Who's in the wrong? re: car crash

Gun_Slinger

Heard about an accident yesterday (no one killed miracously) and it sparked a discussion on who was to blame for the accident. Here is how it happened:

Car A travelling west along a straight stretch of road and decides to overtake. There is a junction to their right and Car B pulls out heading east. The 2 cars meet head on and like I say it is a miracle no one was killed.

Who is in the right/wrong here and who is liable? There may be many other factors i.e. Stop sign on the junction, speed on the overtaker, etc? When discussing with a few people last night no one knew the answer.

Mikros

check your rules of the road -

You must not overtake when:
"You are approaching a junction"

So the person overtaking should not have done so, however the person pulling out is also in the wrong for not checking each way is clear.

MarkR

You for not posting in the motors forum. And the overtaker for overtaking in a place where traffic could be exiting. Usually there will be a solid white line to advise people not to overtake if there are junctions ahead.

Sherifu

Overtaker. Must have been a fair mangle.

Reku

MarkR wrote: »

You for not posting in the motors forum. And the overtaker for overtaking in a place where traffic could be exiting. Usually there will be a solid white line to advise people not to overtake if there are junctions ahead.

I've had to explain to quite a few folks who are older than me and who actually do drive (I don't) what the significance of broken vs solid lines in the middle of the road are, which is rather worrying as what other road rules are they ignoring?:(

stevenmu

Gun_Slinger wrote: »

Who is in the right/wrong here and who is liable?

Whichever one was Polish and/or female.

all the stars

em, Never meant to overtake approaching junction. Would have been solid white line and more than likely signposts to say same.

all the stars

stevenmu wrote: »

Whichever one was Polish and/or female.

aren't moderators meant to monitor sexist/ racist remarks?:rolleyes:

Gun_Slinger

Cheers for the replys (well most of them ).

Yea, the people were lucky to come out of it alright.

Reku

all the stars wrote: »

aren't moderators meant to monitor sexist/ racist remarks?:rolleyes:

Real moderators yes, but if you look closely you'll see he's only a mod of imaginary forums.:D

Sherifu

all the stars wrote: »

aren't moderators meant to monitor sexist/ racist remarks?:rolleyes:

I'm sure it was monitored and noted in the big book.

Wertz

all the stars wrote: »

aren't moderators meant to monitor sexist/ racist remarks?:rolleyes:

Whoooosh!


As regards who's in the wrong...legally the overtaker as already mentioned above.
But why does something like this come down solely to the law? Common sense dictates that you check that the way is clear before you exit a junction. Okay so conditions and/or the speed the overtaking car was approaching at could have meant that the driver at the junction was unable to see or anticipate the car coming on the wrong side of the road. People need to add a layer of defensiveness to their driving and get away from this "Oh I'm in the right here regardless of anything else" attitude...

rahim

Wertz wrote: »

Whoooosh!


As regards who's in the wrong...legally the overtaker as already mentioned above.
But why does something like this come down solely to the law? Common sense dictates that you check that the way is clear before you exit a junction. Okay so conditions and/or the speed the overtaking car was approaching at could have meant that the driver at the junction was unable to see or anticipate the car coming on the wrong side of the road. People need to add a layer of defensiveness to their driving and get away from this "Oh I'm in the right here regardless of anything else" attitude...

The laws dictating what you should/should not do on the road are there for a reason, if we were to leave it to common sense there would be chaos on the roads (more so than there is already). Who decides when common sense should be taken into account and where?

seamus

Wertz wrote: »

As regards who's in the wrong...legally the overtaker as already mentioned above.
But why does something like this come down solely to the law? Common sense dictates that you check that the way is clear before you exit a junction. Okay so conditions and/or the speed the overtaking car was approaching at could have meant that the driver at the junction was unable to see or anticipate the car coming on the wrong side of the road. People need to add a layer of defensiveness to their driving and get away from this "Oh I'm in the right here regardless of anything else" attitude...

It's quite likely that both drivers would share partial liability, especially if there wasn't a solid white line where the driver performed the overtake manouver.

For some reason, I have always interpreted "You may not overtake when approaching a junction" to include the words, "with roads of equal importance". Since every single driveway on a road is considered to be a junction with a road of less importance, then preventing people from overtaking at such junctions wouldn't be feasible.

Is a side road considered to be a "Junction"? I don't think so, to me a junction implies that the primary road is approaching a point where traffic will have to stop to facilitate other traffic joining or crossing on the intersecting road. At a side road with no lights, this is not the case. I could be wrong though.

Wertz

rahim wrote: »

The laws dictating what you should/should not do on the road are there for a reason, if we were to leave it to common sense there would be chaos on the roads (more so than there is already). Who decides when common sense should be taken into account and where?

Hence my usage of the term "solely"...
Of course the laws are there for a reason...but why does personal responsibility stop just because someone is "in the right"?
I'm not saying leave it to common sense alone (and there's more to defensive driving thn plain old common sense BTW), I'm saying that common sense should have a larger part to play than simply saying "Oh it's the law"...

ScumLord

If there was a solid white line the overtaker will take all the blame I'd say. There probably was no traffic on car b's side of the road when he began to pull out.

gaz wac

The bloke overtaking is in the wrong, defo....i should know, I work in accounts

seamus

For anyone who's interested, the relevant part of the Act of 1933. Leaves it wide open tbh.:

(d) the driver of the overtaking vehicle shall not pass or attempt to pass the overtaken vehicle when approaching a road junction in such circumstances that such passing will not be completed before the overtaking vehicle is within thirty feet of such road junction unless either—


(i) the driver of the overtaking vehicle has a clear view of the traffic at such road junction and the traffic approaching it from every direction and there is no such traffic which would be inconvenienced by such passing, or


(ii) the driver of the overtaking vehicle has been authorised to proceed by a signal lawfully given by a member of the Gárda Síochána or a mechanical traffic control signal ;

knird evol

A court doesn't assign blame in a black and white, one side or the other way. They assign a percentage liability. So one party could be 70% liable for the occurence of the accident and the other 30%.

In terms of breaking the law both drivers have committed traffic offences as said
one overtaking at or approaching a junction and the other moving to the right when not safe to do so not having checked mirror, blind spot etc. If it ever saw a court room probably fifty fifty depending on the judge. The insurance companies would split the difference before went to court.

biko

Gun_Slinger wrote: »

Heard about an accident yesterday (no one killed miracously) and it sparked a discussion on who was to blame for the accident.

I think it's called "collision" now because "accident" implies that it was an accident and no-one is to blame.

DaDa

Theoretically the answer should be in the road markings... however this is Ireland we're talking about here.

Practically the east bound driver would have done well to check... since this is Ireland we're talking about here.

TheIrishGrover

biko wrote: »

I think it's called "collision" now because "accident" implies that it was an accident and no-one is to blame.

Guess who's been watching "Hot Fuzz"

TheIrishGrover

For anyone who's interested, the relevant part of the Act of 1933. Leaves it wide open tbh.:

(d) the driver of the overtaking vehicle shall not pass or attempt to pass the overtaken vehicle when approaching a road junction in such circumstances that such passing will not be completed before the overtaking vehicle is within thirty feet of such road junction unless either—


(i) the driver of the overtaking vehicle has a clear view of the traffic at such road junction and the traffic approaching it from every direction and there is no such traffic which would be inconvenienced by such passing, or


(ii) the driver of the overtaking vehicle has been authorised to proceed by a signal lawfully given by a member of the Gárda Síochána or a mechanical traffic control signal ;

What's wide open about it? He shouldn't have overtaken. There was a car at the junction so he shouldn't have overtaken and if he could not see that there was a car there or not then he shouldn't have overtaken because he did not have a clear view of traffic at such junction and obviously he could not get back into lane within 30 feet of the junction.

__________________

seamus

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

What's wide open about it? He shouldn't have overtaken. There was a car at the junction so he shouldn't have overtaken and if he could not see that there was a car there or not then he shouldn't have overtaken because he did not have a clear view of traffic at such junction and obviously he could not get back into lane within 30 feet of the junction.

__________________

It could well be argued that if the other car was stopped at the junction, the the overtaking car had "a clear view of the traffic at such road junction and the traffic approaching it from every direction", and since it's stopped the car cannot "be inconvenienced by such passing" of the overtaking vehicle. Therefore there is no requirement to complete the manouver 30 feet (:D) before the junction.

Gun_Slinger

I think we can agree that the case is not open and shut and it will be between the people who were involved and the Gardai/Insurance to sort out. I definately think there is responsibility on both parties as explained by a few prople and we can just be glad that no one was killed or seriously hurt.

It's a pity, the straight stretch of road in question has just replaced a series of really bad bends where accidents have occurred in the past.

Giblet

Was this in IT Tallaght?

WindSock

Agree that it was overtakers fault, but the person pulling out of the junction turning left should have been looking too. There are an awful lot of accidents that happen from left turners only paying attention to the right.

Jumpy

all the stars wrote: »

aren't moderators meant to monitor sexist/ racist remarks?:rolleyes:

No. They are all female and Polish, so they dont know how. :rolleyes:

biko

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Guess who's been watching "Hot Fuzz"

Ah, that's where I got it from

ojewriej

Jumpy wrote: »

No. They are all female and Polish, so they dont know how. :rolleyes:

This means that they are all good looking then.

Sam Vimes

i think that blame should be apportioned equally. a driver can't be expected to anticipate a car driving on the wrong side of the road but there could have been a pedestrian or dog or something.

that would depend on what stage the overtaking car switched sides though. if he did it really close to the junction the other person might have looked, seen a clear road and started turning.

so i changed my mind mid post

blame should be apportioned equally if the overtaker pulled out early enough that the turner should have seen him before starting his maneuver

WindSock

Actually, I have changed my blame on the driver that caused the car to overtake in the first place :pac:

pickarooney

What did the sign at the junction say RE: priority? If there's no sign, then it should default to priority on the right, or left or whatever the rules are in your crazy country.

rahim

Maybe the driver pulling out of the junction did look both left and right, saw that there were cars coming from the left but none from the right and that it was safe to pull out. Then the overtaking car decided (after the person had looked left) to overtake.
In this case would it matter if there was a broken line or not? Do you need to wait for both lanes of traffic to be clear to turn left depending on the lines?

Karoma

all the stars wrote: »

aren't moderators meant to monitor sexist/ racist remarks?:rolleyes:

Stick around a little longer and you'll see the genuine sexist/racist remarks. This, I am sure is tongue-in-cheek. Move along now. Moderator conspir...nothing! nothing to see here.

drunkdaz

The overtaker is wrong cos Uncle Gaybo says so...

Hmm. In reality the overtaker prob had right of way (I'm asuming there was no lnes/signs to state otherwise, and he had started the maneuver before the other car pulled out). Not every junction is signed/marked with chevrons or continuous white lines. You're supposed to look both direction when pulling out for a reason. I thought watching where you are going would be a fairly basic skill.

Sam Vimes

drunkdaz wrote: »

The overtaker is wrong cos Uncle Gaybo says so...

Hmm. In reality the overtaker prob had right of way (I'm asuming there was no lnes/signs to state otherwise, and he had started the maneuver before the other car pulled out). Not every junction is signed/marked with chevrons or continuous white lines. You're supposed to look both direction when pulling out for a reason. I thought watching where you are going would be a fairly basic skill.

but then the guy could have started overtaking so close to the junction that the other guy's way was clear until he had actually pulled out. it's not really an open and shut case. it depend on the circumstances