Collision while being overtaken

tain

Having to swerve to miss potholes or to dodge any other unexpected obstruction in the road is an anticipated behaviour. These things happen all the time, and legally they expect that these things happen. So much so, that the Highway Code contains specific instructions to only overtake 'with plenty of room'. This is for the sole purpose of planning for unexpected movements from the vehicle being overtaken. If you overtake with plenty of room, as you are legally required to do, then they can throw their door open if they want - you're going to be fine.

The driver is allowed to have his or her attention drawn elsewhere for brief seconds of time, they're allowed to have missed the overtaking manoeuvre if it occurred in just a second or two. The law understands that you can't look everywhere all the time. It's just not humanly possible.

The only thing that the law can do is demand that the person who is creating a hazard by overtaking does so in such a way that it minimises collisions.

This didn't happen, so there is only one party at fault.

[caveat: unless the movement around the pothole was massive, or beyond what you would reasonably expect to allow for]

[Deleted User]

tain wrote: »

Having to swerve to miss potholes or to dodge any other unexpected obstruction in the road is an anticipated behaviour.

Fairly sure you can't anticipate something unexpected.

Richard53

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Fairly sure you can't anticipate something unexpected.

You can anticipate that something unexpected will happen, without knowing what it is going to be.

neilmcl

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Fairly sure you can't anticipate something unexpected.

Never heard of the phrase "expect the unexpected".

debtdebt

tain wrote: »

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.

Do you have any legal precedent for that?

sheramber

unholyangel wrote: »

You can't know that.



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.

Try visiting the far north of Scotland. Our 'A' , 'B ' ANND 'C' roads have no road markings as the council can't afford to hire the machine that paints them. So when a road is repaired we lose the markings. We don't have give way markings either.
There are long straights with unobstructed views but, if you do visit , don't rely on an unobstructed view before they overtake as the highway code or common sense doesn't apply to many drivers up here who drive according to their own rules.

sheramber

What posters on a forum think is irrelEvant. The insurance decision is what matter to the OP.

Hopefully the OP will come back and tell us what they decide.

unholyangel

sheramber wrote: »

Try visiting the far north of Scotland. Our 'A' , 'B ' ANND 'C' roads have no road markings as the council can't afford to hire the machine that paints them. So when a road is repaired we lose the markings. We don't have give way markings either.
There are long straights with unobstructed views but, if you do visit , don't rely on an unobstructed view before they overtake as the highway code or common sense doesn't apply to many drivers up here who drive according to their own rules.

No need to visit - I live not far from there.

But my post was talking about single track roads that happen to be unmarked rather than about unmarked roads themselves.

unholyangel

debtdebt wrote: »

Do you have any legal precedent for that?

For which bit?

How about:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-offences-guidance-charging-offences-arising-driving-incidents

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
- overtaking which could not have been carried out safely

And:

There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:
- driving inappropriately close to another vehicle

Or how about:
Pykett v Clement where it was said: " It was not for him to slow down or to take other steps merely to assist Ms Clement to avoid the manifest dangers that her driving had created."

Or perhaps even smith v cribben in which it was said "The ordinary reasonable driver is not to be expected to anticipate that the following driver will drive dangerously and to extricate that driver from the dangerous situation that driver creates"

Or to put it simply...OP would only be negligent if his actions (of moving to avoid the pothole) fell below the standard of a careful & competent driver. He is not negligent merely because he failed to pull out all the stops to counteract the dangerous/negligent actions of the other driver.