Collision with overtaking car

Options
13

Comments

  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    Options
    Tiexen wrote: »
    BMW would not have seen the OP indicating.

    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
    Retrogamer Posts: 4,215 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic Combo Breaker
    Options
    RADDERS wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    All your base are belong to us.
  • EdGasket
    EdGasket Posts: 3,503 Forumite
    Options
    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
    k3lvc Posts: 4,174 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    EdGasket wrote: »
    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.


    Have you read the highway code recently ? If not then probably a good time to revisit it.
  • Aretnap
    Aretnap Posts: 5,214 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    EdGasket wrote: »
    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.
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.
  • k3lvc
    k3lvc Posts: 4,174 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Aretnap wrote: »
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.


    I was letting him read/understand himself :wink:
  • EdGasket
    EdGasket Posts: 3,503 Forumite
    Options
    Aretnap wrote: »
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.

    So what point do the hatchings have?
  • k3lvc
    k3lvc Posts: 4,174 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    EdGasket wrote: »
    So what point do the hatchings have?


    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
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,818 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Aretnap wrote: »
    It's perfectly legal to overtake on hatchings, provided they're bounded by dashed lines rather than by solid ones.

    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
    k3lvc Posts: 4,174 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    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.


    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)
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards