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.
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.
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.
I would also suspect the white lines in the middle of the road would give an indication of how safe it was to overtake?
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.
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]
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]
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
The only reason i can see for her not being prosecuted is that it was her family who died.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
... whereas she is in the clear despite not checking her wing mirror when she changed lanes...
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.
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.
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]
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...
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...
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]
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?
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...
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.
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]
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.