Waved out at junction... who is at fault.

Car_54

[DELETED USER] said:

Car_54 said:

[DELETED USER] said:

The bus driver is at least partly liable as he signalled it was okay to go, but the problem will be proving it.

Let us know if you can find any legislation or case law to support that view.

Don't you know the Highway Code?

Rule 110 states: “Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.”

The general principal is that you should not be telling other drivers it is safe to proceed, they must make that determination themselves. Waving is basically the same thing as flashing your lights to signal them to go.

I've heard of cases where waving someone through and causing an accident has resulted in insurance claims.

I know what the HC says. What I asked for was "legislation or case law".

Still waiting.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC said:

Deleted_User said:

And this here is the perfect example of why you never wave someone out and why you never trust them waving you out (particularly a lorry or bus that you can't see through). Road is a 40mph limit in case anyone wonders - A92 in Dundee

It's a perfect example of a DCW failing to take the SLIGHTEST account of the conditions and what's blindingly obviously about to happen...

Here we are, driving along the road... and there's a sign warning of roadworks ahead. 31mph, 12.26.18



Look at that... You can SEE the truck stopping, and stationary traffic ahead. You can even see the car waiting to emerge from the junction. 12.26.28 - 10 sec after the roadworks sign - yet he's gained nearly 10mph, from 31 to 40.

Let's zoom in a bit on where his attention really should be right now.

...except it clearly isn't, is it?


Two seconds later, 12.26.30 - and he's actually gained 2mph as he's almost alongside the stationary truck, with a clearly visible big gap to the stationary traffic ahead. Surely he saw that side road? What could possibly have caused the truck to stop that far short...?


Oh. That was a surprise, wasn't it, children? No, not really. No sign of any braking. The GPS speedo lags slightly behind (seems to recalculate speed display every second), but...

Hands up if you're surprised that DCW Jamie is was driving a modified hot-hatch...? I do hope he declared that front-mount intercooler (lowered suspension, aftermarket alloys?) to the insurer...


...and the more you watch on, just about every single clip is a litany of lack of awareness at best, or deliberate attempts to manufacture a situation. I bet they were all pointing at the camera and mouthing "DASH CAM YOU MUPPET!"...

While I agree there is a degree of failure to anticipate, the lorry is slowing for several seconds approaching stationary traffic - logical to assume he was slowing for the traffic not to wave someone out.

Yes you have watched the clip 10 times in 0.25x speed and have the benefit of hindsight but using screen grabs of something that is in reality visible for less than half a second is ludicrous (watch it again, the timer is already on 0:39 when the van goes up the road and reveals the car, it's hidden by the sign/lorry as it ticks to 0:40). Let's zoom in??? Sorry, forgot humans have telephoto eyes don't we? In real time it would be easy to miss if something caught your eye or you blinked or whatever and you would hardly expect a car to pull out so far into a lane SHE CAN'T SEE INTO to cause that collision. At 0:43 she should have stopped to check the second lane was clear, not just pull into the lane without looking - she actually is looking left, then turns her head right only after she pulls into his lane so didn't even check it was safe. Also he does brake, you can see the car dip and the rumble of the ABS so...

As for the mods, why would anyone assume, without any evidence, nothing is declared? Irrelevant anyway, she will be found at fault for pulling in front of him

[Deleted User]

AdrianC said:

ontheroad1970 said:

It always amuses me in these videos that although the dash cam driver can see the hazard they speed up towards it.  At around 3 mins in that video, if the dash cam driver is surprised by that car pulling out, he'd be amazed that Monday follows Sunday.  And then there's the Morgan driver where nothing actually happens...

That's no Morgan. Some kind of kitcar. As for the penultimate clip, 8m40 on... Wouldn't you just love to see the preceding minute or so of footage to find out what the BMW driver was so annoyed at the DCW for?

Per normal for BMW drivers, felt he was entitled to speed up and undertake to jump the queue, dash cam car likely beeped at him. The sort of doddery old idiot who opens his door while moving to flip the bird, which driving a convertible says it all - should be handing in his licence for lack of brain power

AdrianC

Deleted_User said:

While I agree there is a degree of failure to anticipate, the lorry is slowing for several seconds approaching stationary traffic - logical to assume he was slowing for the traffic not to wave someone out.

Perhaps you missed the great big empty gap between the stationary truck and the clearly visible line of traffic ahead?

Yes you have watched the clip 10 times in 0.25x speed and have the benefit of hindsight but using screen grabs of something that is in reality visible for less than half a second is ludicrous (watch it again, the timer is already on 0:39 when the van goes up the road and reveals the car, it's hidden by the sign/lorry as it ticks to 0:40).

Perhaps you should look again at the timestamps.

Four seconds - 12.26.28 to 12.26.32 - between seeing the car up the inside of the truck and hitting it.

Not only did he not slow, even though the truck was braking for the signed roadworks, but he gained 10mph between the roadwork sign and impact.

Let's zoom in???

I don't know about you, but my windscreen is considerably bigger than my screen.

Also he does brake, you can see the car dip and the rumble of the ABS so...

Nope, you most certainly cannot.

And, remember, that onscreen GPS speedo? You can see it's updated every second. Post-impact it drops from the 42 it's been since he started to pull alongside the trailer to 41, then 25, then 0.

As for the mods, why would anyone assume, without any evidence, nothing is declared?

I made no assumptions. I merely expressed my hope that you he had declared them, to save any embarrassing issues arising during the claim.

Irrelevant anyway, she will be found at fault for pulling in front of him

I admire your optimism. If the insurers see that video, liability is very likely to be shared.

Any guesses at distance to impact?

I'd hazard a guess at 20m, minimum.
Stopping distance from 40mph is 12m thinking plus 24m braking, remember?
But it's only 9m + 14m from 30mph. And those braking distances haven't been updated since the 1960s.

I'd have said that was perfectly easily avoidable, with just the barest modicum of common sense and observation. Wouldn't you?

Please note - I am in no way excusing the actions of the driver of the SUV. They dropped a furry one, and they assumed that there was nothing coming hooning up the outside of the stationary wagon oblivious. Oops. They were wrong.

Oh, and if you want any more indication of the mindset of the DCW, then just go back to the very start of the clip, where the Golf moves to L2 to turn right...

and, three seconds after it's clear what the Golf is doing, despite making precisely zero effort to mitigate the situation, the DCW hoots at him...

ontheroad1970

[DELETED USER] said:

Car_54 said:

[DELETED USER] said:

The bus driver is at least partly liable as he signalled it was okay to go, but the problem will be proving it.

Let us know if you can find any legislation or case law to support that view.

Don't you know the Highway Code?

Rule 110 states: “Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.”

The general principal is that you should not be telling other drivers it is safe to proceed, they must make that determination themselves. Waving is basically the same thing as flashing your lights to signal them to go.

I've heard of cases where waving someone through and causing an accident has resulted in insurance claims.

I'm sure the HC says somewhere that if you are pulling out you should check if it is clear to do so.  The responsibility is on the driver of the car making the manoeuvre to check that his manoeuvre is safe and clear.  The driver alone makes the decision whether to trust the person flashing or waving them through.

Indeed you shouldn't flash anyone through, but as a driver YOU have to make that decision for yourself.  

smitchy73

Yeah this happened to me, but I was in the car that was scraped....at 40 off mph.  A car coming in the opposite direction to me and waiting to turn right into a junction, flashed a car sitting waiting to come out of the junction, however, that car didn't check his right(ie me), the other car couldn't see me coming either due to gradient/hidden dip so thought it was clear, the other guy pulled out and I hit him at 40 odd, front wing of the car was obliterated and tyre was hanging off the wheel...whiplash etc for myself, over £6k of damage to the car and I needed physio for 6 weeks, wasn't nice.  Now I don't let anyone out and i'm alot more cautious on the approach to junction's.

clive0510

I used to drive hgv and psv as it used to be called, when I was younger. it is easier when turning right at a junction,when you have a large vecihle, to let any one coming out go first. I have done the same thing many times, but fortunately never come a cropper.

clive0510

at the end the day, I'm afraid its your fault.