had a crash today :(

hothothot_3

Dave, show me where "you must" look at blind spots.

You quote the HC alot - yet it is not a legally enforceable set of rules.

DaveMacD

hothothot wrote: »

Dave, show me where "you must" look at blind spots.

You quote the HC alot - yet it is not a legally enforceable set of rules.

2 things.

1. Bits of the HC ARE legally enforceable. As quoted in the intro to the HC... "Many of the rules... are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence... ...the HC, may be used in evidence in any court proceedings... to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as 'should/should not' or 'do/do not'."

2. Never said you MUST check your blind spots. But it's a damn good idea to do so. You should be aware of EVERYTHING going on around your vehicle (as far as possible). That includes your mirrors and blind spots. That way you can take action to give yourself more space/time to keep yourself safe.

hothothot_3

The word 'must' in legal terminology equates into real world as a 'should'.

Your right that it is important to know whats going on all around the vehicle. Yet even if the OP had noticed this driver (which in fact he did) - none of us could have avoided been driven into, as the OP had no other place to go except sideways into the central reservation. Even speeding up or braking, would have been dangerous and also not enough time to escape a car ramming into you.

tomstickland

It's not clear from the description whether the other party pulled into the middle lane or simply carried on in their lane whilst the thread starter turned left off the exit of the roundabout.

Whilst it might be regarded as a bit numptyish of them to have carried on, it's up the middle lane user to check that the vehicle to their left isn't going to carry on.

I've had a look at the photo now. From what I can see, all three lanes do carry on round the roundabout to the right. So it is possible for someone to use the left hand lane and carry on round the roundabout.

DaveMacD

hothothot wrote: »

The word 'must' in legal terminology equates into real world as a 'should'.

Your right that it is important to know whats going on all around the vehicle. Yet even if the OP had noticed this driver (which in fact he did) - none of us could have avoided been driven into, as the OP had no other place to go except sideways into the central reservation. Even speeding up or braking, would have been dangerous and also not enough time to escape a car ramming into you.

The word MUST in the HC shows a condition that you must legally comply with, or be prosecuted.

I never said that the OP was entirely at fault, certainly not 50/50. If you check my earlier post, you'll see that I put most of the blame with the other driver as they left a clearly defined lane and hit the side of a vehicle that was being driven properly. But if the OP had checked his blindspot, it's possible that they may have been able to take avoiding action. They shouldn't have had to, but it's better to take the action and be ok, than to exert that you are right, but end up injured.

bikingbarney

whoa things are getting out of hand here!!

i knew he was messing around with his sat nav as he cut acros 3 lanes when coming off the m'way and then backacross into the lane he was in first time, i was behind him at the first set of lights and he was messing with his sat nav then whilst thelights went green we sat there for a bit until he realised.

at the next next set of light i pulled next to him and indicated left to show my intentions, it is up to him if he notices or not.

as i said we both puled away together , i checked my mirror and couldnt see him and then he hit me.
i did not pull into his lane, he tried to carry on round the round about by coming into my lane and into my car.

tomstickland

My opinion is that the other driver was a bit of numpty, but they were allowed to do what they did. The OP should have accelerated harder to get clear of the problem before it happened.

Best to hope for would be a 50-50 split.

hothothot_3

DaveMacD wrote: »

The word MUST in the HC shows a condition that you must legally comply with, or be prosecuted.

I never said that the OP was entirely at fault, certainly not 50/50. If you check my earlier post, you'll see that I put most of the blame with the other driver as they left a clearly defined lane and hit the side of a vehicle that was being driven properly. But if the OP had checked his blindspot, it's possible that they may have been able to take avoiding action. They shouldn't have had to, but it's better to take the action and be ok, than to exert that you are right, but end up injured.

im sure he didnt allow his property damaged and his wife and children injured just to 'prove a point'. In fact, had it been me I would have Pit manoevered this fool off the road. I think the OP has shown considerable restrain and clear judgement in a very dangerous situation. I would have demanded the police arrive, as they are legally obliged to do so in cases of injuries.

bikingbarney

why should i have to drive stupidly to avoid something i didnt see happening??

tomstickland

Cars in the left hand lane can continue round the roundabout. It's not good practice for them to do so, but it's up to someone using the middle lane to check that they can pull off the roundabout and take evasive action if they can't. The numptey should have adjusted their course and turned off it they had to in order to avoid a collision.