Minor RTC on lane merging to left

AdrianC

facade wrote: »

It doesn't matter what we think, or what The Law says, or what common sense suggests, when the OP reports it (as per the T&Cs of motor insurance) it is down to what an insurance company would do, and they are a law unto themselves when it comes to minimising what they pay out.

Except in this case insurance, Highway Code and common sense all agree. The OP is partially to blame for failing to avoid the utterly predictable.

prowla

Altarf wrote: »

So the OP was in a 'non-merge' lane that did not require them to take any action, at or below the speed limit, and someone in a merging lane is trying (but has nowhere near achieved) overtaking them.

Any reasonable person would assume that the merging driver would understand the stupidity and futility in trying to overtake, and would slow down and merge behind the car in the 'non-merge' lane rather than drive into the side of it.

100% fault for the overtaking car who wasn't paying attention, as they were the person who drove into the OP's car.

Erm, the OP said that they came up from behind the merging car, and hence took the space which the other car was merging into.

Car_54

facade wrote: »

It doesn't matter what we think, or what The Law says, or what common sense suggests, when the OP reports it (as per the T&Cs of motor insurance) it is down to what an insurance company would do, and they are a law unto themselves when it comes to minimising what they pay out.

No, it isn't. There are two insurance companies involved, both motivated to minimise their pay-out. If it was clear-cut in the OP's favour, then it would go his way. But it isn't.

Altarf

topdaddy wrote: »

Have yoi not read the op? He see the car and ignored it. Impossible for the op to be without blame.impossible.

Yes, he saw a car on his right in a 'merge' lane that was slightly further away than they were from the merge point.

Common sense says that the merging car will not try anything foolish, like drive into the OP, but will drop in behind.

If the OP did brake sharply to let the other car pass, but the merging car did what they were supposed to, which was merge behind, then the OP may have been at fault in those circumstances.

In this case the blame was completely down to the stupidity/carelessness of the merging driver who did not look before trying to change lanes.

prowla wrote: »

Erm, the OP said that they came up from behind the merging car, and hence took the space which the other car was merging into.

If you read what the OP actually said, was that they passed the stationary car in what became the 'merge' lane at the traffic lights. The space that existed for the merging car still existed, but was behind the OP's car. The merging car driver was too determined/stupid/careless not to use that space.

Tok3d wrote: »

I was coming up to traffic lights and as usual it's always red, but when I got closer to the lights at around 10-15mph it turned amber so I stopped breaking and got my speed back upto 30 mph. I passed the stationary driver on the right hand merge lane but near the end of the merge he had sped up and was parallel with my drivers door

Anyway the courts agree with me that it is 100% the merging driver's fault (Smith V Gribben), and it would only be if the OP had sped up to prevent the overtake would they have any blame (Ogden & Chadwick V Barber & Higgs).

From the OPs post there is no indication that this is the case, they had reached the 30 mph limit by the traffic lights and stayed at that speed along to the point where the other driver should have merged.

facade

In Smith v Griven, Smith was originally found 25% to blame for not slowing to allow Griven to complete an overtake. (rule 168 of the Highway Code)
The case was appealed and on appeal Smith was found 100% not to blame.

I'm not sure if this sets legal precedent for all merging accidents though.

prowla

Altarf wrote: »

If you read what the OP actually said, was that they passed the stationary car in what became the 'merge' lane at the traffic lights. The space that existed for the merging car still existed, but was behind the OP's car. The merging car driver was too determined/stupid/careless not to use that space.

The OP said:

Tok3d wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]I was coming back from the cinema with my girlfriend and her nephew, I was coming up to traffic lights and as usual it's always red, but when I got closer to the lights at around 10-15mph it turned amber so I stopped breaking and got my speed back upto 30 mph. I passed the stationary driver on the right hand merge lane but near the end of the merge he had sped up and was parallel with my drivers door, myself and my girlfriend said what the hell is he doing, I thought he was trying to intimidate me so I just continued on at roughly 30mph in my lane. The next thing I know he has come into my lane and collided with the drivers side door, perhaps he misjudged how much space there was. I don't believe that to be the case though. [/FONT]

So, the OP was approaching a red light coming up to a car in the merge lane on the right.
The lights changed to amber and the OP decided to speed up to 30.
In the meanwhile the car in the merge lane started moving and began to merge, at which point there was the coming together.

My opinion is that the OP should not have sped up and undertook the car waiting to merge; doing so increased the likelihood of something going wrong.

However, the OP also says that they passed the merging car; assuming that is the case (ie. the back of the OP's car was beyond the front of the merging car), then the merging car should not have sped up to come back alongside.

And then on top of that, it is up to the person performing the manoeuvre (ie. changing lane) to ensure that it is safe to do so before proceeding.

Based on that, two wrongs don't make a right, and it sounds 50/50 to me.

Altarf

facade wrote: »

In Smith v Griven, Smith was originally found 25% to blame for not slowing to allow Griven to complete an overtake. (rule 168 of the Highway Code)
The case was appealed and on appeal Smith was found 100% not to blame.

I'm not sure if this sets legal precedent for all merging accidents though.

Yes it does set a binding precedent unless the decision is overturned by a higher court.

prowla wrote: »

My opinion is that the OP should not have sped up and undertook the car waiting to merge; doing so increased the likelihood of something going wrong.

However, the OP also says that they passed the merging car; assuming that is the case (ie. the back of the OP's car was beyond the front of the merging car), then the merging car should not have sped up to come back alongside.

And then on top of that, it is up to the person performing the manoeuvre (ie. changing lane) to ensure that it is safe to do so before proceeding.

Based on that, two wrongs don't make a right, and it sounds 50/50 to me.

If you look at the road from the link the OP provided, there are three lanes at the traffic lights, one turning left only and two straight on only.

The two straight on lanes continue over a wide (4 lane junction), before carrying on as two lanes for a hundred yards or so, and then another hundred yards or so before the right hand lane disappears.

It is clear that the driver in the right hand lane wasn't forced into making an immediate decision to move left as the OP passed them at the lights, they had plenty of time to plan their move around the traffic in the left hand lane.

And frankly they must have really accelerated away from the lights as the OP passed them at 30 mph to catch up with the OP and crash into them. Not exactly a sensible thing to do.

So again, 100% of the blame rests with the driver in the right hand land who was too determined/stupid/careless to merge left without crashing.

bod1467

Altarf wrote: »

Yes it does set a binding precedent unless the decision is overturned by a higher court.

Is correct if the appeal in question was heard by the Court of Appeal. If it was simply another small claims court hearing then it is not binding.

shaun_from_Africa

Altarf wrote: »

Yes it does set a binding precedent unless the decision is overturned by a higher court.

It can only set a precedent if the facts in subsequent cases are very similar to that particular case and as bod stated, only if the appeal was heard by the court of appeal.
One court decision in relation to who is at fault regarding an accident doesn't automatically mean that all similar cases must have the same outcome.

prowla

Altarf wrote: »

Yes it does set a binding precedent unless the decision is overturned by a higher court.



If you look at the road from the link the OP provided, there are three lanes at the traffic lights, one turning left only and two straight on only.

The two straight on lanes continue over a wide (4 lane junction), before carrying on as two lanes for a hundred yards or so, and then another hundred yards or so before the right hand lane disappears.

It is clear that the driver in the right hand lane wasn't forced into making an immediate decision to move left as the OP passed them at the lights, they had plenty of time to plan their move around the traffic in the left hand lane.

And frankly they must have really accelerated away from the lights as the OP passed them at 30 mph to catch up with the OP and crash into them. Not exactly a sensible thing to do.

So again, 100% of the blame rests with the driver in the right hand land who was too determined/stupid/careless to merge left without crashing.

The OP says that they saw the lights were changing from red to amber and so accelerated.

But presumably the other car also saw the lights change(/ing) and if they put their foot down then they could easily be alongside the OP's car 100 yds up the road. What's 0-30 in a decent 2L car - 3 or 4 seconds?

So we can assume that the other car was not stationary at the point where the OP undertook them.

And then both cars raced towards the merge point, giving the ensuing result.

Ways this could have been avoided: (i) the OP giving way to the other car, (ii) the OP accelerating more to make sure that the other car knew they owned that piece of the road, (iii) the other car giving way to the OP.

Incidentally, on the right of way thing, it is not absolutely clear which lane is which, since the white line dividing the lanes just stops a short distance before the road narrows; thus the inside lane does not have right of way per-se, and it's down to the law of the wild vs. common sense.

Anyway, the OP seems to have accepted it's 50:50, so the rest is academic.