Minor RTC on lane merging to left

Altarf

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

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?

The question was not what should the OP have done, but who was to blame for the accident.

The OP could have avoided the accident by not getting out of bed that morning, but that is not the point.

The point is that irrespective what the OP could have done, they didn't need to do anything. 100% of the fault for the accident was the other driver's.

Dan-Dan

Altarf wrote: »

The question was not what should the OP have done, but who was to blame for the accident.

The OP could have avoided the accident by not getting out of bed that morning, but that is not the point.

The point is that irrespective what the OP could have done, they didn't need to do anything. 100% of the fault for the accident was the other driver's.

The OP could have done something to avoid the accident , thats plain and clear , that fact means it would never be 100% blame on TP

Altarf

Dan-Dan wrote: »

The OP could have done something to avoid the accident , thats plain and clear , that fact means it would never be 100% blame on TP

No, as before, the case of Smith v Cribben [1994] PIQR 218 determined that if an overtaken driver does nothing to prevent an accident, the overtaking driver is still 100% to blame.

George_Michael

Altarf wrote: »

No, as before, the case of Smith v Cribben [1994] PIQR 218 determined that if an overtaken driver does nothing to prevent an accident, the overtaking driver is still 100% to blame.

One case from 20 years ago.
Who knows what other cases have been to court since then and what the outcomes were, and no one on here even knows the full details of that case as there have only been very brief snippets found on various websites.


If the OP's case did ever get to court and the other driver stated that the OP accelerated to prevent him from completing the overtaking maneuverer, without any independent witnesses, who knows for definite what the outcome would be?


It's like cases involving rear end shunts.
In the vast majority of cases the car behind is held to blame, but this isn't always the case.

Altarf

George_Michael wrote: »

One case from 20 years ago.
Who knows what other cases have been to court since then and what the outcomes were, and no one on here even knows the full details of that case as there have only been very brief snippets found on various websites.

The decision by the Court of Appeal from 20 years ago is a binding precedent on the lower courts.

So if there have been other cases since then, they have all had to follow the same decision, and if a higher court had reached a different decision, then it would be all over the web.

londonTiger

I read page 1 and half of page 2. So I don't know if this has been suggested yet.

But here's my take on this (sorry if this is a repetition)

As OP was slowing for the red light, the merger notice OP slowing down and thought OP was yielding way for them to merge.

But OP is oblivious to merger traffic and is only responding to traffic lights. As lights turn green. He floors it to 30mph not noticing the merger has already started to join and has a collision. OP doesn't even recall the merger indicating to join either I reckon.

The merger hit OPs car on the drivers door. I would still call that a neck-a-neck collision. Certainly the merger was in front of OP at the beginning and during most of the time leading up to the incident.

If the other car was stationary and OP was rolling along at 15mph and they both collided where the two lanes join then I would say the other car was quite far ahead of the OP.

OP passing this off like he overtook the merger and then the merger collided is absolute hogwash- he knows it. The collusion occurred as OP was ripping past the merger. It was an overtake in progress. An overtake did not occur prior to the collision. Besides just because a car is slightly ahead during the time of the collision does not make them blameless in an accident.

There's a road where two lanes merge into one near where I live (neither has right of way), every time I get on it it's almost like a tug of war over who will get dibs for first positition. It's asinine. I always concede when it's neck a neck. Otherwise the driver who is in front gets dibs and the latter driver should drop back to give way. Collisions (and confusion) would occur here if one of the driver who was BEHIND decided to hit the gas pedal and get in front [when they were behind] as the road is merging.

almillar

AdrianC:

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

Nope - OP went past the stationery car, which then sped up and went into the (back) side of him. OP was ahead and at a constant speed, stationery car had accelerated.

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.

Absolutely.

But OP could have avoided the accident (speed up or slow down). Staying away from other vehicles where possible is always helpful!

londonTiger

almillar wrote: »

AdrianC:

Nope - OP went past the stationery car, which then sped up and went into the (back) side of him. OP was ahead and at a constant speed, stationery car had accelerated.

The OP said the merger hit his drivers door. That's NOT the rear of the car.

The merger was stationary, the OP sped up from 15mph to 30mph. That strikes me as the merger was well ahead in front as it was on an idle start. It could have been slowly creeping forward from the merging lane and possible 4 car lengths ahead of OP.

The idea that OP had overtaken the merger is a massive stretch of the truth.

Altarf

londonTiger wrote: »

just because a car is slightly ahead during the time of the collision does not make them blameless in an accident.

The fact that the OP was the one not changing lanes, but the other car was, is the fact that makes the OP blameless.

The other driver should not have changed lanes unless it was safe to do so. It wasn't, so the accident that resulted was 100% their fault.

bod1467

londonTiger wrote: »

The OP said the merger hit his drivers door.

Nope. OP said the other car hit his driver's side door. And I believe he clarified this in a later post as being the rear door/wheel arch area.