Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • dnet
    • By dnet 16th Mar 17, 8:28 PM
    • 93Posts
    • 6Thanks
    dnet
    Collision with overtaking car
    • #1
    • 16th Mar 17, 8:28 PM
    Collision with overtaking car 16th Mar 17 at 8:28 PM
    Yesterday i was involved in a collision

    I was driving in a 40mph zone doing 40 when i wanted to cross to the other side and park to make a phone call

    There are hatchings with a broken line running down the middle

    I checked my mirrors, indicated and started to move right

    Almost immediately a car smashed into the side of me

    He must have been doing 70 +

    He thinks i drove into him and claims i wasn't indicating

    He was driving (what looks like) a fairly new BMW M5 and is worth over 70k apparently

    My concern is i didn't see him in the mirrors but he was going so fast i don't know where he came from

    I think both cars may be written off and if i have to pay out for his damage it could be horrendous

    I fear that if they insist i drove into them i don't know how to defend it. I don't know if there is anyway to show how fast they were going

    They say they have a dashcam but surely this would show them going well in excess of the speed limit?
Page 2
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 17th Mar 17, 11:28 AM
    • 88,329 Posts
    • 53,548 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I may be in the minority here, but if you have checked your mirrors and indicated then surely it is the fault of the overtaking car.
    The OP confirms the damage is on the side. Plus, the other car was already in the other lane. She entered the other lane and hit it on the side.

    You don't keep checking the mirrors as you do the turn just in case there is someone overtaking, you just turn.
    Yes you do. Remember this is not a junction, it is a turn into a lane on the far side of the road.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 17th Mar 17, 11:31 AM
    • 2,919 Posts
    • 3,561 Thanks
    martinsurrey
    BMW would not have seen the OP indicating.
    Originally posted by Tiexen
    indicating is a red herring, indicating or not, the OP made a maneuver that was unsafe.

    indicating gives people a warning of what you intent to try to do, its not a right to then just do it.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 17th Mar 17, 12:03 PM
    • 3,710 Posts
    • 3,695 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    I may be in the minority here, but if you have checked your mirrors and indicated then surely it is the fault of the overtaking car. You don't keep checking the mirrors as you do the turn just in case there is someone overtaking, you just turn.
    Also at 70mph the car would cover approximately 100 foot per second which could easily explain not seeing it.
    Originally posted by RADDERS
    I doubt the car was doing 70mph. If it was,i doubt the OP would be in a state to be writing asking for advice.
    People often assume in situations like this the car was speeding when they probably didn't use enough observation.

    Even if it was doing that speed, that doesn't make them liable since speeding cars don't become invisible. It usually comes down to you didn't look long enough to see the speeding car, or you looked and seen the speeding car but decided to pull out anyway. Both are deemed negligent.
    • EdGasket
    • By EdGasket 17th Mar 17, 1:48 PM
    • 3,456 Posts
    • 1,444 Thanks
    EdGasket
    How can a car legally overtake there; it is only a single lane! The BMW would have had to be ignoring the hatched area and hence shouldn't have been there.
    • k3lvc
    • By k3lvc 17th Mar 17, 1:54 PM
    • 1,755 Posts
    • 2,687 Thanks
    k3lvc
    How can a car legally overtake there; it is only a single lane! The BMW would have had to be ignoring the hatched area and hence shouldn't have been there.
    Originally posted by EdGasket

    Have you read the highway code recently ? If not then probably a good time to revisit it.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 17th Mar 17, 1:55 PM
    • 2,657 Posts
    • 2,102 Thanks
    Aretnap
    How can a car legally overtake there; it is only a single lane! The BMW would have had to be ignoring the hatched area and hence shouldn't have been there.
    Originally posted by EdGasket
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.
    • k3lvc
    • By k3lvc 17th Mar 17, 2:01 PM
    • 1,755 Posts
    • 2,687 Thanks
    k3lvc
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.
    Originally posted by Aretnap

    I was letting him read/understand himself
    • EdGasket
    • By EdGasket 17th Mar 17, 2:14 PM
    • 3,456 Posts
    • 1,444 Thanks
    EdGasket
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    So what point do the hatchings have?
    • k3lvc
    • By k3lvc 17th Mar 17, 2:18 PM
    • 1,755 Posts
    • 2,687 Thanks
    k3lvc
    So what point do the hatchings have?
    Originally posted by EdGasket

    Rule 130

    Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
    • If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
    • If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 17th Mar 17, 2:24 PM
    • 4,179 Posts
    • 2,322 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    It's perfectly legal if NECESSARY - that is the wording in the highway code rule 130 (along with the proviso that you should be able to see it is safe to do so). Being an impatient BMW driver who wants to do more than 40 in a residential looking area is not necessary. The hashed markings are there for safety rather than a barrier.

    The HC is clearly referring to passing say a broken down lorry or cyclist where it's necessary to go into the area or you'd be stuck until the lorry was fixed.
    • k3lvc
    • By k3lvc 17th Mar 17, 2:30 PM
    • 1,755 Posts
    • 2,687 Thanks
    k3lvc
    It's perfectly legal if NECESSARY - that is the wording in the highway code rule 130 (along with the proviso that you should be able to see it is safe to do so). Being an impatient BMW driver who wants to do more than 40 in a residential looking area is not necessary. The hashed markings are there for safety rather than a barrier.

    The HC is clearly referring to passing say a broken down lorry or cyclist where it's necessary to go into the area or you'd be stuck until the lorry was fixed.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron

    The Highway code does not define anywhere what is 'necessary' - you're just making up examples with no supporting evidence


    Overtaking a slower moving vehicle could be classified as necessary (though admitted not doing 70 in a 40 if this was indeed the case)
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 17th Mar 17, 2:47 PM
    • 2,657 Posts
    • 2,102 Thanks
    Aretnap
    It's perfectly legal if NECESSARY - that is the wording in the highway code rule 130 (along with the proviso that you should be able to see it is safe to do so). Being an impatient BMW driver who wants to do more than 40 in a residential looking area is not necessary. The hashed markings are there for safety rather than a barrier.

    The HC is clearly referring to passing say a broken down lorry or cyclist where it's necessary to go into the area or you'd be stuck until the lorry was fixed.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Someone always brings that one up...

    "Necessary" is one of those words which has found its way into the Highway Code despite having no basis in the law. The actual meaning of the hatched markings is defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (Page 191, Diagram 1040.2) which says "Length of road along which drivers should not overtake through the marking unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so" (my emphasis).

    So yes, it's perfectly legal to overtake there (provided you can see that it's safe to do so, which is true of any overtake). The Highway Code doesn't, so if your interpretation of the Highway Code is that you're not allowed to overtake there at all, your interpretation is obviously wrong.
    • EdGasket
    • By EdGasket 17th Mar 17, 2:54 PM
    • 3,456 Posts
    • 1,444 Thanks
    EdGasket
    Well it obviously wasn't safe in this situation; the fault should be with the BMW driver imho. It will probably go 50/50 with the insurers though as they love that (two NCB's lost and two lots of excess to charge the customers).
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 17th Mar 17, 3:13 PM
    • 88,329 Posts
    • 53,548 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Well it obviously wasn't safe in this situation; the fault should be with the BMW driver imho. It will probably go 50/50 with the insurers though as they love that (two NCB's lost and two lots of excess to charge the customers).
    Originally posted by EdGasket
    Why wasn't it safe?

    The BMW wasn't the one that decided to cross the lane without looking.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 17th Mar 17, 3:31 PM
    • 2,657 Posts
    • 2,102 Thanks
    Aretnap
    ... two lots of excess to charge the customers
    Originally posted by EdGasket
    That's not how it works, but you should never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 17th Mar 17, 6:42 PM
    • 4,179 Posts
    • 2,322 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    The Highway code does not define anywhere what is 'necessary' - you're just making up examples with no supporting evidence


    Overtaking a slower moving vehicle could be classified as necessary (though admitted not doing 70 in a 40 if this was indeed the case)
    Originally posted by k3lvc
    The word necessary is generally taken to mean "essential" such as going around an obstruction where you'd otherwise have to stop and wait for it to be cleared, not "I'm an impatient person and feel I should be able to overtake vehicles because I can't be bothered to wait", that's fairly basic logic.

    The argument you can choose your own definition of "necessary" is pure weapons grade baloney otherwise you could justify using that zone to, for example, pass a line of traffic queuing for some roadworks because you were in a hurry for a meeting.

    The thing is though, simply reading the highway code provides you with the explanation as to why I am right - it uses the same wording in other scenarios e.g. rule 129

    Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
    It is fairly obvious that the highway code was not written with the intention of having different definitions of the same word for almost identical scenarios and that they mean "necessary" to mean the normal dictionary definition.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 17th Mar 17, 6:55 PM
    • 4,179 Posts
    • 2,322 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Someone always brings that one up...

    "Necessary" is one of those words which has found its way into the Highway Code despite having no basis in the law. The actual meaning of the hatched markings is defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (Page 191, Diagram 1040.2) which says "Length of road along which drivers should not overtake through the marking unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so" (my emphasis).

    So yes, it's perfectly legal to overtake there (provided you can see that it's safe to do so, which is true of any overtake). The Highway Code doesn't, so if your interpretation of the Highway Code is that you're not allowed to overtake there at all, your interpretation is obviously wrong.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    The problem here is skipping over the various laws that back up Rule 130 to rely only on the TSRGD reg you quoted there but hey, overtake on the hashed lines if you wish to
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 18th Mar 17, 12:29 PM
    • 3,710 Posts
    • 3,695 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    Breaking the law doesn't always automatically make you negligent.
    • FutureGirl
    • By FutureGirl 18th Mar 17, 3:23 PM
    • 855 Posts
    • 343 Thanks
    FutureGirl
    This will mostly likely go down as a split liability.

    You should have checked priorly all your mirrors, and your blind spot etc - which you haven't done (as you said yourself). He also should overtake when a vehicle is indicating to turn.

    However, it's about what the insurers can prove.
    Capital One:£1,259.40/£1,300.00
    Aqua: £273.29/£300.00
    o2: £221.00 / £271.00
    • k3lvc
    • By k3lvc 18th Mar 17, 4:33 PM
    • 1,755 Posts
    • 2,687 Thanks
    k3lvc
    The word necessary is generally taken to mean "essential" such as going around an obstruction where you'd otherwise have to stop and wait for it to be cleared, not "I'm an impatient person and feel I should be able to overtake vehicles because I can't be bothered to wait", that's fairly basic logic.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Indeed but it's also not illegal to do it - this means that it's down to a judgement on 'necessary' and in this case an insurance company (and potentially a judge) may take a view that overtaking a slower car with a clear road ahead was 'necessary' and therefore allowable.

    The reality is that all this is a red herring to the OP's case - they failed to observe properly when executing a manoeuvre and were involved in an a collision as a result of this - using the road markings as an excuse for not paying attention is poor form
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,957Posts Today

9,305Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin