[Closed] Everyone loves a "car bump, who's at fault?" question

Car A pulls out slowly as[b] vision of outer lane restricted by bus[/b]

There's your answer.

A legally

A & B for insurance

B Morally as he should have been paying more attention

I think that covers all bases 🙂

A

The bus for making A think it was ok to pull out across a lane of traffic they couldn't see down.

I shall add, I was driving neither A or B.

Doesn't sound like car B was doing anything wrong at all, was it? Just driving along in lane, and car A pulled out in front of them. Car A should not have pulled out in front of stationary bus with no way of seeing what was in 2nd lane. I know it's easy to be perfect in hindsight and probably most of us have pulled out with restricted vision.

or the bus...

[s]Molgrips[/s] Surfmat

A. No doubt.

Whoever has the 'worst' solicitor

A sounds like they are legally at fault and probably hold most of the blame.

But if B drove slowly into something that was clearly visible in their lane then they clearly weren't paying very much attention.

[i]Doesn't sound like car B was doing anything wrong at all, was it? Just driving along in lane, and car A pulled out in front of them. Car A should not have pulled out in front of stationary bus with no way of seeing what was in 2nd lane. I know it's easy to be perfect in hindsight and probably most of us have pulled out with restricted vision. [/i]

Whenever a bus is stopped you need to be aware that someone may step out from in front of it - so I always take care. Years of riding motorcycles in cities taught me this.

Lets get this straight.
You say car B is driving along, legally, in the correct lane.
A car crashes into him/her (in this case car A).
In which possible way could you come to the conclusion that car B could be at fault?

Whenever an obstruction is blocking your vision you need to be aware that someone may step out from in front of it - so I always take care. Years of driving and my instructor taught me this.

A

[i]Lets get this straight.
You say car B is driving along, legally, in the correct lane.
A car crashes into him/her (in this case car A).
In which possible way could you come to the conclusion that car B could be at fault? [/i]

Cool your jets there hotshot, I've not come to any conclusion about anything.

A.

just because someone lets you out, doesn't mean you don't have to check that it's actually clear.

I'm going with 50:50.

I'm always wary when a bus stops- I look through the glass if possible but then if its not a crawl out you've not got too much chance.

If there are too many variables its 50:50 IMO.

TBH if the bus driver genuinely let him out- why didn't he warn the driver?

A for pulling out into the path of oncoming traffic.
B for not anticipating that the bus was stopping to let someone out.

B had right of way, end of. Car A should've been checking both lanes before going blindly across. Not immediately seeing how "moving slowly" and "obscured by bus are compatible.

You say car B is driving along, legally, in the correct lane.
A car crashes into him/her (in this case car A).
In which possible way could you come to the conclusion that car B could be at fault?

From the OP's description it sounded like A pulled out and B was approaching slowly but somehow didn't see A and drove into the side of them despite having plenty of time to stop.

So A's fault but B should look where they are going, next time it might be a child's face.

drove into the side of them despite having plenty of time to stop.

We have no idea if he had time to stop.

This reminds me of a situation a few weeks ago...a lady waved to let me out of a junction, and got increasingly frantic and impatient in her waving as I neglected to pull out.

A few seconds later a car went zooming past that she couldn't see due to the bus in front of her, and the reason I waited - I only got a glimpse of it between two buses, but guessed it was going faster than 30.

If your view is restricted and someone lets you out...you're assuming they've bothered looking for you if you take them up on the offer.

It's A's fault, B maybe could have prevented it but A shouldn't have gone if road wasn't clear, when someone "lets you in/out" you still have responsibility to check what's coming, if the bus had waved A across then driven into him, it would still be A's fault.

Sad but that's how it works (the bitter voice of experience, old lady in a Motability specila waved me out, I declined, she waved me out again and as I drove out she drove into the side of me..... my fault)

IHN - Member

Car A, turning right across two lanes

That's all the information you need, Car A's fault.

[i]B had right of way, end of[/i]

No one has 'right of way'...

If A hadn't pulled out then there would have been no conflict with B. A without doubt.

A at fault in theory but insurance will go 50:50.

Car A.
Responsibility was with car A to ensure the highway was clear before proceeding.
I was "car B" in an accident on my motorbike once. It was settled non-fault in my favour.

It was [b]my[/b] fault! It always is.

A shouldn't be driving where they cant see it's clear so they have been careless.

If B had time to see and safely avoid the impending collision with A, and failed to do so without good reason, then they have also been careless. (Emphasis on the 'if').

If B didn't have a chance to avoid hitting A then they've done nothing wrong.

50:50.

Highway code states if you cannot see clearly to pull out, you should creep forwards slowly. So although not ideal, A was following the Highway code. There will be a point where the bonnet of the car is emerging into traffic and at this point B should be watching where he is going and use his ****ing horn to warn of his presence! A had restricted visibility, B has no good visibility and was travelling slow enough to stop.

If A had stopped once he could see B, and B drove into him, definitely 50:50.

There will be a point where the bonnet of the car is emerging into traffic and at this point B should be watching where he is going and use his **** horn to warn of his presence!

And you know where B is at this point and the speed of A how?

A.

And I did that (past parked van) a few years back, was hit by motorcycle that was speeding in front wing, and managed to reverse into the (impatient) car that had pulled up within a foot of my back bumper as I attempted to get out the way of the bike.

My fault, x2.

One of the witnesses who was off duty police officer, who gave the motorcyclist a real shouting at - apparently he had wheelied down the road a great (50mph+ speed) before hitting me. Despite this, my fault.

A

Never, not ever trust someone else when they invite you to pull out when you cannot see potential dangers.

I won't even turn right if a car is coming from the right and indicating left until I am 100% sure they are actually turning left - and this has saved me having at least one accident.

A's fault. Bus partly responsible for helping create the situation. B partly responsible for not dealing with A and Bus's error. But fault entirely A's.

I'd like to think I'd not make the same mistake but it's a kind of everyday driving error, not a pitchforks-and-torches job imo

A

Never, not ever trust someone else when they invite you to pull out when you cannot see potential dangers.

I won't even turn right if a car is coming from the right and indicating left until I am 100% sure they are actually turning left - and this has saved me having at least one accident.

+1. I am teaching my daughter to drive and I emphasised this. So many people pull out of junctions that I am turning into and if my indicator is on by mistake then the resulting side on smash will be thir fault not mine.

A.

But in reality whichever muppet didnt get the other party to admit responsiblty at the scene with witnesses. After that its fake whiplash claim ahoy!

A

Are some folk trying to suggest that when overtaking a line of traffic you should only ever be travelling at a speed whereby you could stop in a cars length if someone or something emerges from between two vehicles?

The bus for making A think it was ok to pull out across a lane of traffic they couldn't see down.

[i]Are some folk trying to suggest that when overtaking a line of traffic you should only ever be travelling at a speed whereby you could stop in a cars length if someone or something emerges from between two vehicles? [/i]

In theory, yes.

In practice only if you think it'll hurt you more than it'll hurt them - ie cyclist, motorcyclist 🙂

Are some folk trying to suggest that when overtaking a line of traffic you should only ever be travelling at a speed whereby you could stop in a cars length if someone or something emerges from between two vehicles?

if driver B was in a very slow moving lane then driver A [i]slowly[/i] emerging seems [i]semi[/i] reasonable to me in these circumstances. People in driver B situation not letting others turn right when at most they are going to move a couple more car lengths forward - or actually just block driver A in, are quite annoying IMO.

A

A as B has right of way and therefore does not need to be able to stop in the distance they can see.
if they had been speeding or driving like a loon then it can get up to 50/50.

People in driver B situation not letting others turn right when at most they are going to move a couple more car lengths forward - or actually just block driver A in, are quite annoying IMO.

A as B has right of way and therefore [b]does not need to be able to stop in the distance they can see[/b].

I'd normally say A aswell, like with rear end shunts it's generally obvious who is to blame, but sometimes the details/circumstances can push it the other way.

Annoying maybe but it doesn't make them at fault.

Someone above claimed B needed to stop in the distance they could see so I was countering that [ badly obviously]

sometimes the details/circumstances can push it the other way.

Agreed hence why i mentioned excessive speed

Still almost always A's fault.

or say C stops to flash out A and then B overtakes C and hits A

In the OP's case, still A's fault.

You need to be able to stop in the distance you can see is clear, and reasonably expect to remain clear.
It is reasonable to not expect a car to pull out of a minor road into your path.

I agree with your view FWIW but I thought if you overtake - which you can only do when safe to do so ie you can see its clear they ended up 50/50 as there is always more onus on you when you overtake as its a sort of at your own risk manoeuvre.

Many years back I was undertaking a large Luton van that was stationary waiting (and indicating) to turn right into a side road. A car coming the other direction also wanted to turn right into the opposite side road (on my left). Due to the van we didn't have line of sight on each other and I hit the side of the car as I was about level with the van when the car shot out in front of me, barely had time to hit the brakes (not that much would have happened see below). Following that after accident moment of "oh dear" where you gatther your thoughts as you take in what has happened, I looked up to see the two occupants out of the car and legging it away. Turned out the car had been stolen a couple of days before. Police attended and agreed the other car was at fault, possibly the fact it was stolen played a part in their view, but it shouldn't really have a baring. However as they were not caught I had to take the damage on the chin, not that claiming from them would have likely yielded anything. I'm thankful I was in a Series 3 Land Rover, so only suffered a bent bumper and slightly bent wing. The Astra I hit was likely a write off with the front side wing/door area stoved in and my bumper had taken the top of the wheel in so it was almost horizontal.

if you overtake

Yes i am describing a totally different scenario.....which i did in my clarification point to another unclear post

The fail is with me today 😳