Minor RTC on lane merging to left

Altarf

AdrianC wrote: »

Since Google doesn't appear to have heard of that case, perhaps you could point us to a reputable source?

Apologies, a mistype - Smith v Cribben [1994] PIQR 218

Altarf

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Fine in theory, not so good in reality.
This is exactly what the OP did and yet it still ended up costing him £200.

Only because the OP has accepted it. They could take the other driver to court for their losses.

shaun_from_Africa

Altarf wrote: »

Only because the OP has accepted it. They could take the other driver to court for their losses.

Which they might or might not win.
Wouldn't it have been far easier to simply lift of the accelerator for a couple of seconds?

Altarf

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Which they might or might not win.

They would.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Wouldn't it have been far easier to simply lift of the accelerator for a couple of seconds?

The courts say you don't have to -
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/57-12/1011964.aspx

And wouldn't have been far easier for the driver with the responsibility to merge to simply lift off the accelerator for a couple of seconds, and merge behind?

AdrianC

Altarf wrote: »

Apologies, a mistype - Smith v Cribben [1994] PIQR 218

Not quite the same circumstances - and a quick follow of various links shows there to be several other cases where both parties HAVE been held to be at fault in other circumstances. It certainly doesn't appear to be a compelling precedent.
http://www.motorcyclecompensation.co.uk/Motorcycle-Accident-Case-Law-Ogden-and-Chadwick-V-Barber-2008-.aspx

shaun_from_Africa

Altarf wrote: »

The courts say you don't have to

I'm not talking about what the courts say, I talking about reality.


If the OP had simply eased off the accelerator for a couple of seconds:
He would have arrived at his destination without a damaged car.
He wouldn't have had to go through the hassle of an insurance claim.
He wouldn't have to declare the claim when taking out motor insurance in the future,
He wouldn't have to pay higher insurance premiums in the future.
He wouldn't have had to start a thread on here asking for advice.


But all of the above is irrelevant because the courts decided that he wasn't under an obligation to give way?

Altarf

AdrianC wrote: »

Not quite the same circumstances - and a quick follow of various links shows there to be several other cases where both parties HAVE been held to be at fault in other circumstances. It certainly doesn't appear to be a compelling precedent.
http://www.motorcyclecompensation.co.uk/Motorcycle-Accident-Case-Law-Ogden-and-Chadwick-V-Barber-2008-.aspx

In that case the van driver being overtaken did not do nothing as in Smith v Cribben, but "the van prevented the overtake by accelerating and decelerating".

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I'm not talking about what the courts say, I talking about reality.


If the OP had simply eased off the accelerator for a couple of seconds:
He would have arrived at his destination without a damaged car.
He wouldn't have had to go through the hassle of an insurance claim.
He wouldn't have to declare the claim when taking out motor insurance in the future,
He wouldn't have to pay higher insurance premiums in the future.
He wouldn't have had to start a thread on here asking for advice.


But all of the above is irrelevant because the courts decided that he wasn't under an obligation to give way?

And all the above applies to the person with the responsibility to merge safely, the driver in the right hand lane who was careless and drove into the OP.

If the OP took action to put the blame where it lies, then the issues above do not exist.

AdrianC

Altarf wrote: »

In that case the van driver being overtaken did not do nothing as in Smith v Cribben, but "the van prevented the overtake by accelerating and decelerating".

By the OP's own admission, he deliberately and knowingly blocked the other car from merging in front.

Altarf

AdrianC wrote: »

By the OP's own admission, he deliberately and knowingly blocked the other car from merging in front.

Not according to their original post -

Tok3d wrote: »

I just continued on at roughly 30mph in my lane.

And if the driver with the responsibility for merging, realised that they could not merge in front, why didn't they simply slow down and merge behind.

shaun_from_Africa

Altarf wrote: »

If the OP took action to put the blame where it lies, then the issues above do not exist.

You can state if and maybe all day long but the fact is that all of the issues I mention do exist and they could all have been easily prevented by a tiny bit of common sense by the OP rather than blindly refusing to be intimidated by the other driver.



Yes, the other driver could also have prevented the collision but who in their right mind will happily allow another vehicle to drive into theirs simply because they had the right of way?