[Closed] Car Accident - Am I at Fault?

If he last looked immediately before manoeuvring or a fortnight ago, either way he didn't see her so didn't perform adequate observation.

It's academic anyway. If he last looked immediately before manoeuvring or a fortnight ago, either way he didn't see her so didn't perform adequate observation.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur ]Res ipsa loquitur[/url], innit.

Disagree

Well, it hinges on the definition of "adequate". Adequate for what? Adequate to avoid the collision, adequate for reasonable best effort (which moves the requirement of definition on to that phrase) or adequate for the average Joe's own personal consideration of having done something?

so its at least 50-50 as she didnt look out the window infront of her face where things happen while she moves along......wonder where she was looking - maybe in her mirror if she adopts the cougar process.

Ooh, sarcasm: that's [i]very[/i] constructive.

😉

so its unreasonable to think she might look out of the viewing portal on the front of her car while traveling in the wrong lane to skip stationary cars.

Actually come to think of it - last time i encountered one of these muppets they didnt seem to think they had to , not even to avoid oncoming cars who were traveling along in the correct direction for their lane......

This is why you're taught the 'lifesaver' on right turns on a motorbike.

In the words of my instructor 'If you turn right and some overtaking idiot ploughs into you, it might not be your fault, but you're still ****ed, so do your lifesaver.'

Wow posted before my appointment came out to a lot of replays!! Certainly food for thought, I understand all yhisbif it was a bike, if it was an ambulence etc but just to be clear we're talking seconds between mirror signal manover, had I been looking in my mirrors when I pulled out I may have been hit by oncoming traffic... No win situation. I know that it was her fault (I also know had I looked in my mirror again I may have seen her but then I may have missed oncoming traffic, can't look both ways at once) I'm trying to understand how insurance will see it and as stated will probably go 50:50.

Just to clarify she drove into my wing as I turned into the junction. There was no filter lane purly me turning right on a normal road from the left lane across the lane coming from the other direction.

I know she was not directly behind me, can't say exactly how many cars she had passed but I do believe she was driving irratically and didn't want to que.

I do feel like the victim as I waited till I got to the junction, mirror signal manover and wham I'm hit in the wing!

so its unreasonable to think she might look out of the viewing portal on the front of her car while traveling in the wrong lane to skip stationary cars.

That's something you've inferred without any basis at all. I don't recall anyone saying she wasn't to blame or shouldn't be expected to have looked at and reacted to anything in front of her.

no reading cougars posts he expects the OP to have made the turn while looking behind himself the whole time - anything less is not enough observation.

I don't agree with your summary of mirror usage, it takes a fraction of a second to shoot a quick glance in a mirror / check a blindspot one last time, but,

It was a single lane road, no filter lanes, you were turning right at a junction, and she was on the wrong side of the road (at least partially) overtaking a line of traffic through that junction? Is that right? If that's the situation I think you've got a much stronger case.

Care to post a Google Maps location, that might help?

no reading cougars posts he expects the OP to have made the turn while looking behind himself the whole time - anything less is not enough observation.

No, I think he's saying that there are only two possibilities:
- the OP looked behind but failed to see a car that was there to be seen, or
- the gap between the OP looking behind and the collision occurring was sufficient for a driver to have emerged from the queue behind, overtaken any vehicles behind the OP, attained a speed at which they were unable to stop when the OP pulled out, and then collided with him

And I think he's implying that if the latter were the case, the course of events that necessarily happened between the look and the collision would mean that the time between those two points was long enough to be argued as inadequate in the context of HC rule 180, while the first was, pretty much by definition, also inadequate.

(And if that's what he's saying, then FWIW I broadly agree, subject to exceptional circumstances such as the other driver doing 100mph or something.)

It was a single lane road, no filter lanes, you were turning right at a junction, and she was on the wrong side of the road (at least partially) overtaking a line of traffic through that junction? Is that right? If that's the situation I think you've got a much stronger case.

As an aside: this happens all the time at the level crossing in town… Seems a perfectly acceptable pragmatic measure if done with due care and attention.

*waits for edward2000 to misunderstand what "all the time" means*

no reading cougars posts he expects the OP to have made the turn while looking behind himself the whole time - anything less is not enough observation.

That's not what I was suggesting either. Are you deliberately trying to exaggerate what I'm saying to the point of ridiculousness? (Is there an opposite to reductio ad absurdum?)

If she's overtaken a line of cars to get to the junction then she's not just "appeared out of nowhere" (hateful phrase) but has been coming for a little while; a quick final check to look for asshats doing exactly this sort of idiotic stunt before committing to the turn may have potentially prevented the accident.

If you think it's impossible to make a turn without fully checking your surroundings, I'd suggest motorcycle lessons. You'll very quickly find out how little most people actually see when driving.

was the junction at the islands? And does that mean she the wrong side of the islands?

If so I think it would be hard to defend her actions.

Bez > yes, that's broadly what I was saying, thank you. If you fail to see another vehicle then the reason why is academic, the fact remains that you didn't see them.

A lot of this comes down to experience. You don't naturally expect people to be in unexpected places (that's pretty much what "unexpected" means). The OP almost certainly wouldn't have expected someone to try and overtake at that point and so I'm guessing wouldn't have considered it necessary to even check. I'll bet he does in future though!

They say that you only really start to learn to drive after you've passed your test, and there's some truth in that. It's just not feasible to cater for every possibility at a test level (because as the adage goes, as fast as you design bigger and better idiot-proof systems, nature designs bigger and better idiots). As you clock up more miles, and more people astonish you on a daily basis, you add more tools to your repertoire to help avoid these halfwits.

This is why I mentioned motorcycle lessons; they go into much more depth than the driving test does with relation to observation and anticipation (or at least, they did when I took it). Presumably because the consequences of getting it wrong are a bit different! I came out of my bike lessons a considerably better driver than when I went in.

Sounds like she was at fault but a quick mirror check by the OP just before turning could have prevented the collision.

a quick final check to look for asshats doing exactly this sort of idiotic stunt before committing to the turn may have potentially prevented the accident.

she's not just "appeared out of nowhere" (hateful phrase)…

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/from-out-of-nowhere/

…but has been coming for a little while

Ah, so she was distracted then 😉

It's been alluded to before (from the POV of a bike filtering) but there's a bit of analogy with bikes really, isn't there - the lifesaver is pretty predominant, in the motor cycle training world, and if the OP was a bicycle doing the same manoeuvre, you'd be expecting to do that check even if it's not mandatory ("should").

Legal blame and at fault - probably not. Avoidable incident - probably.

Are you deliberately trying to exaggerate what I'm saying to the point of ridiculousness? (Is there an opposite to reductio ad absurdum?)

Sense is the opposite of it hence why you have yet to experience it on here 😉

From what I can tell they have come down the wrong side of the road overtaking, ignoring a car indicating and then hit the OP on the wrong side of the road.

I am struggling to see what the OP has done wrong here though he may have decided to look on the wrong side of the road for an idiot doing something stupid.

as for a cyclist I would be very careful about filtering past a turning point and even more so when cars were indicating, i would not be bombing it down the wrong side of the road and if I were I would expect this approach to end in tears at some point.

Not sure about this one, if you were indicating she certainly should have expected you to pull out, but not knowing the road layout were you just sitting pointlessly in the queue or was she hooning it up the wrong side of the road into the side street?

As you say there was a traffic island it sounds like you could have proceeded up the middle of the road (instead of pointlessly waiting behind cars in the queue) in order to turn right - but the road markings may have indicated otherwise.

I'd guess 50:50 but I'm really not sure from your description. Good luck anyway.

It's been alluded to before (from the POV of a bike filtering) but there's a bit of analogy with bikes really, isn't there - the lifesaver is pretty predominant, in the motor cycle training world, and if the OP was a bicycle doing the same manoeuvre, you'd be expecting to do that check even if it's not mandatory ("should").

But it's also been noted that there's another analogy, which substitutes the two-wheeler in place of the other driver. And the equally obvious consequences of this scenario serve to illustrate why Rule 180 exists and why it confers some responsibility on the person making the turn to perform that same check.

I am struggling to see what the OP has done wrong here

It's pretty plain in rule 180, no? "Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken."

He said he did check them I dont think many folk would check for someone on the wrong side of the road overtaking everyone. TBH i dont think i do a life saver in the car but not 100% certain.

I guess, as other say, both sides can always do something to avoid the crash if we set the bar really high. However the main responsibility* [ blame] clearly lies with the person who performed the over taking manoeuvre on a car indicating to turn to right by driving on the wrong side of the road. It was , as the accident shows, clearly not safe to over take at that time

* though not 100 % if you want to be strict about it

He said he did check them

Yes, but, as Cougar was pointing out, it's the "make sure you are not being overtaken" bit that's key. Clearly, whatever action he took failed to make sure of that.

I dont think many folk woudl check for someone on the wrong side of the road overtaking everyone

Where else is someone overtaking going to be?

Anyway, this is part of the problem. Not many folk [i]do[/i] do all the things they should. Hence collisions.

You're right there. And to be honest I'm not sure I'd have been *that* diligent/ responsible / observant. I'd like to think so, but, but..

Have been in several (though not *too* many) accidents / collisions in 30+ years of driving/biking. All / most have been preventable on my part, a couple entirely my fault and only a wall or verge took the hit, other was a right of way violation (not mine) - but I could have reacted quicker than freeze and then skid not very gracefully into the other vehicle..

I guess it'll go 50:50 and you should be glad it wasn't a motorbike/cyclist filtering that you pulled out on

friend of mine filtered passed stationary traffic on motorbike, passing on their outside. Car turned right from queue and knocked him off.

Insurers found the car driver 100% at fault. The filtering was lawful (broken not solid central white line) and the driver performed a reckless manoeuvre - a right turn with no mirror or signal.

Where else is someone overtaking going to be?

Are they technically overtaking if they do the move to turn into the junction?
Does this alter the legality?
Are they not just executing the move on the wrong side of the road?

Having taken lessons quite recently I believe it's now 'mirror, signal, [b]mirror[/b], manoeuvre'. Might have helped avoid the OP's collision.

However in stationary traffic with nowhere to pull back in[ for the overtaking car ]its less likely someone will check

Possibly. Maybe they're not intending to pull back in, though: maybe they're about to turn right into a road, car park, driveway, etc. (As mentioned, that's a regular occurrence at our local level crossing; in fact on one side of it people also frequently do it to turn left further up the queue.) No idea what the OP's scenario was, though.

Anyway, it's virtually irrelevant to the issue of liability: yes, it helps explain someone neglecting to check, but it doesn't diminish their responsibility under the Highway Code to do so.

Are they technically overtaking if they do the move to turn into the junction?
Does this alter the legality?
Are they not just executing the move on the wrong side of the road?

It's not illegal to drive on the other side of the road to pass cars. Doesn't matter whether it's to overtake or to access a turning. What matters in terms of legality is whether it's done in a manner that can be shown to be careless or dangerous.

Legal culpability is totally different to civil liability, though.

Right back from work now and can discuss /answer any questions...

I have been driving 16 years averaging 15,000 mile a year so fairly experienced I've had one little knock in that time (very gentaly drove into the back of someone who stalled at lights!).

I am a confident but cautious driver, ring roads/motorways, dual carriageways etc always always check over my shoulder before pulling out....I think I was just caught out as it was so unexpected (don't they say always expect the unexpected!?) I do feel I had done enough given the circumstances but in hindsight realised it would have been prevented should I have taken another look!

However just because I could have prevented surely dose not mean that I'm at fault? A car that pulls out onto oncoming traffic would be a fault it doesn't mean the other drive he has hit has joint liability because 'if he were driving slower and braked quicker he could have prevented it'.

167
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

> where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works

This is why I thought her manover was illegal!?^^^^

However just because I could have prevented surely dose not mean that I'm at fault? A car that pulls out onto oncoming traffic would be a fault it doesn't mean the other drive he has hit has joint liability because 'if he were driving slower and braked quicker he could have prevented it'.

Personally it seems like you could have prevented the collision but she was quite clearly being impatient by overtaking in order to turn right and should therefore not have been there for you to see whether you did or didn't look. i.e. you could have prevented it, but she created the situation in the first place...

Be interesting to see where this one goes re insurance/legals cos IMHO there's way too much impatient driving these days and it causes chaos - we need more Police and more prosecutions. So many people seem to think 'I can so I will' rather than 'I can, but it's illegal or risky or stupid so I won't'

However just because I could have prevented surely dose not mean that I'm at fault?

This is the crux really. "I don't know" is the honest answer; I'm tempted to agree with you, but insurance companies are bastards and may not.

Quick question, Im sure I read that where the OP was turning to the right, there was a traffic island, presumably in the middle of the road he was turning out of. Would that Island also have a bollard with keep left on it? That might be the way to argue it.
Incidentally, what would have happened if someone turned into the road (from the main road) the OP was pulling out of? Would the crasher have driven into them as well?
I think the OP's been unlucky, because realistically most people would not expect a car to come up the wrong side of the road to overtake them at a junction.

bigyin...your reading it slightly wrong...it's not easy to explain.

Imagine a 'normal' road, one left lane, traffic moving my direction, one right lane, oncoming traffic, island 200 yards ahead, 180 yards before the island there is a street/junction to the right.

I was in a que waited to get to the junction before turning, as I start to turn car comes up the right hand lane to turn right into the junction I am about to turn into, she clips my front right wing.

To see google maps search for The Old White Horse' Stourbridge (it's on the island) to the left is south lane, I was on South lane heading towards the island, I was turning right into Glebe Lane.

Here?

https://goo.gl/maps/Bdo7VT62Div

There's no way she should've been overtaking standing traffic there. But I'd definitely have thrown a lifesaver in just in case of cyclists / motorbikes filtering.

Look at case law and see which is most similar to your situation,

Pell v Moseley 2003
Irvin v Stevenson 2002
McGill v Addy 1999
Moss v Dixon 1998
Hillman v Tompkins 1995
Joliffe v Hay 1991
Pratt v Bloom 1958

Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

100% the other drivers fault.

As it says in the Highway Code you DO NOT overtake approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road, &/or where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works.

The other sections quoted from the H.C. where it says you SHOULD do this, that, or the other are immaterial in this incident.

DO NOT= Just that.
SHOULD= Advisory.

Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

Bit different if it's an ambulance that you run into?

Drac - Moderator
Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

As in they tried to take you to court, the case was heard and they lost, or it never made it to court?

Based on what has been described, I don't think it is clear cut.

This sounds like it's going to be a carve up, both parties at fault.