Whose fault was this one?

Jamie_Carter

Norman_Castle wrote: »

In this instance, the established vehicles were waiting in the line of traffic. The car driver was crossing the lane which is much more likely to cause conflict than the motorcyclist who was using the lane in the direction intended.
The car driver failed to recognise the risk to others of his actions and failed to act accordingly.
To significantly fail to take that extra care is the offence of "driving without due care and attention" contrary to S3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

He seems unable to grasp simple facts like this. :rotfl:

Jamie_Carter

almillar wrote: »

Lum, it is, yes, but it's approaching a junction, there's a queue and it's on the left of the lane, leaving a big gap at the right, and it's near a junction. Even if it wasn't a wide lane, the Passat should still be looking both ways whilst pulling out.
What if that biker hadn't existed, and the black car behind it was the one that crashed instead? Would that change any opinions? What's wrong with driving beside other cars, in a wide lane, to join a different queue?
I do take your point that there's an onus on the biker to make sure he proceeds safely when he 'creates' another lane, but surely there's a bigger onus on the Passat to look where he's going, and to give way?!
Brat:


This is the exact opposite of my opinion. Other road users, when pulling out onto a road, should expect anything, from either direction. I do hope anyone that passed their test does understand this! You mention motorcyclists specifically again, as if he was squeezing through a tight spot, but a car followed him, which means there was stacks of space for the bike.

I would just ignore brat. He is just trolling. I can't believe that anyone who has any grasp of road law would actually believe what he is saying.

He also keeps mentioning the IAM, but obviously isn't a member due to his lack of knowledge. Personally I am qualified to far higher level than IAM or ROSPA.

Wongsky

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

He also keeps mentioning the IAM, but obviously isn't a member due to his lack of knowledge. Personally I am qualified to far higher level than IAM or ROSPA.

The MiB?

Do you do the funky dance, too? Or just a funky handshake?

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

The MiB?

Do you do the funky dance, too? Or just a funky handshake?

No I'm not American, and don't do funky

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

Some roads lend themselves to this kind of behaviour more than others. I'm sure you could find a few roads where two lanes are formed out of one, although in your specific example there are two lanes of traffic entering the slip road from the Holiday Inn - Pic1 - so its likely that it was once a defined two lane road - indeed it's possible that the lane lines have been worn off by HGV tyres.

Good spot - there are 2 lanes coming in from the East (your pic) and only one from the West (my usual route). There is no trace of lane lines at all though. The turn arrow suggests that 2 lanes should merge into one at the top of the slope; what happens in practice at rush hour is that the rightmost stream just carries on across the hatch markings and squeezes into the traffic coming over the flyover, the left most carries on and squeezes in a bit further north. Outside of rush hour - it's just one lane up the middle and merge at speed. A case where local habit is key.

I said way upthread that I do double-check for fast filtering bikes (pedal and power) because I see a lot of them in London. Some drivers may not do so because they aren't used to it. So there is some onus on whoever creates a second unmarked lane to consider that it may be a surprise to other road users and be more aware. Hence my (totally subjective) opinion that the car is 80% at fault for not looking well enough and the bike 20% for filtering/overtaking not cautiously enough.

Lum

Thing is, even if local custom is to create two lanes, that doesn't automatically mean that the Passat driver should or would be aware of this. They might not be local.

"Everyone does it" is not a valid excuse, otherwise nobody would have any speeding points on their licenses.

Many of these local customs are useful, and should continue, but if you're going to deviate from the normal rules of the road then you need to be aware that not everyone will expect it and be prepared for the consequences of that.

almillar

One lane = one lane, I certainly agree with, there's a stretch of road I'm on sometimes where 2 cars try to squeeze into 1 (big) lane, and I drive along the middle, much to the annoyance of some. But this situation is different, as it's a queue of cars coming up to a junction. I know brat is saying that the attitude of squeezing through is wrong, but I think the attitude is just using the road available and making progress (IAM will teach this), and by doing this, the queue on the inside is made shorter. The FACT, rather than opinion, is that the Passat either didn't look right, or decided to let the biker hit him, and I can't get over that at least, say 80% of fault lies with him.

Lum

One lane = one lane yes, we're agreed on that point.

Using the road available to make progress. Yes I agree with you on this point too. If I were turning right ahead I'd have done the same even in my car.

However where I disagree on is where liability lies. If I were to create that extra line, be I on a bike, driving a car, whatever. I need to take responsibility for my unexpected position and be aware that people will not expect that space to be used and thus pull out. I certainly wouldn't be going at that speed.

brat

almillar wrote: »

One lane = one lane, I certainly agree with, there's a stretch of road I'm on sometimes where 2 cars try to squeeze into 1 (big) lane, and I drive along the middle, much to the annoyance of some. But this situation is different, as it's a queue of cars coming up to a junction. I know brat is saying that the attitude of squeezing through is wrong, but I think the attitude is just using the road available and making progress (IAM will teach this), and by doing this, the queue on the inside is made shorter.

It's not wrong to filter, but it must be done carefully.
It's wrong to "squeeze" through - that implies passing too closely.
It's wrong to pass too quickly or try to make too much progress. IAM condone making legal progress, but one of their buzz phrases is "never sacrifice safety for any other advantage".
IAM and HC offer clear advice on filtering, that it must be done safely and slowly. If not, this type of collision will result.

almillar wrote: »

The FACT, rather than opinion, is that the Passat either didn't look right, or decided to let the biker hit him, and I can't get over that at least, say 80% of fault lies with him.

With respect, those are not the only options. As the Passat was pulling out, he could probably see 30 to 35 metres past the Octavia before deciding to pull out past the Octavia. That distance takes 4 to 5 seconds to cover at the highest advised filtering speeds for good conditions, 6 to 8 seconds at the highest advised filtering speed for less good conditions. So it could be reasonable for the Passat driver to assume he has given all reasonable consideration to filtering bikes. Remember also, the Passat's movement should have been obvious to the bike rider for a much greater time and distance, and the onus is on him (as a filterer) to accommodate that movement, if need be by slowing down and letting the Passat move out.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

Good spot - there are 2 lanes coming in from the East (your pic) and only one from the West (my usual route). There is no trace of lane lines at all though. The turn arrow suggests that 2 lanes should merge into one at the top of the slope; what happens in practice at rush hour is that the rightmost stream just carries on across the hatch markings and squeezes into the traffic coming over the flyover, the left most carries on and squeezes in a bit further north. Outside of rush hour - it's just one lane up the middle and merge at speed. A case where local habit is key.

This sounds like a local habit that works fairly well. An important difference between that situation and the Southampton one is that it works without risk of confusion, there is no chance of emerging vehicles pulling into the established path because there are no junctions on the slip, and it looks like it is what the road designers intended, apart from the failure to merge at the top, but that's not likely to cause confusion either.

I said way upthread that I do double-check for fast filtering bikes (pedal and power) because I see a lot of them in London. Some drivers may not do so because they aren't used to it. So there is some onus on whoever creates a second unmarked lane to consider that it may be a surprise to other road users and be more aware. Hence my (totally subjective) opinion that the car is 80% at fault for not looking well enough and the bike 20% for filtering/overtaking not cautiously enough.

Cyclists and motorcyclist do filter carelessly, often dangerously, I agree, you don't have to look too far on youtube to see some of the more extreme examples http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihQeZpwqpE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g.
It doesn't make fast filtering any more right because it's London. It would arguably be more expected than elsewhere, and that condsideration would inform those who were considering liability in the event of a collision.