Car crash-who is at fault, Dash cam footage |
Car crash-who is at fault, Dash cam footage |
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 23:04
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Hi guys,
Dash cam footage has come regarding a collision between 2 cars-who is at fault? NB car on the left was signalling to turn left, and the bus lane was not in operation. Ok, I can't seem to upload the video onto tinypic how do i upload videos? https://youtu.be/WjR43UcX0f8 This post has been edited by Zazaa: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:02 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 23:04
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 12:16
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
What we have here is another demonstration that collisions between moving vehicles are rarely 100% the fault of one driver
Vaguely recall a statement years ago about the Roadcraft system, possibly even by its author : If you have an accident while in motion, it's your fault If you're stationary, it might not be |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 15:27
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What we have here is another demonstration that collisions between moving vehicles are rarely 100% the fault of one driver Vaguely recall a statement years ago about the Roadcraft system, possibly even by its author : If you have an accident while in motion, it's your fault If you're stationary, it might not be That's complete BS. While I always try and have a viable "escape route" just in case someone does something stupid like cross into my path (especially on motorways), there are circumstances where someone could drive into you with no warning and you wouldn't have any chance to do anything about it, even if your reaction time were zero. The simple reason is there are limits to how quickly your vehicle can carrying out any evasive action, whether it be slowing, stopping, accelerating or changing direction. I don't think either of these people could be said to be at fault, even though they were moving: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ho...runaway-5504773 https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/688673...-car-windscreen -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:17
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
.........That's complete BS...……. I think it was/is meant as an illustrative saying rather then a definitive. Same as treat all other drivers as idiots and you will not be disappointed. Or that any accident from behind is the following driver's fault. Tis easy to bandy about "right of way" and rules of the road but end of the day, if a driver takes little notice of others and simply regards their steel bubble as a safe zone while relying on others to give way, they are going to be disappointed. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:21
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I was always taught, 'signal, manoeuvre, mirror'.
Er... |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:29
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
.........That's complete BS...……. I think it was/is meant as an illustrative saying rather then a definitive. Same as treat all other drivers as idiots and you will not be disappointed. Or that any accident from behind is the following driver's fault. Tis easy to bandy about "right of way" and rules of the road but end of the day, if a driver takes little notice of others and simply regards their steel bubble as a safe zone while relying on others to give way, they are going to be disappointed. +1 courtesy, consideration and common sense seem to be missing from a drivers skill set these days -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:32
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
But fault in road traffic accidents is determines by negligence, not courtesy or common sense. Of course if we want to talk about how people should drive in an ideal world, rather than what conduct makes a driver negligent in the legal sense, that's a valid but entirely separate discussion.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:39
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
But fault in road traffic accidents is determines by negligence, not courtesy or common sense. Of course if we want to talk about how people should drive in an ideal world, rather than what conduct makes a driver negligent in the legal sense, that's a valid but entirely separate discussion. I would suggest that any one or all of the 3 if applied by either driver would have prevented the accident in this thread, and the lack of application by either lays a degree of negligence to be determined and applied to both -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 17:02
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
+1 courtesy, consideration and common sense seem to be missing from a drivers skill set these days
I don't mind common sense and consideration but would rather have predictable than courtesy |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 17:52
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
+1 courtesy, consideration and common sense seem to be missing from a drivers skill set these days I don't mind common sense and consideration but would rather have predictable than courtesy But one can proactively exhibit courtesy (and common sense and consideration). How do you manifest predictablility? It is the other road users who have to act to predict the actions of a total stranger. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:04
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
But fault in road traffic accidents is determines by negligence, not courtesy or common sense. Of course if we want to talk about how people should drive in an ideal world, rather than what conduct makes a driver negligent in the legal sense, that's a valid but entirely separate discussion. I would suggest that any one or all of the 3 if applied by either driver would have prevented the accident in this thread, and the lack of application by either lays a degree of negligence to be determined and applied to both Maybe so. But in the legal sense, if I drive without courtesy and common sense, but I am not negligent, then I am not at fault for any resulting accidents. I took the OP's question to mean "who is legally at fault" rather than "who holds the moral high ground". -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:28
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
But fault in road traffic accidents is determines by negligence, not courtesy or common sense. Of course if we want to talk about how people should drive in an ideal world, rather than what conduct makes a driver negligent in the legal sense, that's a valid but entirely separate discussion. I would suggest that any one or all of the 3 if applied by either driver would have prevented the accident in this thread, and the lack of application by either lays a degree of negligence to be determined and applied to both Maybe so. But in the legal sense, if I drive without courtesy and common sense, but I am not negligent, then I am not at fault for any resulting accidents. I took the OP's question to mean "who is legally at fault" rather than "who holds the moral high ground". To me, someone who sees a vehicle ahead, that is braking and indicating to change lane is being negligent if they do not anticipate a lane change that may give rise to a loud bang. And totally negligent if, given the pre-warning in the dashcam footage, they do not slam on anchors the moment the vehicle ahead started to actually change lanes. Even given the actions of the driver ahead, this accident was totally predictable and avoidable. By the driver of the dashcam car. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:38
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
But fault in road traffic accidents is determines by negligence, not courtesy or common sense. Of course if we want to talk about how people should drive in an ideal world, rather than what conduct makes a driver negligent in the legal sense, that's a valid but entirely separate discussion. I would suggest that any one or all of the 3 if applied by either driver would have prevented the accident in this thread, and the lack of application by either lays a degree of negligence to be determined and applied to both Maybe so. But in the legal sense, if I drive without courtesy and common sense, but I am not negligent, then I am not at fault for any resulting accidents. I took the OP's question to mean "who is legally at fault" rather than "who holds the moral high ground". "mitigating loss" if the driver of the dash cam car could have taken action to avoid the accident but did not, he carries a degree of fault, even in a legal sense. someone at the respective insurance companies is going to apportion this fault. To me a better answer to their question than you did nothing wrong, carry on in that manner regardless. That the other driver did not stop might load the fault towards them, maybe even 100% but IMO it is reckless to give someone the impression they can drive into an accident with a bubble of blamelessness around them -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:52
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Mitigating loss and contributory negligence are different things. Anyway, I highly doubt it is worth paying someone to apportion anything, the staff time taken would exceed the cost of just paying out.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 19:57
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 11 May 2014 From: Scotland. Member No.: 70,553 |
To me, someone who sees a vehicle ahead, that is braking and indicating to change lane is being negligent if they do not anticipate a lane change that may give rise to a loud bang. And totally negligent if, given the pre-warning in the dashcam footage, they do not slam on anchors the moment the vehicle ahead started to actually change lanes. Even given the actions of the driver ahead, this accident was totally predictable and avoidable. By the driver of the dashcam car. Is it negligent for the camera car not to predict the driver in the right hand side lane will drive into the side of them? The car in the right moved slightly then stopped, then moved again as the camera car was passing. If i was the camera car i would have assumed the other car had stopped due to seeing me and would only move into the lane when it is safe to do so. Dashcams and forums prove for certain that that most accidents can be prevented with hindsight however if you go out driving about like every pedestrian could step onto the road at any time, or ever car could potentially drive into the side of you you're probably going to end up causing more accidents than you'll avoid. -------------------- Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you, but not in one ahead. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 20:09
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
A thought that occurs
Dashcams typically have a field of view about 140 degrees This is almost like a fisheye lens on a still camera It means that : 1 the car that changed lanes was much closer than it appears 2 the dashcam driver was travelling more slowly than it appears 3 the car that changed lanes was probably in the dashcam driver's peripheral vision not almost straight ahead We might be treating him a bit harshly when we assume how he should have reacted |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 20:55
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
To me, someone who sees a vehicle ahead, that is braking and indicating to change lane is being negligent if they do not anticipate a lane change that may give rise to a loud bang. And totally negligent if, given the pre-warning in the dashcam footage, they do not slam on anchors the moment the vehicle ahead started to actually change lanes. Even given the actions of the driver ahead, this accident was totally predictable and avoidable. By the driver of the dashcam car. Is it negligent for the camera car not to predict the driver in the right hand side lane will drive into the side of them? The car in the right moved slightly then stopped, then moved again as the camera car was passing. If i was the camera car i would have assumed the other car had stopped due to seeing me and would only move into the lane when it is safe to do so. Quite, even more so if you've sounded the horn, as the OP indicated. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 22:05
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,067 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, what is the purpose of your question?
Does your insurance policy require you to report any RTC is which you're involved? If so, then your insurer in conjunction with other parties will determine the matter. Or do you/may you pursue the other driver separately and independently through the courts? Perhaps you have legal cover with your insurance? If the former, then what is the purpose of our diverse opinions? Presumably you have reported the facts to your insurer. Not your conclusions or view as to liability, just the facts. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:27
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
To me, someone who sees a vehicle ahead, that is braking and indicating to change lane is being negligent if they do not anticipate a lane change that may give rise to a loud bang. And totally negligent if, given the pre-warning in the dashcam footage, they do not slam on anchors the moment the vehicle ahead started to actually change lanes. Even given the actions of the driver ahead, this accident was totally predictable and avoidable. By the driver of the dashcam car. Is it negligent for the camera car not to predict the driver in the right hand side lane will drive into the side of them? The car in the right moved slightly then stopped, then moved again as the camera car was passing. If i was the camera car i would have assumed the other car had stopped due to seeing me and would only move into the lane when it is safe to do so. Quite, even more so if you've sounded the horn, as the OP indicated. I've always been of the opinion that if you have time to react and blow the horn, you had time to react and hit the brakes. I know which one I prefer to rely on in the sort of incident shown here. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:43
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I've always been of the opinion that if you have time to react and blow the horn, you had time to react and hit the brakes. I know which one I prefer to rely on in the sort of incident shown here. If I use the horn, and the vehicle that would have otherwise collided with me stops, that is an indication that the horn has had the desired effect. Is it then reasonably foreseeable that the vehicle will start moving again and hit me? IMO no, as no reasonable person who hears a horn and stops as a result is going to start moving again without checking that it is safe to do so and the vehicle that sounded its horn is no longer posing a danger. Clearly the vehicle on the right *might* have started moving again, but that was not a reasonably foreseeable event so there is no negligence on the part of the OP. You are required to drive in a manner which will not cause a reasonably foreseeable loss to other roads users, you are not required to drive assuming that everything that might go wrong will go wrong (I agree with the comment above, if you did that you'd cause more accidents than you'd avoid). This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:45 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 00:12
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I've always been of the opinion that if you have time to react and blow the horn, you had time to react and hit the brakes. I know which one I prefer to rely on in the sort of incident shown here. If I use the horn, and the vehicle that would have otherwise collided with me stops, that is an indication that the horn has had the desired effect. Is it then reasonably foreseeable that the vehicle will start moving again and hit me? IMO no, as no reasonable person who hears a horn and stops as a result is going to start moving again without checking that it is safe to do so and the vehicle that sounded its horn is no longer posing a danger. Clearly the vehicle on the right *might* have started moving again, but that was not a reasonably foreseeable event so there is no negligence on the part of the OP. You are required to drive in a manner which will not cause a reasonably foreseeable loss to other roads users, you are not required to drive assuming that everything that might go wrong will go wrong (I agree with the comment above, if you did that you'd cause more accidents than you'd avoid). The horn is not like "shields up" on the Starship Enterprise, there is no measure of protection from it whatsoever. If I brake or at least prepare to brake when the vehicle ahead indicates the intention to move into my lane, the bu55er misses me. If on the other hand, I put myself into a dubious position by undertaking, ignore that traffic in the outside lane is braking, continue undertaking despite the vehicle ahead indicating their intention for some 4-5 seconds and take no avoiding action when they do change lane, all of which can be seen in the dashcam, I would be blaming myself as well as the other driver. Don't get me wrong, a significant portion of the blame must fall on the driver who changed lanes. But it does not make the dashcam driver blame free. Simple question, why did they not brake or seemingly slow down when the car ahead indicated? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:41 |