Safe Speed Forums

Wonder if anyone can help.

I was driving along slowly when the other person was well on my side of the road overtaking a (stationary) long vehicle. Although I attempted to avoid the other car I was unable to do so.

Surely liability is 100% the fault of the other driver?

The other driver is claiming that this is my fault (or partly so) because they had started the overtaking manoeuvre of the stationary vehicle) and I should have waited! (Apart from the fact that this isn't true!) surely the other vehicle needs to ensure that they can complete this overtaking manoeuvre given that they were so far on my side of the road?

Any views on liability appreciated! Isn't this cut and dry? Thanks.

Tx

Pass it to your insurance company with a full and honest account of the events as you witnessed them; I am sure they will secure an equitable outcome for you, based on the circumstances you've described.

I can just picture this...

OP saying to himself: "it's my side of the road"

Other chap saying to himself: "I got here first"

And neither of you taking the steps necessary to avoid a crash. You're both relying on the other chap sorting it out.

And the lesson is: Not crashing is ALWAYS far more important than being in the right.

I'm guessing the the insurance will settle 50/50, and I reckon you deserve it.

On the other hand, and I'm deadly serious about this, perhaps we should blame government instead for not effectively communicating the basic principles of safe driving.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

If you were driving along slowly, then you surely should have had enough time to a) anticipate his manoevre and b) adjust your speed / position in such a way as avoid conflict.

_________________
Simon

Hey guys... be nice!

Even at 25mph it's not always possible to avoid a vehicle that comes onto your side of the road no matter how much you anticipate!

I was just looking for a view as to whether the "I got here first" argument (even though it isn't true!) stood any chance given the fact that he was very far over on my side of the road. Or whether they are just putting it on...?

Sorry... Look - we have to tell it like it is.

We don't 'own' roadspace to the extent that we're allowed to smash into anyone who happens to encroach on it. The basic responsibility is always to 'stay safe'.

I bet that over a second or two you missed the opportunity to slow and make the situation safe because you believed the other guy should give way to you. It's a common mistake fostered by policy. Millions do it daily - but that doesn't make it right.

Just to be 100% clear - this isn't intended unkindly. Quite the opposite, actually. It'd be easy to say it's the other guy's fault. But would that really help you?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But that is not what galanidt is asking.

Highway Code says (I know it isn't 'the law'....)

Rule 162 Before overtaking you should make sure...
...the road is sufficiently clear ahead

Rule 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should...
...give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road.

If the advice in the Highway Code had been followed and galanidt is correct in their discription of what happened I think liability is 100% the 'fault' of the other driver.

I think it would.

Has anyone asked whether the two vehicles could have passed safely if the other driver had not pulled over so far?

I use a narrow lane near my work where there are only a few palces to park, and am constantly annoyed when oncoming drivers refuse to drive close to the wall, and instead clash mirrors - even when I am stationary just an couple of inches from the wall on MY side.

OP, you need to measure the gap, and the width of the two vehicles, and assess whether the oncoming driver drove recklessly in that he failed to pass closer to the obstruction.

ALWAYS carry a camera in your car to photograph the scene after such an incident!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

My advise based on 2 recent accidents that where clearly not my fault is that if they can they will settle 50:50 especially if you use the insurances lawyers.
so my advise would be speak to Anniesdad (do a search for his username)

Hmmm, I do wonder how much of modern road safety failings can simply be heaped onto the shoulders of the governement in this way. How much boils down simply to the fact that there are a lot of impatient, ignorant jerks out there who will try and throw their weight around (metaphorically speaking) regardless of any road safety messages the government may transmit?

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I think we can fairly hold government responsible for a substantial rise in the numbers of ignorant jerks. I'd see it as the responsibility of 'policy' to work with the available raw material (i.e. all the people in the system) to the best possible effect. They are clearly failing in that duty.

Of course that doesn't absolve said ignorant jerks of their own duties.

[Clarification: I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT intend to imply that the OP is an ignorant jerk.]

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It could be argued that the presence of a parked vehicle simply reduces the width of the road, and that no 'overtaking' is involved. I think this is an argument that would be won in a civil court making the blame 50/50.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Highway Code Rule 163 - Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should...

...give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road.

HTH

Nor me

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Firstly, Welcome to Galanidt - and sorry for not responding sooner.

Secondly, several different thoughts here. Galanidt has asked "whose fault". Paul has answered "lessons learned" (don't put being right above safe) and his best guess from the insurance company (50/50) - and added, unnecessarily IMHO "and you deserve it" or similar. Some members, including the OP, took that last comment as a snipe. It could IMHO have been worded better, but it was simply Paul's direct affirmation that he believed 50/50 to be a fair result.

Icandoit has suggested a direct answer to the "who was to blame" question (inferred without the "what could I/he have done better/do better in a rerun" answer). There I disagree. This forum is about improving road safety and driving quality. Simply answering "who's fault" doesn't address that at all. Yes we can all offer an opinion of blame (I happen to be with Paul here that the blame is split. Assuming (and it is not certain from the posts) that the other party would have had time to pull up behind the obstruction having seen the oncoming car (he may have chosen to boot it rather than get so close to it as to not be able to see around it), either could have seen the other party's dilemma in ample time from the description and therefore prevented the accident by either braking a bit harder, breathing in, reversing, or a combination of all three). Neither party managed to do sufficient.

It may not be 50/50, but in insurance terms, as I understand things, unless it goes to an inquest (where the losing party also has to pay costs, so is not something to do lightly) there are three outcomes -

1. Party A is culpable and pays party B as culpable (and his own too, but only if comprehensive)
2. Vice versa,
3. Knock-for-knock (both comp insurances, both lose no-claims).

The "big picture" message from this is that being safe is (almost*) always better than being right.

The macro picture, putting myself in the OP's position here, is that, approaching a hazard, realising there is another driver who has made a mistake and showing no signs of correcting it, do the thing that avoids any accident at minimal risk to yourself. In this case it may have been to chink left and brake hard - or may have even been to go over the opposite side of the road and pull in in front of the broken-down vehicle (if there was evidence/indication that, for whatever reason, the other driver was incapable of/incapacitated from manouevering around the slalom and you could do so safely. It may have been "off road" to the left. If any of these posed risk (rear end shunt, significant underside damage etc) then injury/ damage limitation is the order. That probably in this case means braking hard to minimise impact speed, and may have meant taking the opposition to MAXIMISE overlap of the vehicles so that the full crush/crumple zone could do its job. The problem is, you have perhaps 2/10ths of a second to make the call once you've decided that a collision is inevitable, and not too many have the balls to do a front-on full-on even when there is no chance of threading the needle (despite that likely being the route of minimal chance of 3rd party damage or injury). It also might be more difficult to explain to an insurer. Thankfully I've never had to.


*almost always, not always. Why? Because occasionally, very occasionally, it might be prudent to sacrifice a bit of your metal to save another's life. I once put my vehicle en pris, risking a hard rear-end shunt, with an emergency stop, to prevent what I read at the time to be otherwise certain death to an errant cyclist. I've since had analysed (on here I think, but may have been pre-safespeed campaign) and realised that my better course of action would have been a long blast on the horn. I did not in fact get shunted so all was well that ended well in that moment.

edited to correct OP's name, typo and add clarification to "almost".

Irrespective of who is right and who is wrong, the issue here is that when you find yourself in a position where potential harm is going to occur then you must take avoiding action nad not simply rely on the other party to resolve it for you.

How many times have we heard that collisions occur because one party makes a mistake and then the other party fails to take avoding action.

It doesn't matter about fault when there are mangles bones, dead sons and daughters, distraught families, autopsies, coroner's courts and god knows what else.

Avoid the head-on at all costs.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

I lean to the opinion that in insurance terms the person on the correct side of the road wins the insurance claim if both cars were moving.

Some industrial parks & chaotic areas you cannot see the full route before you decide to pass parked cars and trucks.
You have to take calculated risks sometimes and pull out semi blind and be prepared to stop and reverse if necessary. It does rely on the other drivers reading the road risks ahead and looking for such risks.

However if the car on the wrong side of the white line had come to a stop before the collision I would pay out from the original posters insurance.

With all accidents thee are usually 2 or more causes.
In this case
OP may have been driving faster for the conditions or not read the risks ahead sufficiently.
The parking was inconsiderate or wrong
The oncoming car may have been driving faster for the conditions or not read the risks ahead sufficiently.
neither cars decided to stop

Some or all of these could be contributory factors.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

For the posters who think that is is somehow a 50/50 'problem' and again presuming galanidt to be correct in explaining what happened, how does the attitude of the other driver affect 'being safe is always better than being right'?

In some ways I see this case is better in being right than being safe as there were no reported injuries while continuing to accept the sort of arrogant disregard of the rules of the road (as reported of the other driver) do no-one any favours if allowed to continue.

I say good for galanidt. Stick with it, copy the relevant page of the new Highway Code and send it to your insurers (if necessary) and hold out for full settlement against this sort of ignorant and aggressive stupidity from a driver who is unwilling to follow the simple instructions in our rules of the road.

BTW I'm fine about 'breaking rules' and do it myself quite often, but you have to be aware of the potential problems that you face if you do. The other driver is totally incorrect in thinking that the oncoming driver has to give way to them and to act as if they should to the point of impact.

This needs exploring. Not urgently, because hopefully neither of us will encounter a similar situation for a little while

I used to feel this way for the first, probably 10 years of my driving lifetime. Certainly five, staunchly. I don't now. Not even remotely. I couldn't tell you how, when or why I changed to the opposite position, or whether it happened gradually. However, I have most definitely changed from one camp to the other.

I know several drivers at work (as drivers) and, of those for whom I have high respect and regard, this is the one aspect that generally sets us apart. Perhaps this attitude exists less so when the stakes are a potential head-on crash, but certainly when the stakes are a side swipe and the "victory" is a place or two in a queue of merging traffic or at bustling mini roundabouts, it is almost gratuitous.

Ok, let's take it one step at a time. You come slowly around the corner and see, perhaps 3 seconds in front of you, a lorry parked on the other side of the road. At the same time, a car pulls out to pass it. He should have seen you, but either didn't or misread your speed and thought he could make it. Anyhow, he's not too good at reversing or judging his car's width/absolute horizontal position - might be getting on a bit in years or might be a recent test pass. either way, he keeps coming. Three principal options are open to you:

1) You could easily chink left and pull up - you may have to brake a bit harder than usual but were going reasonably slowly anyhow.
2) You could do so and make it tight by going forward another second before braking.
3 Or you could keep going.

I can't prove it, but I am guessing in the specific case, the OP tried the middle option, but either misjudged it and didn't quite leave room or the miscreant coming toward him was not sufficiently skilled to thread through the reduced slalom course. I also estimate that veery few would adopt option 3, but a worryingly high percentage (including me 25 years ago) would adopt option 2.

Ok; scenario two now. You come around the same corner, same speed. A lorry is parked in the same place. However, this time, the lorry is twice as long and the car coming toward you is already alongside the back part of it, but thanks to road curvature you only realise this at exactly the same time in relative terms as he pulled out in the earlier example. The dice are now loaded in an identical manner.

You still have the three choices. This time, far more people - you included probably - will adopt option 1 - brake and give the "miscreant" room.

What's the difference - aparat from avoiding an accident one way and not the other? Attitude.

Teaching him a lesson in the first instance might in a minuscule number of cases drive home that he was in the wrong which he may not otherwise realise. However, there is every chance that he would know that already though given that you would have stopped for him anyway in Option 1.

Thoughts?

Using (again) only the information given by the OP, the oncoming driver apparently did not know that they 'were in the wrong'. They actually believed (attitude?) that they had a right of way. I suspect it was their behaviour that created and went on to cause the incident and the OP may well not have had the opportunity to avoid the incident at all.

IF we are to have a selection of rules to follow then the only outcome of getting caught out by not following them has to be on the person (or persons) who has failed, for whatever reason, not to. In this case the oncoming driver who believed wrongly that they had the right of way.

I don't disagree that these situations can be avoided but if they cannot be there is a clear onus on the driver passing the parked vehicles to give way. I believe that is quite sensible although many drivers appear to need to be reminded of the fact!