Collision with overtaking car

Aretnap

Nasqueron wrote: »

It's perfectly legal if NECESSARY - that is the wording in the highway code rule 130 (along with the proviso that you should be able to see it is safe to do so). Being an impatient BMW driver who wants to do more than 40 in a residential looking area is not necessary. The hashed markings are there for safety rather than a barrier.

The HC is clearly referring to passing say a broken down lorry or cyclist where it's necessary to go into the area or you'd be stuck until the lorry was fixed.

Someone always brings that one up...

"Necessary" is one of those words which has found its way into the Highway Code despite having no basis in the law. The actual meaning of the hatched markings is defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (Page 191, Diagram 1040.2) which says "Length of road along which drivers should not overtake through the marking unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so" (my emphasis).

So yes, it's perfectly legal to overtake there (provided you can see that it's safe to do so, which is true of any overtake). The Highway Code doesn't, so if your interpretation of the Highway Code is that you're not allowed to overtake there at all, your interpretation is obviously wrong.

EdGasket

Well it obviously wasn't safe in this situation; the fault should be with the BMW driver imho. It will probably go 50/50 with the insurers though as they love that (two NCB's lost and two lots of excess to charge the customers).

dunstonh

EdGasket wrote: »

Well it obviously wasn't safe in this situation; the fault should be with the BMW driver imho. It will probably go 50/50 with the insurers though as they love that (two NCB's lost and two lots of excess to charge the customers).

Why wasn't it safe?

The BMW wasn't the one that decided to cross the lane without looking.

Aretnap

EdGasket wrote: »

... two lots of excess to charge the customers

That's not how it works, but you should never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Nasqueron

k3lvc wrote: »

The Highway code does not define anywhere what is 'necessary' - you're just making up examples with no supporting evidence


Overtaking a slower moving vehicle could be classified as necessary (though admitted not doing 70 in a 40 if this was indeed the case)

The word necessary is generally taken to mean "essential" such as going around an obstruction where you'd otherwise have to stop and wait for it to be cleared, not "I'm an impatient person and feel I should be able to overtake vehicles because I can't be bothered to wait", that's fairly basic logic.

The argument you can choose your own definition of "necessary" is pure weapons grade baloney otherwise you could justify using that zone to, for example, pass a line of traffic queuing for some roadworks because you were in a hurry for a meeting.

The thing is though, simply reading the highway code provides you with the explanation as to why I am right - it uses the same wording in other scenarios e.g. rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

It is fairly obvious that the highway code was not written with the intention of having different definitions of the same word for almost identical scenarios and that they mean "necessary" to mean the normal dictionary definition.

Nasqueron

Aretnap wrote: »

Someone always brings that one up...

"Necessary" is one of those words which has found its way into the Highway Code despite having no basis in the law. The actual meaning of the hatched markings is defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (Page 191, Diagram 1040.2) which says "Length of road along which drivers should not overtake through the marking unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so" (my emphasis).

So yes, it's perfectly legal to overtake there (provided you can see that it's safe to do so, which is true of any overtake). The Highway Code doesn't, so if your interpretation of the Highway Code is that you're not allowed to overtake there at all, your interpretation is obviously wrong.

The problem here is skipping over the various laws that back up Rule 130 to rely only on the TSRGD reg you quoted there but hey, overtake on the hashed lines if you wish to

Retrogamer

Breaking the law doesn't always automatically make you negligent.

FutureGirl

This will mostly likely go down as a split liability.

You should have checked priorly all your mirrors, and your blind spot etc - which you haven't done (as you said yourself). He also should overtake when a vehicle is indicating to turn.

However, it's about what the insurers can prove.

k3lvc

Nasqueron wrote: »

The word necessary is generally taken to mean "essential" such as going around an obstruction where you'd otherwise have to stop and wait for it to be cleared, not "I'm an impatient person and feel I should be able to overtake vehicles because I can't be bothered to wait", that's fairly basic logic.

Indeed but it's also not illegal to do it - this means that it's down to a judgement on 'necessary' and in this case an insurance company (and potentially a judge) may take a view that overtaking a slower car with a clear road ahead was 'necessary' and therefore allowable.

The reality is that all this is a red herring to the OP's case - they failed to observe properly when executing a manoeuvre and were involved in an a collision as a result of this - using the road markings as an excuse for not paying attention is poor form

takman

From what the OP has said there is no way you can blame the BMW driver. All we know is the OP decided to pull over onto the opposite side of the road to make a phone call and as they pulled over they hit a car that was overtaking.


They then estimate the car was going more than 70mph yet they didn't see the car at all until they collided, so that's basically a load of rubbish.

Nasqueron wrote: »

It's perfectly legal if NECESSARY - that is the wording in the highway code rule 130 (along with the proviso that you should be able to see it is safe to do so). Being an impatient BMW driver who wants to do more than 40 in a residential looking area is not necessary. The hashed markings are there for safety rather than a barrier.

The HC is clearly referring to passing say a broken down lorry or cyclist where it's necessary to go into the area or you'd be stuck until the lorry was fixed.

So your saying that the BMW driver was in the wrong because it wasn't necessary for them to overtake. Yet it was necessary for the OP to pull over to make a phone call, which could have waited.