JoelP
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 02:21 PM |
|
|
This puzzles me
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19421724
Was this crash not the lead cars fault? Ie she pulled across the right lane without checking her wing mirrors, and got hit by a car who was
overtaking. Despite the tragic consequences, i cant see what the overtaking driver did wrong. I think his defense lawyer should have asked if she
checked her wing mirrors before pulling out - can only assume she didnt check, or wouldht have pulled out. Whats gone wrong for him is his confessions
at the scene, which makes me think, no matter how badly the poo has hit the fan, think before opening your mouth.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 02:35 PM |
|
|
As it was a fatal, there will have been a full accident investigation costing hundreds of thousands of pounds which will have established pretty much
exactly what happened, so I wouldn't get too hung up about the (lack of) detail contained in that scant BBC report.
As a general rule, there is a stated case that holds both drivers equally at fault for such a collision (the turning vehicle should have checked
it's mirrors before manoeuvring, and the following car should not have overtaken a vehicle that was indicating to turn right). The latter is
normally adjudged to be solely responsible however if it can be proven that they started the overtaking manoeuvre after the leading vehicle had
started their right-turn. This would appear to be the likely scenario in this particular case.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 04:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
As it was a fatal, there will have been a full accident investigation costing hundreds of thousands of pounds which will have established pretty much
exactly what happened, so I wouldn't get too hung up about the (lack of) detail contained in that scant BBC report.
As a general rule, there is a stated case that holds both drivers equally at fault for such a collision (the turning vehicle should have checked
it's mirrors before manoeuvring, and the following car should not have overtaken a vehicle that was indicating to turn right). The latter is
normally adjudged to be solely responsible however if it can be proven that they started the overtaking manoeuvre after the leading vehicle had
started their right-turn. This would appear to be the likely scenario in this particular case.
Further I would add, that as a driver you should be aware of ALL aproaching hazards and it was said that the lead car was turning into a lay-by on the
offside of the carriage way. This should have been sign posted before hand and as such a driver should be aware that other vehicles are likely to
either be stopping to turn into it OR making a direct right turn into it. This would make the area of a lay-by a dangerous area to overtake another
vehicle hence the charge of dangerous driving.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 05:21 PM |
|
|
I would also suspect the white lines in the middle of the road would give an indication of how safe it was to overtake?
|
|
|
watsonpj
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 05:27 PM |
|
|
also the fact theat the lead car was indicating (according to the following car) but this probably couldnt be seen until too late, which is a risk
when overtaking more than one vehicle.
|
|
|
crutch
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 06:48 PM |
|
|
I had an incident where i went to overtake 2 cars on a long straight section. Car doing 35mph in 60mph road. As i was alongside the 2nd car it pulled
out to ovetake the 1st. I had to mount the kerb to avoid the collision.
2nd car reported me for dangerous driving. Nothing came of it but i had knock form the old bill.
I should also note that i gave car 2 the chance to over take, when it looked like he wasnt going to i then made my move.
[Edited on 30/8/12 by crutch]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 06:55 PM |
|
|
So he's guilty of careless driving for not noticing a layby ahead, whereas she is in the clear despite not checking her wing mirror when she
changed lanes? I'm assuming the white lines allowed overtaking at that spot or the prosecution would have mentioned it. If he was already past
the first car, as he must have been to strike the second, then his manouver had already started, before hers (the right turn). The only reason i can
see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
I would also add that her putting her indicator on does not give her right of way.
[Edited on 30/8/12 by JoelP]
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
The only reason i can see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
That wouldn't be a consideration.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
The only reason i can see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
That wouldn't be a consideration.
They wouldnt be swayed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a widow? I think the guys confessions at the scene have influenced
proceedings myself.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
... whereas she is in the clear despite not checking her wing mirror when she changed lanes...
Who says she didn't check her mirrors? She had a car behind her that was slowing down in response to her indications and this would have
obscured her view of most things behind it.
She may very well have checked her mirrors... and seen that it was clear to manoeuvre as the car behind is reacting in the appropriate manner. Sadly
Mr Man has not watched what's happening ahead of him and gone out for a full speed overtake. The report states that he struck the rear of the
other car, so she must have been well on her way to getting across to the lay-by.
From that I deduce that she had already started making her manoeuvre BEFORE he even left his lane... so it's his fault.
The information in the press is not enough for any of us who weren't in the court-room to know for sure. I'm guess that the court will
have been fully informed before finding him guilty though. 
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
The only reason i can see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
That wouldn't be a consideration.
They wouldnt be swayed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a widow? I think the guys confessions at the scene have influenced
proceedings myself.
The law is black or white when it comes to road traffic laws - there is no grey. If it had been ascertained that she'd done wrong during an
accident that resulted in death(s), then she'd be facing prosecution. No question.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 08:32 PM |
|
|
Looking at the road there is a slight curve in the road which would have prevented him from seeing her indicating, and her from seeing him pulling out
until he was well into his maneuver, sounds like he was out of order to me, if you can't be sure of the road ahead is clear then don't
overtake. He also hit them with his offside front, sounds like the victims were already most of the way across before he hit them, or else it would
have been him in the drink.
DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
So he's guilty of careless driving for not noticing a layby ahead, whereas she is in the clear despite not checking her wing mirror when she
changed lanes? I'm assuming the white lines allowed overtaking at that spot or the prosecution would have mentioned it. If he was already past
the first car, as he must have been to strike the second, then his manouver had already started, before hers (the right turn). The only reason i can
see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
I would also add that her putting her indicator on does not give her right of way.
[Edited on 30/8/12 by JoelP]
As others have said, you don't know much about what happened from the BBC report so it's a bit much to start blaming her for not looking
in her mirrors when she may well in fact have done so. A lay-by on the opposite roadside is not much different to a road end and should definitely be
treated as a hazard. It might have been safe-ish to overtake one car but to overtake two when approaching a hazard is "careless". I
wouldn't say it was "reckless" but certainly a bit careless. Unfortunately in the real world you can be slightly careless for a
split second and someone can die. Similarly you can be reckless for years and get away with it.
The guilty man is clearly not a model driver if you look at his previous convictions and while the lady might not have been a model driver either, I
think she has suffered more than enough for anything she *might* have not done 100% perfectly.
I have overtaken multiple cars before but I don't enjoy it as you usually end up feeling a bit of pressure towards the end of the overtake as it
is difficult to abort the manoeuvre once you are past the first car. I overtook about 4 slow moving cars in the Locost a few months back and although
it was nowhere near what I would call a "near-miss", I ended up going faster than I would have liked at the end of the manoeuvre and
didn't leave much margin for error. It wasn't helped by the fact that one of the cars in the middle of the pack was playing silly beggars
and blocking me out which kind of forced me to commit to overtaking one more car.
Anyway, let's hope for the sake of this lady that *she* doesn't feel that she did anything wrong as that is a burden that nobody would
want to carry.
Edit: From the photo above it seems clearer than ever that the guy was in the wrong. He had no business overtaking on a left hand curve.
[Edited on 30/8/2012 by craig1410]
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
I would *never* make any judgement based on a report from a newspaper or TV news agency. By their very nature they cannot list all of the evidence -
it takes too much time, and they would consider a lot of the more basic evidence as "boring".
Ant that's apart from the fact that I consider the majority of newspapers and TV news organisations as beneath contempt...
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 30/8/12 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
I would *never* make any judgement based on a report from a newspaper or TV news agency. By their very nature they...
...make things up to make the story as sensational as possible.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 31/8/12 at 08:58 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
So he's guilty of careless driving for not noticing a layby ahead, whereas she is in the clear despite not checking her wing mirror when she
changed lanes? I'm assuming the white lines allowed overtaking at that spot or the prosecution would have mentioned it. If he was already past
the first car, as he must have been to strike the second, then his manouver had already started, before hers (the right turn). The only reason i can
see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
I would also add that her putting her indicator on does not give her right of way.
[Edited on 30/8/12 by JoelP]
Further, I think that you will find that AS an overtaking vehicle, you are on the wrong side of the carriage way (the first rule in the highway code
used to be that in this country we drive on the left and keep to the left) and have a much higher duty in law to ensure that what you are doing is
SAFE. You should also not put yourself in such a position that you put yourself and/or any other road user in danger whilst making your overtake
manouvre. Also I believe that the police AND proscution take the view that IF you hit a vehicle from behind then YOU were mostly at fault because you
were either traveling too close to the vehicle behind, traveling too fast relative to the vehicle in front or just not being observant of what IS
occuring infront of you.
JMHO
edit bit. Just seen the picture and I concur he should not have and had no business overtaking there. I drive frequently up and down the A6 between
Rushden and Bedford, it is a known dangerous road due to the number of accidents on it. Every morning I am amazed by the number of
'idiots' that make overtakes on it during rush hour because they are probably 'late' leaving to go to work and they perceive
that the vehicle(s) infront are holding them up. They know the dangers and still do it instead of getting up earlier, leaving home earlier and having
a less stressful drive.
[Edited on 31/8/12 by jollygreengiant]
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
chillis
|
| posted on 31/8/12 at 09:27 AM |
|
|
Travelling in the wrong direction on a carriageway except for over taking is a road traffic offence. Why was the lead car indicating to go to a lay-by
on the other carriageway. That is a traffic offence. However overtaking where there is a lay-by or junction or entrance/exit to a carriageway is also
an offence.
These days it seems the overtaking driver gets the blame just because they were overtaking.
Did we not have a think bike campaign recently about checking your ear mirrors for overtaking bikers?
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 31/8/12 at 11:13 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chillis
Why was the lead car indicating to go to a lay-by on the other carriageway. That is a traffic offence...
The bollox-o-meter has just gone off the scale!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 31/8/12 at 11:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The law is black or white when it comes to road traffic laws - there is no grey. If it had been ascertained that she'd done wrong during an
accident that resulted in death(s), then she'd be facing prosecution. No question.
^^ I know of someone up north (mate of a mate) who ended up in intesive care on life support after crashing and killing the 3 passengers - the police
were waiting for him when he was discharged a few months later, arrested on the spot, charged and in the jail for 3 years
she wouldn't (and shouldn't IMHO) be treated any differently if they could prove she was at fault
obviously wasn't there and I've only got the papers/bbc to go on....
but it does smell like he overtook when they started to slow down for her to make her turn, I'm guessing he might not have been thinking much
more than 'too slow, I'm going past... oh s***'
(seen simlilar things happen before and just get away with it)
[Edited on 31/8/2012 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 31/8/12 at 05:08 PM |
|
|
Overtaking vehicle is responsible for safely overtaking vehicles in front. It's not the resposibility of the vehicle being overtaken to ensure
it's safe for another road user to carry out a manoevre (we're assuming that the vehicle being overtaken is taking reasonable precautions
such as indicating. Hence the reason if you invite someone to pull into a main road resulting in a crash, you will be partly responsible.
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 31/8/12 by Simon]
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 31/8/12 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
Overtaking vehicle is responsible for safely overtaking vehicles in front. It's not the resposibility of the vehicle being overtaken to
ensure it's safe for another road user to carry out a manoevre (we're assuming that the vehicle being overtaken is taking reasonable
precautions such as indicating. Hence the reason if you invite someone to pull into a main road resulting in a crash, you will be partly
responsible.
errrrr, no!.
Reading the misinformation in some of the posts it appears that we all should go back and read the highway code; as below.
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never
obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a
two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
I interpret that as saying the vehicle being overtaken is responsible for the safety of the overtaking vehicle. Also the overtaken vehicle helps by
not hindering the overtaker plus falls back to allow the overtaker to slip in front.
[Edited on 31/8/12 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
