Close call...who would have been at fault?

Noo

Had a close call a while back, no contact so no harm done but just wondering peoples opinions if we had hit where the blame would lie.

It was night time and I was driving through a housing estate. I approached a t-junction and slowed right down as I didnt have right of way. Looked both directions and there were loads of cars parked on both on boths side of the road to the left and right. Looked clear so I slowly turned left. I turned carefully because there was so many parked cars the road became very narrow, only enough room for one car to drive down the centreline, if there were two cars one would have to pull in to let the other pass. Anyway I took the left turn then had to slam on the breaks (was going slowly so was pretty much able to stop on the spot). Found myself head on with a taxi effing and blinding at me! Me shouting "turn your f**king lights on!" probably wasn't my finest moment. So it was night time and he didnt have any lights on, i never saw him, he just blended in with all the parked cars.

Now if we collided I know I would be to blame for taking the turn when it wasnt clear but how much would him not having his lights (and basically making himself invisible to me) affect who is at fault?

ianobrien

Without knowing exactly where you were in the carrageway it's hard to say. If you were still entering it (ie hadn't finished turning) you were technically as you entered a carrageway that wasn't clear. The fact that the other car was going the wrong way is not a problem, he had possession of the carrageway. The no lights would impart some blame to him.

If you were fully in the lane and had travelled some distance, then it's his fault I'd say because he was in the wrong lane and you couldn't see him with no lights.

Then again, I could be wrong!

Hal1

Time to invest in a dashcam fella.

ironclaw

Hal1 wrote: »

Time to invest in a dashcam fella.

Dashcam is only worthwhile if it proves you are innocent. There are certain situations where you will be wrong no matter what the other party did. I was recently told that insurance companies are moving away from split blame and 50:50 is nearly unheard of, its a case of blame or no blame, with no leeway or shared responsibility.

In the situation above, the taxi had right of way as he was proceeding on the carriageway first. You were joining their road and hence had to yield to them, irrespective of the direction of your turn. If they had an invisibility cloak, you would still be at fault unfortunately

Hasmunch

ironclaw wrote: »

In the situation above, the taxi had right of way as he was proceeding on the carriageway first. You were joining their road and hence had to yield to them, irrespective of the direction of your turn. If they had an invisibility cloak, you would still be at fault unfortunately

Just because the taxi has right of way doesn't mean he is not at fault.
The taxi has a responsibility to have lights on for visibility

ironclaw

Hasmunch wrote: »

Just because the taxi has right of way doesn't mean he is not at fault.
The taxi has a responsibility to have lights on for visibility

Statue says if you reach a T junction, traffic on the junction have right of way. One can whistle all they like about lights or visibility buts right of way is gold. The only alternative would be if you were out in the country, pitch black and couldn't see, but that's not going to be the case in most house estates with street lighting etc. The OP, in all instances, would shoulder the majority of the blame.

Noo

Thanks for the discussion guys. Just for clarification I took the turn very slowly as the amount of parked cars greatly reduced my visibility, this caution did its job and ensured I was going slow enough that when I saw the taxi head on I was able to stop. The taxi wasnt on the wrong side of the road, due to the parked cars on either side of the street he was driving down the centre lane. I see this a lot in housing estates due to parked cars. If there hadnt been so many parked cars I would've seen him sooner, and if he had lights on I wouldve seen him miles away! Luckily nothing came of it but I thought it was interesting hypothetical.

cmore123

If you're facing the taxi head on, he's at fault. He must have lights.

ironclaw

cmore123 wrote: »

If you're facing the taxi head on, he's at fault. He must have lights.

Not having lights does not take away the fact that the OP was entering a T junction on which the taxi already had possession of the right of way. While the lights are a factor, it does not take away the blame from the OP. The OP could easily be charged with undue care and attention as in the circumstances, its reasonable they should have seen the taxi with or without lights (Save for any circumstance such as black colored taxi, no street lighting, taxi was speeding etc)

The taxi driving is guilty under the 'Use of obligatory lighting' statues but you'd need to show it was a significant factor in any collision, as said, the OP would still have the majority of the blame.