Collision while being overtaken

GothicStirling

50/50. He shouldn't have been overtaking, and you should have checked your mirrors before you swerved.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

I dont think theres any possibility of this going 100% against OP.

Obviously thats based off OP's description so far but from what he said, he was approaching a bend on a narrow road. It was downright dangerous for the other driver to overtake when he did and I don't think OP swerving for a pothole will attribute him even 50% liability for 2 reasons.

1) As I just said, it was approaching a bend on a narrow road and would rely on OP following an exact path around the bend to avoid collision
2) The overriding responsibility to ensure an overtake is carried out safely remains with the driver doing the overtake. Its not for the driver being overtaken to ensure that an unsafe overtake be made safe. He failed to leave enough room, he overtook where visibility of the road ahead was restricted. Thats his "bad", not the OP's.

Tha OP hasn't said anything to indicate that. He just said "a bend".

AdrianC

I very much doubt this occurred at anywhere NEAR 60mph, even though the road in question is almost certainly NSL.

However, it still wouldn't make any difference. The OP swerved into the side of a vehicle because they didn't see it.

Nobbie1967

GothicStirling wrote: »

50/50. He shouldn't have been overtaking, and you should have checked your mirrors before you swerved.

Unless we see the dashcam footage we only have the OP's opinion that they shouldn't have been overtaking.

If the OP was concerned by the other driver's driving, they should have indicated left, slowed and let them pass.

prowla

I'm sure that there are many people who drive slowly and obstructively who think that those people who want to get past just need to be more patient; the simplest thing is to give the other driver space to pass.

I had one yesterday who was driving at 46 mph in front of me, slowing me up at the 50 limit parts of the road and pulling away at the 40 ones.

In this case, the OP doesn't say how fast they were going, but evidently the other driver would've liked to have gone a bit faster.

The OP has described the road as a single-track road, but plainly it wasn't, as they are only a car width, so it would've been impossible to get alongside.

My opinion is that this has to be a 50/50, as the OP swerved to avoid an obstacle, but didn't check it was safe to.

Hindsight being a great thing, but the way to avoid it would've been to courteously let the other car pass so everybody could get on with their own business. I've even done it in my sports car, especially if the road was poor and/or if I didn't know it (when I could then let the other driver lead the way whilst I tagged along behind).

As to the particulars of the incident, I would suggest drawing a picture of the road layout & car positions, getting an aerial view (maybe via google maps), and making a copy of the dashcam footage.

unholyangel

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.

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.

Car_54 wrote: »

Tha OP hasn't said anything to indicate that. He just said "a bend".

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.

AdrianC

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

Except the other driver was well established in his overtake before the OP swerved.

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)?

The OP wasn't on a bicycle.


A car can go over a pothole without crashing. A bicycle can't.
Either car or bicycle would also have had the opportunity of braking, just as if an oncoming vehicle meant they couldn't swerve.

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.

The overtaker didn't hit an oncoming vehicle, because there wasn't one.

RichardD1970

I think people are missing the point of the thread and what the OP asked.

The OP didn't ask for people's opinion of the accident and for opinions on blame, just what he process following the accident was and if there was any reason to be wary of accepting a courtesy car.

But then, this is the MSE motoring forum and the usual suspects are, unsurprisingly, at it again. :rotfl:

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

Except the other driver was well established in his overtake before the OP swerved.


The OP wasn't on a bicycle.


A car can go over a pothole without crashing. A bicycle can't.
Either car or bicycle would also have had the opportunity of braking, just as if an oncoming vehicle meant they couldn't swerve.



The overtaker didn't hit an oncoming vehicle, because there wasn't one.

Okay now you're just being silly.

We have no idea how long this transpired over - let alone that the other driver was "well established" in his overtake. Overtakes can be in a blink of an eye or take minutes - speed of both cars determine how long it takes.

No OP wasn't on a bike but you're supposed to leave the same distance when passing either in case they need to slightly alter their course. But I'll take it from your lack of addressing the point that you concede the cyclist wouldn't be attributed 50%+ liability.

Whether a car can go over a pothole without crashing depends on a lot of factors. Hit a deep/big enough pothole at speed and the wrong angle and you could potentially find yourself in the field next door and/or with your car wrecked.

I didn't mention oncoming vehicles so no idea what point you're even trying to make with that part.

Lets put it as simply as I can.

Are you saying that it falls below the standard of a prudent & competent driver to avoid a pothole? Are you saying that it is neither reasonable nor foreseeable that a prudent & competent driver may move to avoid a pothole?

AdrianC

unholyangel wrote: »

We have no idea how long this transpired over - let alone that the other driver was "well established" in his overtake.

We know that the other car's bonnet was alongside the OP's rear door. (Post 15)

I didn't mention oncoming vehicles so no idea what point you're even trying to make with that part.

I'm trying to make the point that visibility around the bend was irrelevant.

Are you saying that it falls below the standard of a prudent & competent driver to avoid a pothole?

I'll cheerfully say that swerving into the side of an overtaking car does, yes. Would you disagree?

Are you saying that it is neither reasonable nor foreseeable that a prudent & competent driver may move to avoid a pothole?

Are you suggesting the overtaking driver could possibly have been aware of that pothole before starting his manoeuvre?