car accident who is liable?

darich

Wig wrote: »

I'm not sure if I agree with your analogy (or understand how it relates to the OP) but I can tell you of a Jaguar who over took a line of cars when the one at the front turned right, There was a big smash, and all I can say is that the insurance (via a court) found the Jaguar driver to be 100% to blame.

The point i was making, and the one the judge made in his ruling was that the second car to overtake was in the wrong regardless of the speed of the first one to overtake - the consequences however tragic are immaterial.

I made the point after a couple of people said that if the car driving on the road was slower then the accident would have been avoided. Those posters opined that the car on the main road was at fault due to not being able to brake in time.
I was showing that the speed is irrelevant - check the judges comments for his opinion.

pault123

mattymoo wrote: »

Two pages of speculation but not a dicky bird out of smegy (the OP) about why he wants to know or to clarify things.

He's a hit and run poster

MarkyMarkD

Wig wrote: »

I'm not sure if I agree with your analogy (or understand how it relates to the OP) but I can tell you of a Jaguar who over took a line of cars when the one at the front turned right, There was a big smash, and all I can say is that the insurance (via a court) found the Jaguar driver to be 100% to blame.

If the car turning right was signalling to do so, and the Jaguar driver overtook them anyway, then it's pretty obvious that it was the Jaguar driver's fault. I'm not surprised by the verdict in that case.

But merely overtaking more than one car isn't in itself a sign of responsibility for any ensuing accident.

Idiophreak

darich wrote: »

The point i was making, and the one the judge made in his ruling was that the second car to overtake was in the wrong regardless of the speed of the first one to overtake - the consequences however tragic are immaterial.

I made the point after a couple of people said that if the car driving on the road was slower then the accident would have been avoided. Those posters opined that the car on the main road was at fault due to not being able to brake in time.
I was showing that the speed is irrelevant - check the judges comments for his opinion.

I think this is a similar situation to the OP tbh...

In both cases, the cars "doing the wrong thing" were to blame, but that doesn't mean to say they couldn't have been avoided if the other car was driving better.

I overtake several cars at a time quite frequently

(really, it *is* time to apply a draughts-style rule to overtaking: if you *can* overtake, you *must* overtake - get so tired of these people who drive for miles tucked up to the car in front with no desire whatsoever to overtake, but not leaving space for you to overtake them...sorry, I digress)

- anyway, when you're overtaking more than one car, especially when you're doing several, you always have to be aware that one of those cars might try and overtake...you always have to drive as far to the right as you possibly can to give them the maximum amount of space and you have to be prepared to stamp on the brakes if they decide they're going to have a go. You also have to take an assessment of how "banzai" the move really is - if you need to go so fast to pass them that you wouldn't be able to avoid someone pulling out, you shouldn't do it.

It is sad, though, that people ever have to try and overtake more than one thing - if people were just to drive sensibly and leave a decent stopping distance these things would be much easier - people could overtake 1 or 2 cars more easily and it would be much more obvious if someone was intending to overtake...

mattymoo

I know what you mean Idiophreak - annoys me as well when there is a safe road but people are not overtaking. You just have to make allowances though.

If your overtaking manouvre was safe in all other aspects (in relation to solid white lines on road, proximity to junctions / blind summits etc) then you would normally be found to be blameless if someone did pull out. Simple cause would be their failure to check mirrors and blindspots.

Usually the absolute giveaway is "I didn't see you, you came out of nowhere". Indicates lack of attention to the road and nearby vehicles.

If I can see a gap opening up in oncoming traffic and know that someone behind me is going to floor it asap, I will indicate (before the road is clear) so that they know I am going to overtake and they can wait.

MarkyMarkD

Hear, hear Idiophreak and mattymoo. I do the same as both of you in those circumstances and 100% agree that people should overtake if they can. So many overtaking manoeuvres are made more dangerous by people stacking in queues of 5 cars when they could have overtaken and got on with their journeys.

Have either of you had 1 of these 5 cars flash at you for no other reason than that you are overtaking more than 1 car at a time and they seem to find that some sort of affront?

Or been flashed at by the third of the five cars when you've had to pull in front of it because you can't complete the manoeuvre, and they've had to brake a bit to let you back in (because, and only because, they hadn't left a safe stopping distance between them and the car in front)?

alm721

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Or been flashed at by the third of the five cars when you've had to pull in front of it because you can't complete the manoeuvre, and they've had to brake a bit to let you back in (because, and only because, they hadn't left a safe stopping distance between them and the car in front)?

Have to say I'm really concious of leaving a safe stopping distance between myself and the car in front and it really annoys me when someone cuts in front of me into the space I've left because they feel the need to overtake to get a few yards ahead!

darich

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Or been flashed at by the third of the five cars when you've had to pull in front of it because you can't complete the manoeuvre, and they've had to brake a bit to let you back in (because, and only because, they hadn't left a safe stopping distance between them and the car in front)?

if they haven't left a safe stopping distance then there isn't enough room to perform the overtaking manouvre and it shouldn't be done in this case.

That said, i've overtaken several cars at once before aswell and the drivers who are annoyed are generally those who have no concept of how powerful and fast some cars can be. These faster cars are safer for overtaking because you spend less time on the wrong side of the road.
On the flip side of that i HATE people who overtake one or two cars at a time and force their way back into the queue - you see them regularly on the roads up north in Scotland where overtaking areas are limited - they're normally reps and i hate them for overtaking in dangerous areas then forcing their way back in when they're out of space.

To get back to the OP's incident i still reckon the car coming out of the drive is to blame regardless of whether it's going forwards, backwards or sideways and the while the speed of the car on the main road will have an effect on how serious the accident is (slow enough and there would be no accident), the speed of that car is irrelevant.

MarkyMarkD

Sorry, darich, but I disagree with everything you've said.

It is NOT incorrect to overtake one or two cars in a group of 5 and then to pull in.

The fact that "reps" or whoever manage to safely overtake one or two cars, and then pull in in front of you or whoever, means that it's safe to overtake. And that you, or whoever, should or could have overtaken if they weren't a numpty timid driver.

A huge proportion of traffic congestion on single carriageway roads is caused by over-timid drivers who won't overtaken when they could easily do so.

There should NEVER be any need for "forcing their way back in". If you are a timid numpty driver who will never overtake, there is no reason not to leave ample space between you and the car you are scared to overtake to allow any number of more rational drivers to overtake you and pull in, in front of you, safely.

darich

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Sorry, darich, but I disagree with everything you've said.

It is NOT incorrect to overtake one or two cars in a group of 5 and then to pull in.

The fact that "reps" or whoever manage to safely overtake one or two cars, and then pull in in front of you or whoever, means that it's safe to overtake. And that you, or whoever, should or could have overtaken if they weren't a numpty timid driver.

A huge proportion of traffic congestion on single carriageway roads is caused by over-timid drivers who won't overtaken when they could easily do so.

There should NEVER be any need for "forcing their way back in". If you are a timid numpty driver who will never overtake, there is no reason not to leave ample space between you and the car you are scared to overtake to allow any number of more rational drivers to overtake you and pull in, in front of you, safely.

It's quite clear you didn't actually read my post in full.

The reps i refer to FORCE their way back in - their is no clear space in the queue ahead of them but they FORCE their way back in causing the drivers behind to brake otherwise the rep would be in a head on collision with on coming traffic.

I agree there should never be a need to force your way back in but the drivers to whom i refer pull out to overtake when it is unsafe to do so and are a danger to themselves and others purely because of their impatience or lack of judgement.

I also said that I've overtaken several cars at one time which clearly doesn't make me a "numpty timid driver". And i'd also be fairly confident in saying I've owned and driven cars with performance that puts them in the top few percent in the country so i can and do overtake where others are unable.

Going by your reaction, are you one of the reps in a mondeo or vectra to which i refer????