Overtaking on a hatched area

Richard53

The onus is always on the car pulling out into the traffic to ensure that it is safe to do so. The other guy might have been driving like a dork, but then people drive like dorks all the time. If you don't want to be in an accident, allow for the presence of dorks.


Similar but related incident. My wife was driving along a straight road through a village, keeping to speed limit of 30. Minor road joining on the right 100m ahead. She decides to overtake a very slow vehicle she had been following, and did so across the entry to the minor road. Sod's Law, as she passes the minor road, a car pulls out, she brakes like mad and they have a collision. Because of the low speeds involved, no-one hurt and both cars driveable. She insisted she had the 'right of way' as she was on the major road. The other driver insisted he was in the right as before pulling out he looked to _his_ right and there was nothing coming, and he didn't need to look to his left because she had no business being on the 'wrong' side of the road.


I thought her overtake was foolish and told her so, but to my surprise the insurers decided 100% in her favour and she made a full recovery of her losses. The onus was on the other driver to see it was clear in all directions, even if her manoeuvre was unwise.

arcon5

I don't see how this can't be ops fault - you can see a lot of the road and both cars didn't appear out of nowhere so it should have been anticipated.

Doesn't make the other driver any less of an idiot of course.

We all make mistakes though - good luck

matttye

mgdavid wrote: »

then you are setting yourself up for the same crash.
The smart money is on those who learn from other people's mistakes rather than letting the same thing happen to themselves.

Hasn't happened yet and I've done it hundreds of times.

I have to say I would only make the pullout if I was certain there was nothing behind it, or if I had enough time to pull out anyway.

Difficult to say what happened with the crash discussed in this thread as none of us were actually there.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

Hasn't happened yet and I've done it hundreds of times.

I have to say I would only make the pullout if I was certain there was nothing behind it, or if I had enough time to pull out anyway.

Difficult to say what happened with the crash discussed in this thread as none of us were actually there.

Without doubt, the op's son was certain there was nothing behind it, and that they had enough time to pull out. And if the certainty was actually true, the accident wouldn't have happened.

sh0597

Still think it's harsh being forced onto a course as we all make mistakes and the mistake is understandable.

sh0597

Richard53 wrote: »

The onus is always on the car pulling out into the traffic to ensure that it is safe to do so. The other guy might have been driving like a dork, but then people drive like dorks all the time. If you don't want to be in an accident, allow for the presence of dorks.


Similar but related incident. My wife was driving along a straight road through a village, keeping to speed limit of 30. Minor road joining on the right 100m ahead. She decides to overtake a very slow vehicle she had been following, and did so across the entry to the minor road. Sod's Law, as she passes the minor road, a car pulls out, she brakes like mad and they have a collision. Because of the low speeds involved, no-one hurt and both cars driveable. She insisted she had the 'right of way' as she was on the major road. The other driver insisted he was in the right as before pulling out he looked to _his_ right and there was nothing coming, and he didn't need to look to his left because she had no business being on the 'wrong' side of the road.


I thought her overtake was foolish and told her so, but to my surprise the insurers decided 100% in her favour and she made a full recovery of her losses. The onus was on the other driver to see it was clear in all directions, even if her manoeuvre was unwise.

This is why people have their premiums increased when people drive into the back of them.

Tiddlywinks

OP - your son is 26yo and is a qualified driver - let him decide. Why do you even feel it necessary to influence him on this? You weren't there, you are only getting his side of the story.

A police officer who attended and viewed the scene is far more likely to understand events than your third hand view. The officer's actions would have been based on his assessment of the crash site and vehicle damage.

Your son should accept the offer of re-education and learn from it.

neilmcl

matttye wrote: »

I didn't say that...

The car overtook in a ridiculously dangerous location.

Would you wait until a car turning left had completed its turn, or pull out when it had started to turn?

Personally I'd be pulling out as soon as I saw it had slowed down significantly for the turn...

The safe thing to do is to pull out if, and only if, you know the road is clear. If that means you have to wait until the car has turned or started to turn into your road to ascertain this then that is what you must do.

OnanTheBarbarian

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

OP - your son is 26yo and is a qualified driver - let him decide. Why do you even feel it necessary to influence him on this? You weren't there, you are only getting his side of the story.

A police officer who attended and viewed the scene is far more likely to understand events than your third hand view. The officer's actions would have been based on his assessment of the crash site and vehicle damage.

Your son should accept the offer of re-education and learn from it.

I am in no way connected with the OP, but to put some perspective into matters, police officers and the police service is largely run like a target-driven business now and police officers have targets to meet and certain criteria to meet and bend.

It would be considered a "result" for an officer to attend a RTC and end up giving one of the parties a driver improvement course, rather than have money come from the public purse for a prosecution where the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

On a completely separate example, I acted for a serving police officer recently, who advised that due to the obsession with statistics and needing to meet targets, when they attend a dwelling house burglary, they have to radio to HQ to get permission to classify the incident as a "burglary". in some instances the matter is recorded as "criminal damage". Then the government can brag about certain types of crime rate being down. They are not down at all, they are just being recorded in a different way.

MARKA

Thank's again for all the replies. I didnt anticipate so much response.
Tiddlywinks,I didn't or don't seek to influence my son,it's the first time he has ever been involved in a crash and he asked my advice as to which course of action to take,as I myself have never had an accident or faced a the options he was given,I came here for advice.
It was his choice in the end as to what to do.
He will learn from this faux pas and next time be a bit more careful when emerging from a junction,though I still believe that the oncoming driver should have excercised caution at such an area.
Onan,I believe you have a point I very much doubt he would have charged me as opposed to a 26yr old or shoul I say less inclined to do so.