Whose fault was this one?

pendulum

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

... as he was on the wrong side of the road when the impact occurred.

There's no such thing as the wrong side of the road, you can use the opposite lane if nobody else is using it ie when overtaking, that's perfectly legal and it says so in the HC, and it does Not mean that you are at fault if someone pulls out from a junction in front of you - they should be looking both ways. The insurers initially wanted to settle 100% against your dad because he was the one to blame, he kicked up a fuss and then the insurers went 50/50 to avoid the hassle (as all too many insurance companies do).

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

It would still have to be SEEN though.

Rear reflectors are enough for a vehicle to be seen at night, as long as they are facing the right direction.

Jamie_Carter

Maybe this will put an end to the lighting argument:

115


You should also

• use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
• keep your headlights dipped when overtaking until you are level with the other vehicle and then change to main beam if necessary, unless this would dazzle oncoming road users
• slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070302

Jamie_Carter

Road markings:

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

[Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)]

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.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070306

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Maybe this will put an end to the lighting argument:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070302

Isn't dim-dip the old fashioned name for what are now called sidelights?

NBLondon

Lum wrote: »

Isn't dim-dip the old fashioned name for what are now called sidelights?

I think it's an older type where there was one dimmable bulb with "sidelight", "dipped" and "full" settings rather than separate bulbs.

On the subject of bike headlights - you're spot on with a lower car; it's far more noticeable when I drive the MG. Driving the Focus, I find the problem is the biker who hovers in the right rear corner wanting to come by so his headlight is full in the door mirror. A new definition of blind spot there...

Norman_Castle

Isn't dim-dip the old fashioned name for what are now called sidelights?

Dim dip lights the sidelight bulb fully and the headlight bulb 20%.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

brat wrote:

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.

He also failed to check it was safe to cross the lane and failed to see a motorcycle.

You don't know that he failed to check the lane he was crossing. An emerging driver must move out slowly to the point at which he believes he has cleared the traffic (left and right) and there is no evidence that he hasn't done this. Remember, at the point the Passat driver emerges through the established lane of queuing cars to get a good view to the right, there is likely to be no sign of the approaching rider, because he would be 30+ metres away and out of view (although the rider would very probably be able to see the car). The Passat driver would then take a quick view to the left to ensure the opposite lane is clear while starting to accelerate to clear the eastbound lane. He would then look back to the right to see where he's going, and to perhaps acknowledge any filtering riders who may have to reduce speed to allow his emergence. At this point, he would see the biker approaching him at ~30mph, which would cause him to react and stop, although he would know that the collision was now inevitable.

Looking again at the video, the Passat can be seen emerging from the garage for a full 10 seconds before impact. It covers about 8.5 metres from first view to impact. It looks like the driver accelerates to about 2.5m/s (5.6mph) on impact. This means his average speed before this acceleration would be slower, perhaps 0.6m/s or 1.3mph. This would be nose poke speed, and dependant on angle of view, should allow the driver to clear the road to the right to his satisfaction at some point during his emerge, although he was clearly not expecting a filtering exocet!

The Passat's emergence from the garage would likely have been visible to the biker for most of the 10 seconds. It beggars belief that the biker chose to ignore this potential threat, and continue driving at a speed that would not only bring him into likely conflict with the Passat driver, but would also ensure that, if the Passat didn't do exactly as he supposed it should, he would have no contingency in place to avoid the collision.

Maybe the biker had his eyes shut. Maybe he was just impatient, and couldn't see the obvious risk.

Slightly more worryingly, it might be a trend among impatient motorcyclists to try to promote this kind of aggressive filtering to an acceptable behaviour that other road users have a requirement to anticipate.
That's asking other motorists to always drive perfectly in every aspect and to anticipate every unlikely event, to allow them to ride carelessly and aggressively. Road safety doesn't work like that I'm afraid. The judges in all of the case law I've read seem to think that way too.

pendulum

brat wrote: »

it might be a trend among impatient motorcyclists to try to promote this kind of aggressive filtering to an acceptable behaviour that other road users have a requirement to anticipate.

Again, showing the anti-bike bias I first called you out on several pages ago.

He wasn't filtering aggressively at all, he was just riding down the road.

Lum

NBLondon wrote: »

On the subject of bike headlights - you're spot on with a lower car; it's far more noticeable when I drive the MG. Driving the Focus, I find the problem is the biker who hovers in the right rear corner wanting to come by so his headlight is full in the door mirror. A new definition of blind spot there...

Thing is, it's not even that low a car. It's a bit low by today's standards but it was originally sold as a 4 door executive sports saloon.

And I was under the impression that when you had dim-dip you didn't have separate sidelights at all, just that separate sidelights replaced dim-dip the same way that we are now seeing separate bulbs used for dip vs full beam.