Collision while being overtaken

tain

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Where I live (and I suspect photome may live as well) there are many single track country lanes where the legal speed limit may be 60 mph but anything over 30 (or even 25!) is bonkers and asking for trouble. If I have an "aggressive" driver behind me I slow down (I want to reduce any possible rear impact damage) and pull over to the left at a suitable passing place and let them overtake me. I'm not bothered - I simply do not want an aggressive driver behind me. Interestingly, my wife tends to be intimidated by aggressive drivers and has a tendency to speed up (although otherwise she is a much more skilful driver than me). But if you have an idiot behind you, slow down and let them pass rather than drive at a speed that may not be safe. If they want to overtake at an unsafe bend, the facts speak for them themselves.


And if the OP is driving to work - don't they know where the potholes are?


Also I'm a cyclist. I don't trust aggressive drivers behind me on single track lanes and I don't want to hold them up. I pull over and let them by. I don't want to end up in a wheelchair or eating food through a straw because of their (or my!) stupidity. You could claim compensation but where does that get you? It's compensation for a lost part of your life. It doesn't get you physical or mental ability back.


mirror, signal, manoeuvre. I run over massive potholes all the time. If you know you have an aggressive driver behind you, pull over and let them past - they are !!!!heads - you don't have to be

Assumption: There was somewhere along the journey where an overtake was possible.

tain

Car_54 wrote: »

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

Yeah totally. You'd probably even consider that they might be overtaking you, but that might also not be your first thought before you then see a pothole. We're talking split seconds here, which is my issue with most of the replies so far in this thread.

ariba10

I understand that the sequence is Mirrror. Signal. Mirror. Manoeuvre.

( Not a lot of people know that )

Car_54

ariba10 wrote: »

I understand that the sequence is Mirrror. Signal. Mirror. Manoeuvre.

( Not a lot of people know that )

Not a lot of people know that because they read the Highway Code, which says Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre.

Notice it's Mirrors, plural.

tain

Just to put this all to bed:

- You are at fault if you overtake a vehicle too closely
- You are at fault if, by how you're overtaking, you do not allow for any change in circumstances in the road ahead
- You are at fault if you attempt to overtake approaching a bend

The pothole is irrelevant. If that was a child or an animal that jumped out of the blue (and considering a pothole looks like a puddle half the time, it can easily be out the blue), this wouldn't even be discussed.

tho_2

Completely agree. the pothole is irrelevant....

You are at fault if you do not maintain a steady course and speed or obstruct a overtaking car, in fact not slowing down if necessary to let them pass. (oince again. its in the highway code)

Cornucopia

Car_54 wrote: »

Not a lot of people know that because they read the Highway Code, which says Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre.

Notice it's Mirrors, plural.

Looks like they've sneakily updated that since I passed my test (27 years ago). It was always Mirror-Signal-Manoeuvre (singular).

And there was me, all this time, just using one mirror.

tain

tho wrote: »

Completely agree. the pothole is irrelevant....

You are at fault if you do not maintain a steady course and speed or obstruct a overtaking car, in fact not slowing down if necessary to let them pass. (oince again. its in the highway code)

Can you show me where in the Highway Code it says that when referring to an obstruction?

almillar

Simple question: Would the OP have swerved round the pothole if it'd been an oncoming vehicle, which they HAD seen, occupying the exact same space?

Indeed. But there's an accusation of an unsafe overtake, in particular, that the overtaker didn't leave 'enough space'. This isn't a requirement for an oncoming car, but I bet OP wouldn't have swerved.

Or alternatively, if you were on a motorway and saw a pothole, swerved into the lane to your right and smashed into someone overtaking would there be any doubt who's to blame?

But that's easier, because you've crossed a line on a road. We have no lines, limited space, and possibly overtaking on a bend. Also a pot hole and not knowing you're being overtaken.

Why isn't it the same?

There. Is. No. Line. To. Cross.

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

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

<looks pointedly at door mirror>