How would this accident fair out?

the_pen_turner

hypothetic accident but was a close call

i have a van and had a long timber on the roof rack. tied down and with an elumanios jacket as a flag. sticking out 6 feet roughly. tied on passanger side

i am traveling along a road and indicat to turn right onto a side road . cars coming against so i stop.

gap in oncoming traffic and i proceed to turn. as im doing so a van tries to pass on the left .
as i turn the overhand is going to arc out .


if there was contact who would be to blame

godtabh

you

07Lapierre

A overhanging load must have a red flag on the end. There is also a limit to the overhang itself. 6feet sound too long.

the_pen_turner

07Lapierre wrote: »

A overhanging load must have a red flag on the end. There is also a limit to the overhang itself. 6feet sound too long.

have you a link to that

07Lapierre

the_pen_turner wrote: »

have you a link to that

No. I think it's the RTA 1961, or 1963.

I did find this:

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/ADI/Sample_Questions_for_ADI_Stage_1_Theory_Test.pdf

See question 15

ED E

Even if the load is out of spec that would be a specific charge and may not attribute fault for a subsequent collision where the over van attempted to overtake on the left while not clear to do so.

the_pen_turner

`1963 says the folowing

The rear overhang of a vehicle shall not exceed—


(a) one half of the length between the plane, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, which passes through the centre or centres of the front wheel or wheels and the foremost vertical plane from which rear overhang is to be measured under sub-article (3) of this article, or


(b) where the rear overhang of a vehicle does not exceed seven twenty-fourths of the overall length of the vehicle, 18 inches and one half of the length between such planes.




as clear as mud

RustyNut

ED E wrote: »

Even if the load is out of spec that would be a specific charge and may not attribute fault for a subsequent collision where the over van attempted to overtake on the left while not clear to do so.

It sounds like the other van was passing safely as is allowed if the vehicle being passed is turning right when the timber over hang moved into its path.

07Lapierre

the_pen_turner wrote: »

`1963 says the folowing

The rear overhang of a vehicle shall not exceed—


(a) one half of the length between the plane, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, which passes through the centre or centres of the front wheel or wheels and the foremost vertical plane from which rear overhang is to be measured under sub-article (3) of this article, or


(b) where the rear overhang of a vehicle does not exceed seven twenty-fourths of the overall length of the vehicle, 18 inches and one half of the length between such planes.




as clear as mud

Well it does date back to 1963! I guess you should trade in your Morris Minor countryman for a newer model!

Sono

You are 100% at fault OP if this collision occurs.

RustyNut

the_pen_turner wrote: »

`1963 says the folowing

The rear overhang of a vehicle shall not exceed—


(a) one half of the length between the plane, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, which passes through the centre or centres of the front wheel or wheels and the foremost vertical plane from which rear overhang is to be measured under sub-article (3) of this article, or


(b) where the rear overhang of a vehicle does not exceed seven twenty-fourths of the overall length of the vehicle, 18 inches and one half of the length between such planes.




as clear as mud

That for vehicle specs. Just from memory so I'm very open to correction but I think for a load anything over one meter needs to be marked and 3 meters is the max with one or two exceptons.

the_pen_turner

ED E wrote: »

Even if the load is out of spec that would be a specific charge and may not attribute fault for a subsequent collision where the over van attempted to overtake on the left while not clear to do so.

that would have been my guess at it.
if i parked illegally and someone hit me its still their fault for the accident

the_pen_turner

Sono wrote: »

You are 100% at fault OP if this collision occurs.

on what grounds. they are hitting me

RustyNut

the_pen_turner wrote: »

on what grounds. they are hitting me

You or more specifically your overhang pulled across their path when it wasn't safe to do so.

I'm not arguing, just giving a view.

the_pen_turner

RustyNut wrote: »

You or more specifically your overhang pulled across their path when it wasn't safe to do so.

I'm not arguing, just giving a view.

im not arguing either.
surely they are entering a space that isnt clear either.

i can see it being my fault it they were half past and i turned then.

the road in question isnt wide enough to pass on the left without putting half your car off the road

the_pen_turner

RustyNut wrote: »

That for vehicle specs. Just from memory so I'm very open to correction but I think for a load anything over one meter needs to be marked and 3 meters is the max with one or two exceptons.

that sounds like im within the law

RustyNut

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im not arguing either.
surely they are entering a space that isnt clear either.

i can see it being my fault it they were half past and i turned then.

the road in question isnt wide enough to pass on the left without putting half your car off the road

That might change things. The insurance favourite 50/50?

RustyNut

Maximum Load Overhang

Vehicle or trailer
A load must not project by more than
300mm (1 foot) beyond the extreme
projecting points on either / both
sides of the vehicle or trailer.
The overall width of a vehicle or
trailer together with its load (except
loose agricultural produce) must not
exceed 2.9m (9 feet and 6 inches)
300mm (1 foot) on
either / both sides
300 mm
DESCRIPTION REAR OVERHANG
Vehicle or trailer
A load on a vehicle or trailer must not
project more than 3 metres beyond
the rearmost point of the vehicle or
trailer. An exception is made for
electricity and telephone poles.


Note: If the overhang exceeds 1m, a
warning device must be carried at the
rear of the load during the day time

the_pen_turner

RustyNut wrote: »

Maximum Load Overhang

Vehicle or trailer
A load must not project by more than
300mm (1 foot) beyond the extreme
projecting points on either / both
sides of the vehicle or trailer.
The overall width of a vehicle or
trailer together with its load (except
loose agricultural produce) must not
exceed 2.9m (9 feet and 6 inches)
300mm (1 foot) on
either / both sides
300 mm
DESCRIPTION REAR OVERHANG
Vehicle or trailer
A load on a vehicle or trailer must not
project more than 3 metres beyond
the rearmost point of the vehicle or
trailer. An exception is made for
electricity and telephone poles.


Note: If the overhang exceeds 1m, a
warning device must be carried at the
rear of the load during the day time

perfect. where did you get that.

w211

Your fault because your load was oversize. Be very careful if you haul something oversize. The worst thing what I seen was load of timber on van roof top and only 2 flexible straps. It bounces all over the road. You can use the very long trailer and haul the long items by that way.

RustyNut

the_pen_turner wrote: »

perfect. where did you get that.

It's from a pdf I have, I'm a truck driver and try to keep on top of this stuff to keep out of trouble

Guidelines on Maximum Weights and
Dimensions of
Mechanically Propelled Vehicles and Trailers.

mickdw

The question must be asked - if you are driving such a load and making that turn, you should be completely aware of traffic approaching from rear and surely good driving would mean that you would not make the turn knowingly swinging the load into path of car passing on the left.
The fact that the car would have to partially leave the road to make that move does imo tilt it I your favour as you could expect that they were not able to position beside you. Still, I feel it would be mostly your fault.

RustyNut

mickdw wrote: »

The question must be asked - if you are driving such a load and making that turn, you should be completely aware of traffic approaching from rear and surely good driving would mean that you would not make the turn knowingly swinging the load into path of car passing on the left.
The fact that the car would have to partially leave the road to make that move does imo tilt it I your favour as you could expect that they were not able to position beside you. Still, I feel it would be mostly your fault.

For the sake of debate what if it was a cyclist/motorcyclist passing on the left, assuming it's not a high roof van, but the principal would be the same.

Spook_ie

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Vehicle%20Std%20Leg/Vehicle%20regs/Weights_Dimensions_Leaflet.pdf

Page 19

Not sure who'd be at fault as due diligence is not being exhibited by either driver.

the_pen_turner

w211 wrote: »

Your fault because your load was oversize. Be very careful if you haul something oversize. The worst thing what I seen was load of timber on van roof top and only 2 flexible straps. It bounces all over the road. You can use the very long trailer and haul the long items by that way.

How is the load over sized.
I can only assume rust nuts PDF is the law. That says I'm well within the law

artanevilla

Assuming the load is being carried legally, how is the driver of the van carrying the load at fault?

Are they supposed to take three left turns to completely avoid turning right? There is no way to prevent the car passing on the left.

AlanG

artanevilla wrote: »

Assuming the load is being carried legally, how is the driver of the van carrying the load at fault?

Are they supposed to take three left turns to completely avoid turning right? There is no way to prevent the car passing on the left.

Totally agree with this. Driver on left did not leave enough space. Its pretty straightforward if there was no turning lane. On a single lane road you can not just sneak up the left of a turning vehicle. If the car on the left was close enough they could catch the in-swinging rear of the turning vehicle even if there is no overhang. This assumes there is no turning lane and the load is legal.

jay48

artanevilla wrote: »

Assuming the load is being carried legally, how is the driver of the van carrying the load at fault?

Are they supposed to take three left turns to completely avoid turning right? There is no way to prevent the car passing on the left.

They could drive defensively and take up a position that prevents anything coming up the left or keep an eye on their mirrors for anyone going for the gap and wait to turn if necessary.

cruizer101

jay48 wrote: »

They could drive defensively and take up a position that prevents anything coming up the left or keep an eye on their mirrors for anyone going for the gap and wait to turn if necessary.

I would agree with you to not leave much space but they said the other vehicle had to go half way off the road to get around them. There is only so much you can do and so far to the left you can keep.
Technically they may well be at fault if contact but if overhang has clear warnings the other driver is an idiot for going around them.

jay48

cruizer101 wrote: »

I would agree with you to not leave much space but they said the other vehicle had to go half way off the road to get around them. There is only so much you can do and so far to the left you can keep.
Technically they may well be at fault if contact but if overhang has clear warnings the other driver is an idiot for going around them.

I totally agree with you too, just saying there are things that you can do to minimise the risk eg. Load the timber on the right side of the rack and it will lessen the chances of it swinging across the left lane when turning right.

Isambard

to make this turn the driver should have checked it was safe to do so, bearing in mind the swing on the overhang. He should not have started the turn until it was clear to do so and thus he is to blame for any accident that arises.

artanevilla

Isambard wrote: »

to make this turn the driver should have checked it was safe to do so, bearing in mind the swing on the overhang. He should not have started the turn until it was clear to do so and thus he is to blame for any accident that arises.

So he should have stopped on the road, and waited for any car behind him to come to a complete stop and move left on the road preventing the other car from leaving the road undertaking, before taking their right turn, stopping every few inches to make sure the car behind isn't sneaking around?

Auguste Comte

AlanG wrote: »

artanevilla wrote: »

Assuming the load is being carried legally, how is the driver of the van carrying the load at fault?

Are they supposed to take three left turns to completely avoid turning right? There is no way to prevent the car passing on the left.

Totally agree with this. Driver on left did not leave enough space. Its pretty straightforward if there was no turning lane. On a single lane road you can not just sneak up the left of a turning vehicle. If the car on the left was close enough they could catch the in-swinging rear of the turning vehicle even if there is no overhang. This assumes there is no turning lane and the load is legal.

This brings us back to the hypothetical cyclist mentioned by RustyNut above. Should the op not have made sure that he had enough clear space to complete the manoeuvre safely?

Isambard

artanevilla wrote: »

So he should have stopped on the road, and waited for any car behind him to come to a complete stop and move left on the road preventing the other car from leaving the road undertaking, before taking their right turn, stopping every few inches to make sure the car behind isn't sneaking around?

If he was a trucker, he would have taken up station on the road to allow the manoeuvre to take place safely.It's his responsibility to make allowances for his load.

artanevilla

Isambard wrote: »

If he was a trucker, he would have taken up station on the road to allow the manoeuvre to take place safely.It's his responsibility to make allowances for his load.

I would say yes, but reasonable allowances.

Del2005

Auguste Comte wrote: »

This brings us back to the hypothetical cyclist mentioned by RustyNut above. Should the op not have made sure that he had enough clear space to complete the manoeuvre safely?

That's the problem with this country. The liability changes depending on what's involved in the collision. The OP would most likely be partially responsible for the incident they described because they didn't control the road and didn't have the correct marker, IIRC it has to be red during the day and a red light at night. If they hit an animal the owner would be responsible yet if they hit a pedestrian they would have been responsible. Same incident but multiple outcomes.

the_pen_turner

Isambard wrote: »

If he was a trucker, he would have taken up station on the road to allow the manoeuvre to take place safely.It's his responsibility to make allowances for his load.

i was in the middle of the road. if i kept to the eft side the vehice behind would try to overtake. i could understand if i kept right to give room .



also .
surely there is an onus on a driver to make sure that their load stays inside their lane and doesnt swing out over the verge.

the_pen_turner

jay48 wrote: »

I totally agree with you too, just saying there are things that you can do to minimise the risk eg. Load the timber on the right side of the rack and it will lessen the chances of it swinging across the left lane when turning right.

i have learned from this and tie on the right side where posible



there is no left lane in this case. there is only my lane and the oncomming one.

Bruthal

the_pen_turner wrote: »

that would have been my guess at it.
if i parked illegally and someone hit me its still their fault for the accident

Not if some part of your car suddenly entered their otherwise clear path.