Collision while being overtaken

AdrianC

It's a lot easier to see a bend ahead of you than to see what's happening with the offside wheels of a car that you don't even know is there.

But I see we're back to this fictitious blind bend.

So let's say you did swerve right on this narrow, blind bend... You would have hit an oncoming car head-on?

George_Michael

tho wrote: »

but another question. The op is open the other driver was driving aggressively and wanting to pass, why would they wait to commit in/on a corner?

A quick at one of the many videos on Youtube showing examples of poor or dangerous driving could easily answer that question.
There are a great many drivers on the road who seemingly don't have a clue about how to drive safely or simply don't care.
It's also a possibility that their judgement was impaired by alcohol, drugs, tiredness, illness etc.

George_Michael

AdrianC wrote: »

But I see we're back to this fictitious blind bend.

So when I deduce something from what the OP posted, it's fictitious, yet when you do it you state:

AdrianC wrote: »

Perhaps not explicitly, but from the very first post in the thread...

In my opinion, that makes you a total hypocrite.
On that point, I think I will leave you to your blinkered view that the OP is wrong and allow you to pick and choose what parts of their posts to believe and what to ignore.

AdrianC

Where did the idea that the bend was "blind" first get mentioned in the thread?


You are the only person to mention it, and your first use of the term was nearly three pages after the OP's last input.

JustAnotherSaver

5 pages. I'm not reading all that. I did read page 1 though and noted those taking the 'your fault' stance.

If we could all be as perfect as those people!

This may have been wrapped up by now but in case it hasn't then there's a difference between being right and being right.

Probably about 7 or 8 years ago now i overtook someone. It wasn't a single track but a very long and actually wider then your average A-road (used to be a 3 laner many moons ago so the old folk tell me).

Anyway, i overtook a local nut job who was later put in prison for trying to murder someone (just in case you thought they were all sweet and innocent, though you probably still will).
This person didn't like being overtaken and swerved in to me.

Long story short, the insurance said it was my fault and the reason being ... i was the one overtaking.
I said you can see his tyre marks all over my car as he's turned in to me.
Your fault - you were overtaking.

Ok so tonight when i go home i'm just going to ram the first guy who overtakes me off the road and it'll be his fault because he's the one overtaking right?

We understand your frustration sir.

No you don't, you don't give a s#!t about my frustration!

Like i said, what's right isn't always right.

So if the same way of thinking applies - it'll be the other guys fault because he was the one overtaking.

[Deleted User]

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Anyway, i overtook a local nut job who was later put in prison for trying to murder someone (just in case you thought they were all sweet and innocent, though you probably still will).
This person didn't like being overtaken and swerved in to me.

So you're saying that the OP hit them deliberately? And you think everybody else is being judgemental :eek:

tain

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

So you're saying nobody should check over their shoulder when changing lanes on the motorway just in case a pothole materialises out of the sky? Your definition of a very VERY dangerous driver seems to be ignoring the facts.

Where are you plucking this out of? Thin air? Stop talking about motorways and planned manoeuvres when we're talking about potholes and bends on country roads. Wasting everyone's time.

tain

AdrianC wrote: »

Simple test... If the OP had done nothing, just continued on the same path at the same speed, would contact have been made?

No.


The other car would have passed and continued on its way merrily.

Contact was ONLY made because the OP swerved whilst being overtaken. The OP did that because they were simply not aware that the car which had been behind them was now alongside them in what they tacitly admit was a very likely manoeuvre sooner or later. Why were they not aware? Because they were ignoring their mirrors. Why were they ignoring their mirrors? Because they were trying to ignore the other car because they felt it was driving dangerously.

This isn't a simple test, because it makes assumptions. Legal tests can't make assumptions.

They could have used their mirrors perfectly, but your eyes should be on the road. Someone can change from behind you to overtaking in a fraction of a second - it is perfectly plausible that they checked mirrors and the car behind was still there, slowed down for the bend, saw the pothole, checked rear view mirror and no one was there, then all of a sudden they're scraping into the car.

tain

unholyangel wrote: »

You can't know that.

You're applying your own asinine test. And I call it asinine because you seem to be missing if you apply your test the other way you get the exact same answer.....if the other driver hadn't been overtaking (never mind overtaking so close), would contact have been made? No, the OP would have continued on his way merrily and contact was ONLY made because the other driver made a dangerous overtake. Likewise even if you only apply the question to the overtaking driver being too close.

Let me ask you this. If OP was a cyclist and the overtaking car didn't leave enough room and cyclist had to swerve to avoid a pothole, are you really trying to tell me that you think a court would place 50%+ liability on the cyclist? Despite the fact that you're supposed to leave plenty of room when overtaking for exactly that reason (in case they need to avoid potholes or other hazards)?

You're overlooking that OP's manoeuvre would have been completely safe if not for the other driver being too close. The same can't be said for the other drivers manoeuvre.




And how many single track roads (ie with no road markings indicating lanes) do you come across that have the unobstructed views that usually accompany A roads? I've yet to see one. My point still stands though, it would have required OP to follow an exact course around the bend which drivers rarely do.

This is bang on the money.

Unless, of course, the dashcam footage shows that the slight swerve for a pothole was a 70mph 10ft lunge across to the other side of the road...

Car_54

tain wrote: »

This isn't a simple test, because it makes assumptions. Legal tests can't make assumptions.

They could have used their mirrors perfectly, but your eyes should be on the road. Someone can change from behind you to overtaking in a fraction of a second - it is perfectly plausible that they checked mirrors and the car behind was still there, slowed down for the bend, saw the pothole, checked rear view mirror and no one was the re, then all of a sudden they're scraping into the car.

Suppose the OP checked his mirrors and saw nothing. Didn't he wonder where the car which had been aggressively tailgating him had gone?