Who's fault is this accident?

The_Rainmaker

dbdisomma said:

 I was recently in an accident on a country lane. I have a dash cam  which shows my view  i had a bend onmy left and was travelling down hill  the road was a single track road and i had. no where to pull in if needed. on coming traffic  was up hill and the bend was on  the left there was also a place to pull in some two hundred yards before the road narrowed again. Who i at fault if there is a collision?

Back in the day cars coming down a hill were meant to give way to traffic coming up the hill.  Now that statement could because of old cars and poor brakes/clutches etc.  and have no legal bearing.

It may also be viewed that you were more likely to be going too fast.

but at the end of the day who knows.

Car_54

The_Rainmaker said:

dbdisomma said:

 I was recently in an accident on a country lane. I have a dash cam  which shows my view  i had a bend onmy left and was travelling down hill  the road was a single track road and i had. no where to pull in if needed. on coming traffic  was up hill and the bend was on  the left there was also a place to pull in some two hundred yards before the road narrowed again. Who i at fault if there is a collision?

Back in the day cars coming down a hill were meant to give way to traffic coming up the hill.  Now that statement could because of old cars and poor brakes/clutches etc.  and have no legal bearing.

It's still in the HC - Rule 155.

ElephantBoy57

unholyangel said:

But you will only be at fault/have any liability if your driving fell below the standard of that of a reasonably prudent driver (which is one that drives in accordance with the highway code).
From your diagram, the other vehicle failed to give way to vehicles already on the road they wanted to join. So they will have liability.

I would tend to agree; although anyone with a name like satan666  was probably going too fast 

AdrianC

Car_54 said:

The_Rainmaker said:

Back in the day cars coming down a hill were meant to give way to traffic coming up the hill.  Now that statement could because of old cars and poor brakes/clutches etc.  and have no legal bearing.

It's still in the HC - Rule 155.

Yup. And still carries just as much legal weight as it ever did... Precisely zero.

Rule 155
Single-track roads. These are only wide enough for one vehicle. They may have special passing places. If you see a vehicle coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your right. Give way to road users coming uphill whenever you can. If necessary, reverse until you reach a passing place to let the other vehicle pass. Slow down when passing pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Car_54

AdrianC said:

Car_54 said:

The_Rainmaker said:

Back in the day cars coming down a hill were meant to give way to traffic coming up the hill.  Now that statement could because of old cars and poor brakes/clutches etc.  and have no legal bearing.

It's still in the HC - Rule 155.

Yup. And still carries just as much legal weight as it ever did... Precisely zero.

Rule 155
Single-track roads. These are only wide enough for one vehicle. They may have special passing places. If you see a vehicle coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your right. Give way to road users coming uphill whenever you can. If necessary, reverse until you reach a passing place to let the other vehicle pass. Slow down when passing pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Considerably more than zero. The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 38(7) is clear: "A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

AdrianC

As you say - it shall not render that person liable.

And that rule is about who reverses to the passing place... If both cars stop, and both drivers choose to glower at each other for an hour, each refusing to cede priority, there is no impact to discuss liability for. The impact happens when one or both drivers refuses (or is going too fast to be able) to even stop...

[Deleted User]

It looks like the person pulling out of the side road took a cue from a driver in the right hand lane leaving them a space and possibly waving/flashing them through, without bothering to check if you were doing likewise. It's a pretty common mistake.

Anyway it's entirely their fault. Joining a road you have to make sure it's clear, within reasonable bounds such as other cars not speeding etc.

The issue may be proving it. You are in a strong position because they are the one changing from one road to another and crossing a lane, while you were driving straight down the lane you were in and not intending to intersect the path of anyone else. Dashcam is a good idea for stuff like this.

Car_54

[DELETED USER] said:

It looks like the person pulling out of the side road took a cue from a driver in the right hand lane leaving them a space and possibly waving/flashing them through, without bothering to check if you were doing likewise. It's a pretty common mistake.

Anyway it's entirely their fault. Joining a road you have to make sure it's clear, within reasonable bounds such as other cars not speeding etc.

The law makes no reference to "reasonable bounds", or to speeding.

BTW you seem to responding to the original post, which was answered six months ago. The thread has been hijcked recently by a poster with an entirely different question