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! |
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 13:55
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I am going to disagree. It annoys me that people don't read the signs and use the BL when it is not in operation, but if you are going to do so thus undertaking a row of traffic you have to be extra vigilant. The signal that the car wanted to pull over was in plenty of time and you should have seen it with enough time to avoid a collision, and you have a responsibility to do so if possible. I can see a 70/30 or 60/40 claim Signalling doesn't give priority, while I agree it is prudent to slow down there is no requirement on the driver in the left hand lane to give way. I've passed plenty of cars in such circumstances though with a hand on the horn. I scares me the number of people who say I'm allowed to go so I'm going and be dammed with the consequences. If a child stepped out from the pavement, would you try to stop? Brakes will prevent an accident the horn will only tell an idiot one is coming -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:00
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I scares me the number of people who say I'm allowed to go so I'm going and be dammed with the consequences. If a child stepped out from the pavement, would you try to stop? Brakes will prevent an accident the horn will only tell an idiot one is coming Sometimes I might let them in. Sometimes I might use the horn before reaching the rear of the vehicle on the right, and make sure the vehicle has stopped / knows I'm coming through before proceeding. I'm not going to start giving way to every vehicle that signals to move into my lane, if you drove like that around London you'd never get anywhere. Zazaa might have not been driving defensively, but you can't reasonably argue they were driving negligently. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:10
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
I am going to disagree. It annoys me that people don't read the signs and use the BL when it is not in operation, but if you are going to do so thus undertaking a row of traffic you have to be extra vigilant. The signal that the car wanted to pull over was in plenty of time and you should have seen it with enough time to avoid a collision, and you have a responsibility to do so if possible. I can see a 70/30 or 60/40 claim Signalling doesn't give priority, while I agree it is prudent to slow down there is no requirement on the driver in the left hand lane to give way. I've passed plenty of cars in such circumstances though with a hand on the horn. I scares me the number of people who say I'm allowed to go so I'm going and be dammed with the consequences. If a child stepped out from the pavement, would you try to stop? Brakes will prevent an accident the horn will only tell an idiot one is coming Isn't that precisely what driver on the right did though? Signal and then move out, without waiting for an indication/it to be safe to move/change lanes either by seeing the car on the left driving (and the speed isn't SO fast/faster than when in the right lane earlier- notice that the speed remains constant when driving in the right lane and then changing to the left lane/ what is arguable the "undertaking" lane earlier in the clip i.e. driver doesn't then start speeding when in the left lane, which is what often happens and is definitely negligent and inconsiderate driving), or getting flash signals to go ahead? Video does not show any sign that driver on the left flashed them to move to the left lane, not that flashing is the ultimate way to go. This post has been edited by Zazaa: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:13 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:10
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:11
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Essentially this comes down to experience and skill. I've only had one accident* in many years of driving (including umpteen nipping up bus lanes and inside traffic queues). You just know when another driver has not seen you.
*My one accident was when an oncoming driver crossed over to my lane and I had to swerve, and I hit the kerb and broke both nearside wheels (but missed the idiot). |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 14:44
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Signalling doesn't give priority If the OP was overtaking in the outside lane and a driver in the inside lane wanted to change lanes, then you would be correct that merely warning other drivers that you were going to do so does not afford you any kind of priority. However, the vehicle being undertaken was in the outside lane and therefore had priority to 'return' to the inside lane. However, neither driver's actions are justified by the other driver also being an idiot. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 15:18
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I agree with AF, negligent lane change and a driver who doesn’t appear to want to give way to the inevitable (from the video), that doesn’t mean how liability will be apportioned, but blame, close to 50/50.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 16:47
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
From my immediate view of that the car with the dashcam is mostly at fault. The bus lane is not restricted at this time but he's using it to undertake at speed and can see the car indicating to turn left and yet proceeds to undertake it anyway.
Slight fault of the car that moves across not looking but the car clearly should not be undertaking that way. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 17:00
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
I'd put it at 60:40 with the lane change driver at fault
The dashcam driver isn't blameless because he had time to react Not convinced by the undertaking issue For some reason many drivers seem reluctant to use out-of-hours bus lanes and prefer to stay in a slow moving outside lane My understanding is that it's perfectly OK to undertake in traffic when the outside lane is moving more slowly |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 17:12
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
However, the vehicle being undertaken was in the outside lane and therefore had priority to 'return' to the inside lane. Really? I've never heard of this "priority to move to the left" rule. And even if there were such a rule, the driver on the right is still negligent for not looking where she was going. As I said, there could have been a cyclist or a pedestrian. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 17:17
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Failing to provide details of insurance to any person who has reasonable grounds for asking for such details is an offence According to...? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 17:18
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
However, the vehicle being undertaken was in the outside lane and therefore had priority to 'return' to the inside lane. Really? I've never heard of this "priority to move to the left" rule. And even if there were such a rule, the driver on the right is still negligent for not looking where she was going. As I said, there could have been a cyclist or a pedestrian. Or a bus. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 17:18
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
From my immediate view of that the car with the dashcam is mostly at fault. The bus lane is not restricted at this time but he's using it to undertake at speed and can see the car indicating to turn left and yet proceeds to undertake it anyway. Slight fault of the car that moves across not looking but the car clearly should not be undertaking that way. The car on the left was entitled to drive forward in that lane, unless you want to suggest that when there's a lane of queuing traffic on the right, you have to sit behind the back of the queue even if your lane on the left is free. This would make it impossible to proceed straight ahead on a road where there's a turn right lane, as you wouldn't be able to undertake any of the traffic in the turn right lane. It might also amount to an offence of obstructing the highway. I'm not sure he was undertaking at speed, seemed to be travelling at the normal pace of traffic on that road. There is no need to give way to traffic signalling left, personally I might have wanted to ensure the driver had seen me before proceeding, but as I said at most that can amount to contributory negligence. We can debate whether it's 60/40 or 20/80 or somewhere in between, but fault primarily lies with the driver who moved her vehicle without looking. Think of it this way, if she'd hit a cyclist and cracked his head open, would you say it's primarily the cyclist's fault for cycling in the left hand lane? This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 10:33 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 17:35
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Failing to provide details of insurance to any person who has reasonable grounds for asking for such details is an offence According to...? I should have qualified that you must make a claim for the obligation to apply, but it's s154 RTA. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 18:46
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
From my immediate view of that the car with the dashcam is mostly at fault. The bus lane is not restricted at this time but he's using it to undertake at speed and can see the car indicating to turn left and yet proceeds to undertake it anyway. Slight fault of the car that moves across not looking but the car clearly should not be undertaking that way. The car on the left was entitled to drive forward in that lane, unless you want to suggest that when there's a lane of queuing traffic on the right, you have to sit behind the back of the queue even if your lane on the left is free. This would make it impossible to proceed straight ahead on a road where there's a turn right lane, as you wouldn't be able to undertake any of the traffic in the turn right lane. It might also amount to an offence of obstructing the highway. Nobody is suggesting that you cannot pass slower moving traffic on the left, if it is done safely. What is clearly being suggested is that it is not on to undertake traffic which is indicating an intention to 'return' to the inside lane. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 21:18
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
From my immediate view of that the car with the dashcam is mostly at fault. The bus lane is not restricted at this time but he's using it to undertake at speed and can see the car indicating to turn left and yet proceeds to undertake it anyway. Slight fault of the car that moves across not looking but the car clearly should not be undertaking that way. The car on the left was entitled to drive forward in that lane, unless you want to suggest that when there's a lane of queuing traffic on the right, you have to sit behind the back of the queue even if your lane on the left is free. This would make it impossible to proceed straight ahead on a road where there's a turn right lane, as you wouldn't be able to undertake any of the traffic in the turn right lane. It might also amount to an offence of obstructing the highway. Nobody is suggesting that you cannot pass slower moving traffic on the left, if it is done safely. What is clearly being suggested is that it is not on to undertake traffic which is indicating an intention to 'return' to the inside lane. But the driver never was "returning." the driver was never in that lane to begin with. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 00:29
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,570 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
From my immediate view of that the car with the dashcam is mostly at fault. The bus lane is not restricted at this time but he's using it to undertake at speed and can see the car indicating to turn left and yet proceeds to undertake it anyway. Slight fault of the car that moves across not looking but the car clearly should not be undertaking that way. The car on the left was entitled to drive forward in that lane, unless you want to suggest that when there's a lane of queuing traffic on the right, you have to sit behind the back of the queue even if your lane on the left is free. This would make it impossible to proceed straight ahead on a road where there's a turn right lane, as you wouldn't be able to undertake any of the traffic in the turn right lane. It might also amount to an offence of obstructing the highway. Nobody is suggesting that you cannot pass slower moving traffic on the left, if it is done safely. What is clearly being suggested is that it is not on to undertake traffic which is indicating an intention to 'return' to the inside lane. But the driver never was "returning." the driver was never in that lane to begin with. +1 Looking at all the various posts but especially the one from Zazaa indicates to me not only is the driver on the right the one who caused the collision but that she is totally dishonest and probably not told her insurers assuming she was insured which I'll bet she wasn't. The Police: totally useless as far as they're concerned with motorists they're only interested in nicking them for a couple of miles over the speed limit. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 10:37
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Nobody is suggesting that you cannot pass slower moving traffic on the left, if it is done safely. What is clearly being suggested is that it is not on to undertake traffic which is indicating an intention to 'return' to the inside lane. My understanding has always been that a vehicle signalling to change lane has no "right" to move into the intended lane: the driver wishing to change lane is meant to check her mirror, signal, and only manoeuvre when it is safe to do so. Whether it's a vehicle moving to a lane on its left or on its right has no bearing on this. Going back to the topic of negligence, the driver of the vehicle on the right was clearly negligent and she turned into the path of moving traffic, without looking. More importantly, she had not started to move at the point where the OP had started to pass her, so there was no opportunity to stop in order to prevent the collision. The horn was used, any a difference in speed of 5 mph might have simply meant it was a different part of the vehicle that was struck. So while there might be *some* contributory negligence, which is debatable and unlikely to be worth having a trial over, the majority if not all of the fault lies with the driver of the car on the right. My advice to Zazaa is find out from askmid which insurance company covers the vehicle and file a claim against them, if it's a damage only RTC with video evidence, chances are they'll just make an offer to settle as the amount involved won't be worth fighting over. I would also report the collision through the Met website, you never know they may well offer her a driver improvement course. This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 10:44 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 10:41
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I'm another who would split responsibility here.
Driver changing lanes without checking (or not enough or trying to bull in) obviously carries some blame. But the car undertaking seems to totally ignore warning signs and carries on regardless. There seemed plenty of time from brakes and indicator being seen to brake and avoid the twassock. Doesn't even seem to brake once the vehicle started moving across. Well below the level of competence that I believe should exist, especially when carrying out a potentially dangerous manoeuvre like undertaking. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 10:37
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 11 May 2014 From: Scotland. Member No.: 70,553 |
The good news is regardless of how we determine blame on here i'm quite confident that the third party's insurance company will pay out on this one fully in your favour.
-------------------- Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you, but not in one ahead. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:17 |