The Highway Code states the following:
146: Take extra care at junctions. You should
not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure
|
The Highway Code states the following: 146: Take extra care at junctions. You should not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure
And it also says:
85: Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see Signals to other road users section), of your intended actions. You should
* give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
* use them, if necessary, before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
* cancel them after use
So both drivers screwed up.
The introduction to the Highway Code says:
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. Abbreviation explanation.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability.
When both drivers have failed to comply with the rules, it would seem odd not to have some sort of shared liability, but obviously that doesn't tell us what proportions of liability should be born by each side.
|
|
|
I think there's a lot of righteous indignation in this thread but not enough attention to the Case Law part of the title and some serious inconsistencies in Que's account.
> Briefly I was driving along a dual carriageway and as I passed a T-junction on my left (minor road entering a dual carriageway) the driver pulled out and drove into my N/S front wing. The driver said at the time he did not look as he thought I was turning left, as it appears that my left-hand indicator was on and had been on for more than 500 metres, unbeknown to me.
> The T-Junction from which he was emerging was an exit only T-junction ie all left turns into the road can only be achieved via the slip road some 40 metres prior to the collision point.
> But the supposed left turn I was taking was more than 25 metres before this T-junction, which I have timed is 7 (seven) seconds away from the point of impact, travelling at the max speed for the road.
This bit makes no sense to me. 25 metres in seven seconds is a speed of 8 (eight!) miles an hour. Even if the distance was 40 metres, that's only 13 mph.
According to what I can find on Wadsworth v Gillespie, this one looks exactly the same. In other words, provided that case hasn't been superseded, Que's case ought to be settled the same way - two-thirds against the driver who left an indicator on, so the one-third Que's been offered seems generous.
Quote
Wadsworth v Gillespie [1978]: the motorcyclist had made a turn but failed to cancel his indicator after completing the manoeuvre. The motorist at a junction saw the motorcyclist and assumed he was turning and accordingly pulled out. The court decided that the motorcyclist had to accept a large degree of responsibility and apportioned liability on the basis of two-thirds against the motorcyclist.
End quote
If there's a difference here, it's that the accident occurred on a dual carriageway, and that the driver who pulled out says he did so because he had seen Que's indicator earlier and assumed that it meant he would have turned off. But at a junction like that, where else would he be looking? There'd have been no traffic coming from his left. This may account for the pulling-out driver being held more liable than his counterpart in W v G.
And yet another thing bothers me - if the other driver really did have seven seconds, (a) he could have done more than look - he could have pulled out and completed the manoeuvre; and (b) Que would have had time to see him coming and take avoiding action if necessary. Since this didn't happen, I infer that there's something important missing from or wrong in Que's account.
|
All good points and I am trying to be as unbiased as possible.
The seven seconds has been timed and is the time form the last point of entry onto the left hand slip road and the point of impact. Due to the nature of the junction I was witnessed (truck behind me) as driving at between 10 and 12 MPH as there is a pedestian crossing on this junction as well. Hence the seven seconds.
I agree and have said as much that the other driver had plenty of time to pull out across to the central reservation and wait for a gap on the other side of the dual carriageway. He did not because we has not taking due care!
The insurance company for the otehr driver has offered 2/3 - 1/3 in my favour
But the most important difference here from W v G is that the other driver hit me on the Naer side ie unlike eth motorcyclist who hit the car emerging from the minor road.
The bottom line is the other driver was in a hurry to get to work and simply did not look to his right for a very long period, which in my opinion was reckless and had little to do with the signal that had accidentally been left on.
As an aside the police officer who attended and witnessed the collision said the other driver was totally at fault because we has not aware of the circumastances and that a bulb flashing proves one thing ie "The bulb works"
I have told my insurance company to put the offer "where the sun don't shine" metophorically speaking. Lets wait and see
|
|
|
|
|
