PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Car crash-who is at fault, Dash cam footage
Zazaa
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 23:04
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 15:27
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 12:16) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post 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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 15:27) *
.........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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post 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...



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:29
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:17) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 15:27) *
.........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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:39
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 17:52
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 17:02) *
+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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:04
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:39) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post 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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:39) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:38
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:39) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:32) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mat_Shamus
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 19:57
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 11 May 2014
From: Scotland.
Member No.: 70,553



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:28) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post 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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 20:55
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 19:57) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:28) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post 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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 20:55) *
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 19:57) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:28) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:43
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:27) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post 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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:43) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:27) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:41
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here