who knows what goes on in the minds of Insurance companies, I think you would both get a driving with out due care and attention. Munque Chick will know she is job.

you shouldn’t have pulled out until the golf had turned. How did you know he wasn’t indicating to pull in to the side of the road just past the junction?

IME it may well be you as the view appears to be that you shouldn’t pull out even if a car is indicating and appears to be slowing down, the argument being that the driver may not have cancelled a previous indication and as for the taxi well its a legit move to overtake and he could argue that the car in front was not indicating…

Interesting.

Was in a city by the way – 30mph limit and the turn the Golf was setting up for is very tight – it’s a narrow road and a very “square” corner if that makes sense.

Edit – the Golf had moved out to widen the turn so no doubt in my mind he was going to make the turn. If I hadn’t had to stop I would have been well clear of him before he got to me anyway.

The answer is essentially, both of you.

you must ensure it’s safe to pull out before you do so.

The taxi should not over take when they might come into conflict with other road users, and the Highway code explicitly states junctions as an example.

If the taxi was so far away when he started his manoever, you should have been able ot manoever and clear you manoever. If you collide he wasn’t “so far away” after all.

If you’d pulled out, turned and were established on the major road, and been hit head on, then possibly a court might find you not at fault. If you had only just started to pull out when you hit the side of him, and the impact is largely on his correct side of the road, he might get away with 100%.

If it was a say, dual carrige way, and he was passing somehting you couldnt see through, and traffic was say, stationary, and say creating his own lane, perhaps to turn r further down the road, or looking to pull into a space he couldnt see into, and he couldnt forsee you pulling out, as say you were coming froma petrol station, not a turning, then that might end up 80/20 your favour.

However, I have an interesting one this week on my desk.

A careful retied ambulance driver, wants to pull out of a side road. Van stops to the right and a van stops also to the left to let her out. The van to her right, is at an angle, stationary, and indicating. The side road is just after a pedestrian crossing, with zig zags. However, the van cannot turn in, as the side road is narrowed, so the car pulling out “must” do so, without ensuring the way is clear. The main road is a single carrigeway in each direction. So the driver pulls out, and collides with an moped, overtaking the stationary van.

Who is at fault? I say the moped 100%. There was enough warning of the 2 stationary vans, the presence of a side road. The emerging vehicle had no alternative, (it was practically unable to reverse down the side road), and couldnt be expected to sit there all day blocking the side road. The mopeds riders solicitors say say 100% the emerging vehicles fault, but I think would accept 50/50 if we offered. I dont think thats fair, and we are proceeding to trial. If we lose, the claim with court costs is probably worth £35k, over settling it quickly against the van driver at say £5k.

What would you do?

I work for an insurance claims dept dealing with liability/personal injury.

you might be at fault there? i might get flamed for this… i think you have to give way to all traffic that is on the road that you’re pulling onto, whatever dodgy manouvers they may be pulling. if there was nothing coming the other way the taxi was ok to overtake. not great driving, but i don’t think he’s in the wrong for that

Been there and done it – and didn’t miss!

Knock for Knock!

Also if you haven’t ‘straightened up’ after pulling onto a main road, you’re still seen as in the process of joining a main road and you’d have been pulling into the path of two oncoming vehicles.

Probably 50/50 – if I was forced to weight it, the OP slightly more at fault. Overtaking past junctions is wrong, but so is pulling out when your way may not be clear due to other traffic, and I’d argue the taxi driver was slightly more reasonable in his expectation that the bit of road would be clear.

So the driver pulls out, and collides with an moped, overtaking the stationary van

Was the moped on it’s own side of the road? If so then 100% the van’s fault, otherwise we’re into the grey again.

The emerging vehicle had no alternative, (it was practically unable to reverse down the side road), and couldnt be expected to sit there all day blocking the side road

I don’t think that is any excuse at all for pulling out when they could’t see what was coming.

If we lose, the claim with court costs is probably worth £35k, over settling it quickly against the van driver at say £5k

Are you better than 88% sure you’re going to win? Will you even get your legal costs back if it goes 50/50, so are you better than 80% sure you’ll get it 100% your way? I thought insurance companies played the odds – I’m less than convinced that’s what you’re doing.

I work for an insurance claims dept dealing with liability/personal injury.

Do you have to leave your horns and pitchfork at work, or are you allowed to take them home with you? 😉

How did you know he wasn’t indicating to pull in to the side of the road just past the junction?

becasue, in theory, he shouln’t be indicating until past your turning in that situation. he should signal with his brake lightd to vehicles behind him.

in theory…

yes, i know this isn’t how people in the world do it.

Jujuuk68

You need to think carefully – there is legal precedent on this – it used to be 50 / 50 but is now seen as the vans not the bikes fault.

If the mopeds solicitor is any good you will lose.

Its legal to filter and thus the moped has right of way – no matter what side of the road he is on

A mate of mine crashed in very similar circumstances and got 75% but that was before the recent case law tipped things in favour of the bike

Teh case law is not clear http://www.bgtbikersolicitors.co.uk/case_law.html and scroll down
Davis v Schrogin is the crucial case and the one I would be arguing I think

You will be very lucky to get away with less than 50/50 IMO

Its legal to filter and thus the moped has right of way – no matter what side of the road he is on

If he’s not on his own side of the road he’s not filtering, hence why I reckoned the circumstances changed to more similar to the OP’s if he crossed the centre line. I’ll defer to your legal precedent though if that covers being on the wrong side.

Not that I’m convinced this is a real case – if it is it shouldn’t be being discussed on here.

How did you know he wasn’t indicating to pull in to the side of the road just past the junction?

If he was doing this he should have waited til he was past the junction.

taxi shouldn’t have overtaken if it was not clear to do so. No need anyway in town. And many taxi drivers drive like tools.

Aracer – the case law is not totally clear – its hard to compare the different cases but the worst you get in that situation is normally 50 / 50 and at least one of the bits of case law have 100% the vans fault.
My mate was ont he wrong side of the road and got 75%

In reference to the op this is an interesting case.

Leeson v Bevis & Tolchard Ltd (1972)
In this case, a van driver was coming out of a driveway and was flashed by a lorry driver who had stopped on the main road to let the van driver emerge. A motorcyclist overtook the lorry and collided with the van.
The judge held that the van driver and motorcyclist were equally to blame.
At appeal it was said that the motorcyclist should have observed the gap opposite the driveway, and should therefore have been aware.

In reference to TJ’s case I’d say split blame too.

loads of example here most end up with split blame.

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/accidents-involving-filtering-what-the-law-says-lu-2811.htm

so the moped crossed zig zags to pass the stationary van? Overtaking within a controlled zone (i.e. where the zig zags are) is an offence in itself

In terms of “who is at fault,” iDave nailed it back there.

You shouldn’t pull out solely on the basis of someone indicating. This is basic, driving lesson stuff; they could have left their indicator on, or be turning after your junction. If you’d waited until they’d started their manoeuvre, so you know they’re obviously going to turn, you should then have seen the vehicle behind start to overtake.

In practice for insurance porpoises, I suspect they’d push for (and probably get) a 50/50 settlement. Insurance companies really don’t like admitting blame.

From a personal POV, there’s one of these junctions on my drive to work every day, almost exactly as you describe. Having almost had my clock cleaned by a halfwit on a number of occasions, I always, always triple-check for bikes and minicabs trying to reach escape velocity on the wrong side of the road.

Shouldn’t pull out onto main road if you can’t be sure it’s safe – whilst taxi shouldn’t have overtaken it was forseeable. Should never overtake approaching a junction with a car in it, and it’s best avoided at any junction unless you can see well into it. So I would say both at fault, but I would have considerably less sympathy for the taxi driver, not that that counts for anything.

See the double dashed lines at the end of the side road – they’re give way lines. It would have been your fault.

As for the moped scenario – that’s all depending on how slowly the driver of the emerging car was pulling out. If it’s stopped, moped’s fault – if car is moving then it’s car drivers fault.

Interesting indeed. I’d sort of assumed that it would have been 50:50, most of you seem to agree.

Reckon the taxi driver was a bit of tool, while I was doing a manoeuvre many people would have done, and something people (including myself) do regularly in city traffic.

Having looked at Google Maps though, something has come to light I hadn’t quite appreciated at the time. The direction the Golf and the taxi were coming from has a pedestrian crossing less than 50m before the junction. The special wiggly lines from the crossing end about 2 car lengths before the junction.

So the taxi driver was definitely overtaking on the pedestrian crossing markings – which is very, very naughty indeed. Wonder if this would have changed anything?

BTW it was junction of West Nicolson St and Potterow in Edinburgh – here, I was turning out of West Nicolson St into Potterow heading into the city.

Google Maps

You shouldn’t pull out solely on the basis of someone indicating. This is basic, driving lesson stuff; they could have left their indicator on, or be turning after your junction. If you’d waited until they’d started their manoeuvre, so you know they’re obviously going to turn, you should then have seen the vehicle behind start to overtake.

While this is true I’m not sure it is relevant in this case. He didn’t potentially hit the Golf, it was another vehicle. The reason why you don’t assume that someone is turning is in case they don’t, not beacuse soemone else might do something stupid. Surely if the taxi is on the wrong side of the road then the taxi is at fault. He shouldn’t be there. The OP is turning into a stretch of road he has a right to expect to be clear and only isn’t clear because of the poor driving of the taxi.

Just my tuppence worth

50/50 as technically both should give way and clearly neither did hence they hit. Both moves were foolish though I suspect we have all done what you have done rather than what the taxi driver did.
Moped less sure car had no choice moped did and should have done so slowly. Whichever one failed to stop in time is at fault as SBZ noted

I would have said the moped’s.

I ride a motorcycle and regularly overtake (everywhere), but accept that if I have an accident when doing so, its pretty my fault – as in I’m the one hurt…

Tandemjeremy – I see you Davis Vs Schrogin, which is when a motorcycle is so close that they have no alternative when a vehicle u turns in front of them, and see you Farley Vs Buckley, where the motorcyclist was 100% at fault for an emerging vehicle when they had no alternative. BTW ignore the appeal – they did, and lost.

BLM acted for the defendant in this reported case. The defendant motorist, who drove out of a side road to turn right into a major road where a large vehicle was waiting to turn left and obstructed his view of oncoming traffic, did not have a duty of reasonable care to stop just beyond the offside of that vehicle before proceeding further. Accordingly, the defendant was not liable for injuries to the claimant who overtook the stationary vehicle at a reckless speed and hit the motorist’s car.

The claimant took the case to the Court of Appeal, where the decision at first instance was upheld. On the particular set of facts, the defendant was not negligent to effect a continuous movement out of a side road and, while it was foreseeable that a motorcycle might be overtaking at a modest speed, the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that a motor cycle would be overtaking in the reckless manner found at first instance. The negligence was entirely that of the claimant. BLM was awarded their costs at first instance and the costs of the appeal.

The claimant has now lodged a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords on the grounds that the CA was wrong to interfere with a finding of hard fact at first instance. The trial judge found that the defendant was travelling at 5-8mph on the strength of witness evidence. The court of appeal accepted that the defendant made a continuous movement but did not accept the witness’ assessment of speed. BLM has lodged objections to the appeal and await the outcome of the appeal committee.

Plastic lawyers…..soooooo much bad advice on this thread its unbelievable.

Come on guys, its all about negligence. Who has caused the accident, who has been negligent. Did the emerging car HAVE to pull out?? Did the moped show caution on approach to the junction. Would it reasonable to suspect that there may be a problem given the stationary vehicle which was indicating but not moving. Does it matter whether moped on wrong sdie of road (actually yes).

Case authority for pulling out re oncoming indicating vehicles – wadsworth v gillespie.

Overtaking motorbikes and vehicles emerging from side roads – Powell v moody.

(there is masses of case law for such accidents readily available)

Each case taken on own merits but anyone working in PI Law would look at these first.

As for people giving splits on liability, I doubt you would have enough facts to be able to do so (photo’s , locus , layout , sightlines , weather conditions).

Best advice for Jujuuk68 is to ignore this thread and just use the legal research resources your employers provide for you.

I wasn’t really looking for advice, just throwing it into the discussion for entertainment really… I do have a locus report and the 2 van drivers came forward as good independent witnesses.

Although the moped rider was an off duty copper, and so will probably get the courts “sympathy” and win…

Coppers dont always get sympathy from a judge as they are expected to perform well ‘in the box’ (used to do defence work for police authority panel solicitors)

For the record there will be some liability on the Moped driver. (another argument is that an off duty copper should have probably judged the situation better)

If I was acting for moped and defendant offered 50/50 I would be relucant to accept based on what you have said.

see you Farley Vs Buckley, where the motorcyclist was 100% at fault

So was the moped overtaking with reckless speed (I don’t see any mention of that in your original report)? If not, then I don’t see how that supports your case in any way at all, given from the bit you’ve quoted, the negligence of the biker was solely based on the speed they were doing (IMHO as a non-lawyer, quite rightly – as a biker you can’t expect people not to pull out in front of you if you give them insufficient time to see you due to ridiculous speeds).

Of course as MW points out IANAL, so my opinion is worth just about what you paid for it – though from his comments I suspect I’m not that far wrong.

Still don’t understand why you’re discussing a live case on here (it it is really a live case).

Still don’t understand why you’re discussing a live case on here (it it is really a live case).

+1

This is why ‘Ambulance chasers’ get rich and our insurance gets higher and higher, if both parties proceeded with reasonable caution at low speed an accident would never happen. I remember a Chief Constable of one Police Force said ‘ Accidents never happen, there is always someone at fault’ there is some truth in this – if every one took time and care on the streets there would be no accidents, a good road user should be able to predict what is going to happen in front of them.