Collision while being overtaken

almillar

They're not changing lanes, they're avoiding potholes that have appeared around a corner. You only need to make reasonable adjustments. This is a country lane, so driving anything up to 60mph is reasonable. Sure, slower because of the bend and potholes, but it's not considered reasonable to drive so slowly you can mirror signal manoeuvre around a pothole that shows up out the blue.

Agreed - a bit of an extreme example on my part. OP knows someone is stuck behind them, and as you say comes round a corner to find a pothole. To simply jump out into the road, knowing a car is there, is a bit rash. OP could have slowed or stopped. OP claims ZERO blame, I say they have SOME.

whilst doing c.60mph and suddenly seeing a pothole.

You don't know OP was doing 60, and I don't know they weren't - but I think we should all assume that OP was going slowly enough to annoy another driver. That driver could be a complete prat, but it's safe to assume OP was doing much less than 60.

the simplest thing is to give the other driver space to pass.

OP didn't realise the other car was beside them!

You're applying your own asinine test

contact was ONLY made because the other driver made a dangerous overtake

Er, you just did the same thing. Other driver was clearly in the middle of an overtake - OP hit the SIDE of the car. If other car wasn't there, it wouldn't have been hit. True. If OP hadn't swerved, they wouldn't have hit other car. Also true. Depending on how dangerous the overtake was, and we won't know until OP provides images or something. So 50/50 is reasonable considering the info and answers we've had so far.

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.

No. Driving on the right hand side of the road for a brief time WOULD HAVE been perfectly safe, without another car swerving into you from the left. Again, we know there was a pothole, and a corner, but we don't know where they were. I'm not yet convinced the overtake was unsafe on the info we've had.

The OP didn't ask for people's opinion of the accident

Already been explained - OP might need to improve their driving. That would be of benefit to all road users.

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

Yes we do - they were side-by-side. We're lacking information, let's not ignore the little we do have.

If you were travelling so slow that another driver was forced to overtake you to make progress

No-one has ever forced me to overtake. What speed does that happen at?!

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

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



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



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




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

Yes we know the bonnet was beside OP's door. What we don't know is how long. Again, overtakes can be over in the blink of an eye or they can take a long time. Without knowing the respective speeds of both vehicles, we can't say whether the other driver was well established or not because we don't know if he had just moved there in a fraction of a second or whether he'd been inching his way along OP's vehicle for some time.

You're wholly missing the point. And if you were aware how the law attributes liability then you wouldn't be so spectacularly misunderstanding the questions I posed.

You will only have liability if your own actions fall below the standard of a reasonably prudent & competent driver. You're on a hiding to nothing if you think avoiding a pothole makes you incompetent.

Overtaking someone so close that leaves the other driver no room for error, now THAT is incompetent (and dangerous) driving.

This board seems all stick and no carrot.

unholyangel

almillar wrote: »

Er, you just did the same thing. Other driver was clearly in the middle of an overtake - OP hit the SIDE of the car. If other car wasn't there, it wouldn't have been hit. True. If OP hadn't swerved, they wouldn't have hit other car. Also true. Depending on how dangerous the overtake was, and we won't know until OP provides images or something. So 50/50 is reasonable considering the info and answers we've had so far.



No. Driving on the right hand side of the road for a brief time WOULD HAVE been perfectly safe, without another car swerving into you from the left. Again, we know there was a pothole, and a corner, but we don't know where they were. I'm not yet convinced the overtake was unsafe on the info we've had.

Duh, I did say that I was applying the exact same question to the opposite view.

You might class "being able to pass by a baw hair" as perfectly safe but I don't (and nor does the highway code).

almillar

Yes we know the bonnet was beside OP's door. What we don't know is how long. Again, overtakes can be over in the blink of an eye or they can take a long time. Without knowing the respective speeds of both vehicles, we can't say whether the other driver was well established or not because we don't know if he had just moved there in a fraction of a second or whether he'd been inching his way along OP's vehicle for some time.

No. We know that the other driver was following OP. Other driver was therefore driving at the same speed as OP. Then accelerated and got BESIDE OP. That does not happen in a fraction of a second, it would take several seconds. OP must take some responsibility for not seeing an overtake happening until other driver was beside them, that's poor observation.

You will only have liability if your own actions fall below the standard of a reasonably prudent & competent driver. You're on a hiding to nothing if you think avoiding a pothole makes you incompetent.

Yes, avoiding a pothole is perfectly reasonable. Driving into the side of another driver is not. Neither of us knows whether the overtake was safe or not.

You might class "being able to pass by a baw hair" as perfectly safe but I don't (and nor does the highway code).

And again, we're lacking information, we don't know how wide the road was, or how much room OP was left. But they did start out saying it was a single lane road, where by my understanding 2 cars can't even be beside each other.

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

Yes, avoiding a pothole is perfectly reasonable. Driving into the side of another driver is not. Neither of us knows whether the overtake was safe or not.

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?

prowla

AdrianC wrote: »

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?

I suspect not...

AdrianC

Exactly...

tho_2

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?

George_Michael

tho wrote: »

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?

That's not quite the same as the case in question.

If all the facts given by the OP are correct, the car that they hit was overtaking on a narrow road on the approach to a corner and from the description given, it appears to have been a blind bend.
Most people wouldn't expect another driver to attempt an overtaking maneuverer in such a location.

In most cases, a car in the lane on your right on a motorway is to expected and it's not unusual to see a vehicle there.

I'm in no way saying that the OP is blameless but then again, nor is the other driver if they did attempt to overtake in a dangerous location which is why IMO, a 50/50 from the insurers may well be the end result.

AdrianC

George_Michael wrote: »

If all the facts given by the OP are correct, the car that they hit was overtaking on a narrow road

The OP clarified that it was wide enough for two cars side-by-side, and that their initial "single-track" was in error.

on the approach to a corner and from the description given, it appears to have been a blind bend.

Where have you got "blind" from, because the OP doesn't mention it anywhere? The OP just says that they were going round a bend at the time, no mention of the severity or the sight lines.

Most people wouldn't expect another driver to attempt an overtaking maneuverer in such a location.

That's their problem, especially when they admit they were ignoring their mirrors because of their perception of the car behind's driving.


At the end of the day, if the OP has dashcam footage, the insurers will take that into account when they make their decision. But, since the OP has long left this thread after stating that they will not be sharing it, because they do not want opinions on their driving (despite having asked for them)...