The upshot is, had the bloke collided with you, you would be 50/50 in insurance terms at best, even though you had little alternative but to exit the junction as you did.
As it happened, he managed to stop in time, so he was driving to the conditions, but only just, and leaving so little margin of safety makes him a bit of a reckless arsewipe, as does his subsequent behaviour.
You could’ve turned left in which case he may well of rear ended you, which according to the righteous on here would’ve also been your fault. So you need to upgrade your motorhome to an Ariel Atom or helicopter to accommodate the fact that the speed limit is a minimum recommended speed to many of the **** wits awarded a drivers license.
If I had done that then the accident would still have happened – he would have just rammed me from behind instead.
I think if you turn left you are blocking the lane for less time, potentially provide an escape route for the other driver and perhaps more importantly mean if he does hit you it’s likely from behind where your crumple zone is probably better!
Insurance would say 50/50 at a guess.
The problem is that you should drive at a safe speed for the road conditions & you shouldn’t pull out unless you can see the road is clear. Ultimately, I don’t think they have provided enough warning on the main road of the hazard the side turning presents. If it is an A road, and it is impossible to pull out safely given the speed people are likely to be going on an A road, then in my book that is a hazardous junction. There is ‘fault’ on both sides, but the junction itself is fundamentally unsafe as it stands.
martinhutch sums it up pretty well I think.
As an aside, if I was riding my motorbike down that road I would always be in a position to stop based on my available view of the road ahead.
If I then suddenly come across a camper van making a turn I would slow. Priority in this situation is meaningless.
“Do not drive your vehicle so fast that you cannot stop in the distance in which you can see to be clear”.
Is pretty clear. In a serious accident, the investigators will be looking at closing speed. Glad you didn’t have one. Other driver was going too fast but not so fast as to have an accident.
I don’t think a horn is mitigation for entering a blind section of road. It’s barely effective and it’s a nuisance.
It’s not a mitigation, it’s to alert other drivers to your presence (a classic theory test question). Increasing the chances that someone else knows you are there can surely only be a good thing?
Barely effective is presumably better than crossing your fingers so I’ll settle for that. I’m not sure what nusiance it causes, it’s a rural area.
There’s a junction near me where about 1:10 drivers use their horn, maybe more in summer as the vegetation is worse. I presume >80% of the traffic is regular/local as it’s not a sensible route to anywhere populated. I’ve never seen an accident there but heard of many a near miss - none of whom have hooted before pulling out.
It’s enough just to grab your attention and may make the difference between being able to react in time. Perhaps people are more likely to use their horn as a few miles further along the road there is actually a sign where a golf course crosses asking people to hoot to warn golfers around a blind bend (erected by the course not the council).
I’d look at it in terms of Careless Driving, the legal test for which is
A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
And
In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
What would a careful and competent driver do in the OP’s position? Everything they reasonably could to make sure they didn’t pull out in to the path of an oncoming vehicle - stop at the junction, look as far as the layout allowed, and listen for any vehicle sounds. He’s done all that and when he started the pull out no oncoming vehicle could be seen or heard.
What would a careful and competent driver do in the other driver’s position? Since there’s a sign warning them of the upcoming junction (and/or if they know it’s there) then slow down for it is the obvious answer. Evidently on this occasion he stopped in time so he was going slow enough, but if the question is what if he hadn’t stopped in time, then he’d be the one who’d been driving without due care and attention.
When you say he had to brake quite hard, was it full-on smoking tyres and skidding? Or just controlled but rapid slowing? If the latter, then it would suggest he was "driving to the conditions"
Doesn’t matter. The car already on the carriageway in question has absolute right of way unless there are signs to the contrary.
Not true.
When you say he had to brake quite hard, was it full-on smoking tyres and skidding? Or just controlled but rapid slowing?
There was no skidding but it was a modern car so it would have ABS - but it was pretty full-on hard braking and pretty scary to watch first-hand – it all became a bit slow motion as I was stuck trying to move off quickly and move out of danger.
I was on the other side of this argument once (I was the car driver).
I was on my to Carron Valley down a fairly narrow B road. Its a road a knew well enough having driven it a few times. There are a few farms and the road is pretty popular with road cyclists so I always take it easy on blind bends, particularly left hand ones as you will see any potential hazard later.
I round one of these blind left hand bends to be met by a timber lorry attempting an overtake on a horse and rider. (I'm not really sure if it was a sensible move by the lorry driver to be honest) I brake hard and come to a stop - my lane is completely blocked by the lorry so I don't have much choice.
The guy on the horse goes absolutely tonto - at me! The thing is he wasn't even the hazard I was avoiding - he was on the other side of the road - and I still pulled up well short of him, probably a good 15 metres, and I was much further from the timber lorry. I was genuinely driving at a speed so that I could stop in the distance I could see.
I wait while the lorry pulls back into his lane, and get a tirade of abuse from the horse rider about going to fast.
I got the last laugh though. As I drove away I told him to get off his high horse.
Conclusion, there are dickheads everywhere so drive accordingly
There’s a junction near me where about 1:10 drivers use their horn, maybe more in summer as the vegetation is worse.
Round here the horn-tooters tend to be those who have no intention of slowing down for the blind corner ahead of them. Use of the horn immediately transfers all responsibility to the oncoming driver, obvs.
Richmtb, timber wagon clearly at fault, shouldn't have tried any sort of overtake on a blind bend. Horse rider also grade A dick, amazes me it's legal to ride on the road and even more so the sense of entitlement with which some do it. Hang over from a distant past, imagine someone suggesting riding ostriches on the road being a good idea.
Leaving the insurance blame to one side, why isn't there a legal speed limit reduction at approach to the blind bend in the OP's scenario https://www.google.com/maps/ @52.937999,-4.0026924,3a,75y,225.54h,79.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjG8OFfst26fn-bQTgL7THg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 to 40mph (if not lower), in order to reduce the risk of a life threatening crash at the junction?
richmtb
As I drove away I told him to get off his high horse.
Amazing
Leaving the insurance blame to one side, why isn’t there a legal speed limit reduction at approach to the blind bend in the OP’s scenario
Such things are (genuinely) usually data driven. If there were a high rate of incidents at the junction then a lowering of the speed limit may well be implemented.
The fact there isn't suggests there are not a significant number of crashes here.
Doesn’t matter. The car already on the carriageway in question has absolute right of way unless there are signs to the contrary.
Not true
How so?
The bend has a warning sign and the warning sign is to warn that a junction is on the bend ahead.
If I was warned about something would I just carry on at full speed or would I slow down because of, you know, the clear warning.
I'm surprised at the number of people calling this 50/50. I can see that the insurance might go 50/50 if there's no dash cam or witnesses to confirm that you didn't pull out in front of him when he was already visible, but otherwise it seem pretty clear cut to me, just as it would be if you were at the back of a queue of stationary traffic in the same position. Or a slow moving cyclist.
why isn’t there a legal speed limit reduction at approach to the blind bend in the OP’s scenario to 40mph (if not lower), in order to reduce the risk of a life threatening crash at the junction?
Because the required number of people haven't yet been killed or hideously mangled to make it necessary in the eyes of the highway authority.
TBH, this kind of road will be littered with similar blind junctions every couple of miles. It's obvious to most competent drivers that hammering around blind bends isn't a healthy thing to do, but a significant minority find actually slowing down for them just too inconvenient.
I can see that the insurance might go 50/50 if there’s no dash cam or witnesses to confirm that you didn’t pull out in front of him when he was already visible, but otherwise it seem pretty clear cut to me
Just from a pragmatic point of view, if OP has crossed a give way and been struck by a vehicle which, has right of way, the initial position of the other insurance company will be 100% liability for OP. The arguments about excessive speed/blind nature of junction may get it down to 50/50, but there's no way on earth I would realistically expect anything more. That doesn't mean that OP is at fault IRL, just that his insurance company is unlikely to make much effort to defend the claim unless there are vast sums involved.
Other driver's fault. Just as it would be if he'd crashed into the back of a queue of traffic in the same position.
The guy on the major road has RoW but has also have a responsibility to drive carefully and attentively. Those two warning signs as he approaches that corner ought to indicate to him that there's both a junction (that's hidden from him) and that there is a double bend. He ought to be driving accordingly. (i.e. expecting that some-one could be pulling out)
agree with pdw, blame rests on the driver on the major road
Doesn’t matter. The car already on the carriageway in question has absolute right of way unless there are signs to the contrary.
Right of way doesn't mean you don't have to stop. If person A and B have to share a resource and person A had priority the person B yields to person A. If person B already has the resource there is no no right of way. In this case the resource is that section of road. When person the OP took that resource there was no sign of person another person coming so they can not yield. OP may have been broken down in the same spot and could have run into them just the same.
Hmmmm. This is interesting.
So what a lot of people are saying is you can pull out with inpunity when you don't have any ROW so long as you feel the conditions merit other drivers taking avoiding action.
That's not how I was taught to drive and, if a lgenerally held belief, might explain the shitfest we have for road discipline nowadays...
Leaving the insurance blame to one side, why isn’t there a legal speed limit reduction at approach to the blind bend in the OP’s scenario
Because a speed limit don't mean its safe to go that speed on all part of the road. You don't try to go round all corners in a 30mph zone at 30 mph (or whatever the speed limit is) then complain you crashed because the car skidded out do you? You slow down to navigate the corner. Similarly if you are driving a road with blind humps or corners you slow down to navigate the road. I say this as someone who I admit drives fast on sections of rural roads but you regularly need to slow right down even though the speed limit maybe still national due to driveways, gates, humps and a million other reasons.
Doesn’t matter. The car already on the carriageway in question has absolute right of way unless there are signs to the contrary.
Not true
How so?
If the CAOTCIQ is going to fast then they would be at fault.
Happened to a mate of mine at Uni. He was turning right off a main road. As he pulled across the other lane, a guy coming the opposite way down the main road drove into the side of his car and wrote it off.
He was gutted as he assumed it was his fault and he only had 3rd party. Various witnesses said the other guy was going too fast and so he got all the blame. So my mate got a new car.
So what a lot of people are saying is you can pull out with inpunity when you don’t have any ROW so long as you feel the conditions merit other drivers taking avoiding action.
What if there is a straw man on the road?
So what a lot of people are saying is you can pull out with inpunity when you don’t have any ROW so long as you feel the conditions merit other drivers taking avoiding action.
No you're not understanding. If you can not see the road is clear can not assume it to be clear. The other person can only yield to what they can see, the person coming over a brow of a hill is a better position to control the potential situation than the person crossing the road given that neither know the existence of the other. Very simple. OR are you trolling?
Years ago I was doing a 3-point turn on my (then deserted) road. I was nearly finished with the manoeuvre when a motorcyclist came screaming round the corner and was forced to slam on the brakes to avoid my (stationary) car. Cue much shouting & window punching from him.
I mean, if you're on a mobile death trap, maybe don't ride at 50mph in a residential area *shrug*.
As for OP - if he genuinely started to pull out when no car was visible/audible, then it's not his fault at all. Of course, that might be difficult to defend.
So what a lot of people are saying is you can pull out with inpunity when you don’t have any ROW so long as you feel the conditions merit other drivers taking avoiding action.
Not at all, but approaching any blind bend on a major road with two prominent warning triangles what are your thoughts? Alternately, having made suitable checks that the road is clear (to the best of their ability), how else should a car joining the major road proceed?
The only problem I can deduce was the expletive exchange. If it had been 2 people on foot, someone, say stepped out of a shop doorway, in front of another pedestrian, who stopped and avoided contact, it would've been *smile* Oops, sorry mate, and on with the day, forgotten in seconds. But, because of the ****ing ****y attitude (I have it myself, but much less these days!) of people driving in this country, it's all anger and indignation and starting threads on forums.
People need to chill out and get over themselves. Ain't gonna happen while ****s like Clarkson are "cool" celebs.
^^^^ That reminds me of the Goofy cartoon from the 1950s - Motor Mania.
@convert Not sure there's any need to be rude, try and keep it civilised please.
Oh, and neither of your binary choices 👍
So what a lot of people are saying is you can pull out with inpunity when you don’t have any ROW so long as you feel the conditions merit other drivers taking avoiding action.
You're misunderstanding. They're saying you can't fly round a corner, crash into a stationary hazard, and then claim that there is no possibility of fault on your side. Even if you were only doing 59.9999mph in a 60.
If there was a stationary queue of traffic, or a tree, or a works van fixing a wall and you go into the back of it, then SOME fault rests with you. Even if you had 'right of way'.
The original question was 'who would be at fault?' I think the answer is they both would have been.
The OP for pulling out. He may have believed it clear and exercised caution but the fact there was another car on the ROW carriageway evidences his belief to have been wrong.
The other driver for not driving within his ability/conditions/visibility etc
Not black and white and a rapidly changing situation so very very difficult to be definitive but on balance, I would have thought 50/50.
<edit> My point about ROW up thread shouldn't be taken to imply the person with ROW has carte blanche to do as they please, they don't. But they do have ROW - it's an absolute. They also have to exercise caution and drive within the conditions etc. As per Spiderman; with great power comes great responsibility...
That reminds me of the Goofy cartoon from the 1950s – Motor Mania.
Amazingly accurate for something made 70 odd years ago
@convert Not sure there’s any need to be rude, try and keep it civilised please.
Brought it on yourself old boy....
if a lgenerally held belief, might explain the shitfest we have for road discipline nowadays…
You accused everyone try to explain to you in simple syllables the nuance you had clearly missed/ were ignoring that they were responsible for a 'shitfest' and clearly beneath your esteemed driving standard. You were rude and discourteous and if that's not an invitation for a tosspotting I don't know what is.
Blimey, I haven't read everything, but the general absence of references to the Highway Code is a bit depressing.
Amazingly accurate for something made 70 odd years ago
Yep - I remember seeing it as a kid and it stuck with me ever since.
I would have thought 50/50.
Seems like it might, but it isn't. Again, what do the two warning triangles indicate to you on the major road? They should alert you to the fact that just around this bend, there may be some-one pulling out. This is rural Wales, it could be anything from car to tractor with hay cart to school bus.
He may have believed it clear and exercised caution but the fact there was another car on the ROW carriageway evidences his belief to have been wrong.
It's a blind bend, the fact that there's a car coming is hidden from the person pulling out, he has no choice other than to rely on the ability of the car on the major road to pay attention. Otherwise, if he can't see the road is clear beyond where the road disappears around the corner, how is he ever to decide that the road is clear enough to pull out?
But they do have ROW – it’s an absolute.
So what? As you say it's doesn't give you carte blanche to drive as if no one else is using the road, the warning triangles are there for a reason. They generally indicate you need to be prepared to do something.
~EDIT~ RoW is dynamic, it's not fixed. For example If you're on the major road, and you decide to turn right, you don't have RoW any longer, you have to give way before making your turn.
It’s a blind bend, the fact that there’s a car coming is hidden from the person pulling out, he has no choice other than to rely on the ability of the car on the major road to pay attention. Otherwise, if he can’t see the road is clear beyond where the road disappears around the corner, how is he ever to decide that the road is clear?
Easy, he has to get out of his vehicle and walk up to the corner to make sure nothing is coming and then run as fast as humanly possible back to the vehicle doing the best 1950s Le Mans start you have ever seen and pull out. That's the problem with people these days, too lazy to walk.
HGVs and buses often start their maneuvers when the road is clear but it takes so long that by the time they are half way through a car has come along and had to slow down.
If you drove into the side of an HGV half way through pulling out I doubt any insurance company would assign 100% of the blame to the HGV driver (or any of the blame) even though technically the driver already on the main road has right of way.
If this was the case you would think it would be a full time job for some people to drive into the sides of HGVs and buses to claim the insurance.
I think this "right of way" idea is the cause of much unnecessary confusion. Technically, it doesn't exist.
