Whose fault was this one?

Norman_Castle

It's difficult for the Passat driver, because he has a few things to consider. He doesn't want to hold up the queue by getting stuck with traffic coming the other way, he needs to pull out so that he doesn't affect other motorists in the opposite lane but he needs to be careful that he doesn't conflict with filtering bikers .

While crossing this lane, this should be his priority. Blocking the lane is an inconvenience. The opposite lane needs to be checked before entering it.

pendulum

Lum wrote: »

That is a one lane section and therefore this was an overtake.

It would be an overtake even if it were a two-lane section. However there is no such thing as a one lane section because it is legal in this country for motorcyclists, cyclists and any other road user that can, to filter, that is, pass traffic that is stationary rather than wait behind it.

The car driver had no right to expect the lane to be clear of all traffic, just because some traffic had stopped.

The only issue is the speed of the motorcyclist and his observations, yes he could have gone slower, but I'd judge he was still going at 20mph or so, which is within RoSPA guidelines for filtering. Due to his relatively slow speed (he could certainly have been going faster) it looks like he's avoided serious injury. The car driver didn't do any observations and he/she was the one emerging from the side of the road.

Norman_Castle

My work causes me to look at the balance of criminal liabilities in road traffic collisions.

Your posts have a clear bias in favour of the motorist, your opinion of what a road junction is is questionable and your measurements are incorrect by a large margin. See post #120.
I have no idea if the results of your work affects anyone, but your judgement certainly seems flawed.

almillar

I would repectfully reject 1-8 of brat's HC guidance as they apply to overtaking, and as we're discussing now, I don't think the bike was overtaking. Maybe not filtering either. I take on board that it's a single lane, but passing a queue on the left to join a filter lane ahead, must be such a common thing that there's a name for it. The bike, and car behind it, in my opinion were driving well by NOT sitting in a queue that's not for them (if there was enough room).
Anyway, when I last read the highway code:
1. the driver ENTERING the road has to give way. I think the Passat failed to give way to the bike.
2. the HC says you shouldn't cause another driver (rider) to change their speed or course. Passat fails here too.
There's 2 pieces of HC guidance/rules that the Passat didn't obey.

Jamie_Carter

almillar wrote: »

I would repectfully reject 1-8 of brat's HC guidance as they apply to overtaking, and as we're discussing now, I don't think the bike was overtaking. Maybe not filtering either. I take on board that it's a single lane, but passing a queue on the left to join a filter lane ahead, must be such a common thing that there's a name for it. The bike, and car behind it, in my opinion were driving well by NOT sitting in a queue that's not for them (if there was enough room).
Anyway, when I last read the highway code:
1. the driver ENTERING the road has to give way. I think the Passat failed to give way to the bike.
2. the HC says you shouldn't cause another driver (rider) to change their speed or course. Passat fails here too.
There's 2 pieces of HC guidance/rules that the Passat didn't obey.

I think you have this spot on. Apart from the Passat doesn't appear to be at fault at all. Even if they waved the other driver out, the other driver shouldn't assume that the road is clear. From the video it appears that the driver was looking left, and didn't even consider the fact that another vehicle could be overtaking the passat.

EDIT
Sorry, just watched the video again. I thought the Octavia was a Passat (well it is really). So ignore the above.

derrick

Lum wrote: »

It' very very rare for rain to drop visibility to below 100 meters though. Usually takes fog to do that.

All that really happens is your light gets refracted through the raindrops making it harder to tell where you are.

The purpose of sidelights is to be seen

Point is, the law says dipped headlights, if you as the driver decide lights are needed during reduced daytime visibility the law says it has to be dipped headlights, not side lights, the number of drivers including HGV's, black cabs, (so called professionals), that drive on side lights or no lights in bad visibility, including fog, is criminal and those drivers should be prosecuted with the full weight of the law, in a lot of those cases you can see the vehicle before the lights, use dipped headlights, it will not kill you, but could stop you being killed.

.

Lum

derrick wrote: »

Point is, the law says dipped headlights, if you as the driver decide lights are needed during reduced daytime visibility the law says it has to be dipped headlights, not side lights, the number of drivers including HGV's, black cabs, (so called professionals), that drive on side lights or no lights in bad visibility, including fog, is criminal and those drivers should be prosecuted with the full weight of the law, in a lot of those cases you can see the vehicle before the lights, use dipped headlights, it will not kill you, but could stop you being killed.

.

The law only requires dipped headlights when the visibility is reduced to below 100M.

It's been a long long time since I've had to drive in visibility that poor, and I live in bloody Wales, a downpour of rain does not reduce visibility to that short of a distance and so sidelights are entirely appropriate.

Besides these days you see plenty of muppets driving around on dipped beams on dry but overcast days!

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Your posts have a clear bias in favour of the motorist, your opinion of what a road junction is is questionable and your measurements are incorrect by a large margin. See post #120.

I'm being devil's advocate here to a minor degree, only because I can see that in a perfect world, the Passat driver could have moved out slightly more slowly. That is his only fault. But, as the judge in the Farley v Buckley case stated, and the appeal judges agreed, such a demand for road users in just this situation is "counsel for perfection" - in other words an action that could be hoped for, but never should be expected.

So, let's have a look at post 120.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If the lane is 4.5 metres wide, a car 2 metres, and a 0.5 metre gap between the car and kerb, there are 2 metres of empty lane next to the stationary cars. The cars in the above picture illustrates this. At the point of impact the car is at the centre line, 2 metres past any obstruction, and still moving. If the driver had looked the bike would have been clearly visible.

You have overlooked a couple of factors. Firstly thinking and reaction time. This motorist may be covering the accelerator and ready to move off. If he does that while convinced through best observation that the road is clear both sides, then suddenly a motorcyclist arrives on scene already beyond the point of no escape, a few things quickly run through his brain. He is firstly going to think - Oh sh*t, then for a brief moment he's going to consider what choices he has. He's quickly going to realise that he has very few choices other than brake, which he does. It can take one to one and a half seconds to complete all of that. One second is a fast think and react time. If the Passat is travelling (as I believe) at ~1 m/s in terms of its perpendicular motion, it will take 1.0 to 1.5 metres to come to a stop from the first point of recognition of the danger.
If you track that back, it's likely that the motorist's point of first recognition of the danger would be when the car has nose poked about 0.5 to 1 metre. Perhaps he couldn't see properly at that point, we don't know, which is another factor you have overlooked. It's possible, even probable that there was a view for the Passat driver from an earlier point, perhaps 2.5 metres (seconds) from the collision, when he could perhaps see over the bonnet of the nearest car. Unfortunately because of the speed of the biker, (which I believe to have been an average of 11 to 13 m/s while slowing from first view to point of impact), it may well have been 32 metres back at this point, and completely out of view. He may not even have started his filter.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The average car width is 1.8 metres including mirrors. Average mirrors are approx 6"/150mm x2. 300mm. Average car width excluding mirrors, as they would not obstruct the drivers view in this instance, is 1.5 metres.

OK. We'll use specifics. I think the car ahead is a Skoda Ocatavia and the car passing or protecting the scene is larger, possibly a Vauxhall Insignia. Please tell me if I'm wrong. The Octavia has a width including mirrors of 2.02 metres while the Insignia has a width including mirrors of 2.08 metres, a total of 4.1 metres between them. Add the 0.5 for the width between the Octavia and the kerb, and you've already got 4.6 metres. Even if they clipped mirrors the black car would be over the line!

Even ignoring the width of the mirrors on the far sides of both vehicles, the black car would have to pass within four inches of mirror clipping to stay inside the white line.

So you won't mind if I take no lectures from you on judgement.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I have no idea if the results of your work affects anyone, but your judgement certainly seems flawed.

I've reported on many fatal motorcycle accidents over the last 16 years, and I've never yet been close to being successfully challenged on my findings. I've irritated one or two defence experts because the thoroughness of the reports leave them little or no avenue of attack, but I can live with that.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

Besides these days you see plenty of muppets driving around on dipped beams on dry but overcast days!

To be fair, that is often due to automatic headlights

derrick

Lum wrote: »

The law only requires dipped headlights when the visibility is reduced to below 100M.

It's been a long long time since I've had to drive in visibility that poor, and I live in bloody Wales, a downpour of rain does not reduce visibility to that short of a distance and so sidelights are entirely appropriate.

Besides these days you see plenty of muppets driving around on dipped beams on dry but overcast days!

Therefore why drive on sidelights? It is only another click on the switch to make sure YOU are safe.

The idea is to be seen, dipped headlights accomplish that more than any sidelights, the need for lights is decided by the driver, surely logic dictates that as the driver deciding lights are required then use dipped headlights as the law says and stop messing about with sidelights which in most cases are only just about useful as parking lights, have you ever wanted to pull out on a motorway to overtake then see a HGV in your mirror, then as they get closer you see the sidelights? bit pointless if you ask me, and it happens regularly.

Why would you not use dipped headlights? It could save your life.
The only time I use sidelights is if I am parked up and some illumination is necessary as that is all they are good for.


.

.