Whats your thinking?

Kell

Folks,

I have thought about this a fair bit, and I just wondered what your thoughts on the matter would be.

Take an incedent whereby a driver overtakes another where there is oncoming traffic (at a resonable distance). Now lets say the overtaking driver got his calculations wrong and the oncoming traffic is NOT at a reasonable distance and there is a head on collision: assuming that there is a hard shoulder on both sides of the road, who is in the wrong here?

I what what my thoughts are so I thought I would ask yours.

K-

Dingatron

The driver overtaking. All circumstances are different but even if the oncoming traffic has time to react and doesn't its the overtaker who is wrong. Something simular happened my dad. A car was overtaking him but got it wrong and had to take my dad out in order to save himself.

impr0v

The driver that overtook when there wasn't space to do so. There is a mistaken belief among the thugs that participate in this kind of action, including HGV drivers, that because there are hard shoulders on the road that both the person being overtaken and the oncoming traffic are obliged to make way to facilitate this persons selfish haste.

The NRA have stated on a number of occasions that the wide single carriageway with hard shoulders is the most dangerous road type, because some misinformed and aggressive drivers consider there to be an overtaking lane which straddles the white line in the centre and which is for the use of either traffic flow. Of course the etiquette for using this lane does not provide a solution for who yields when two cars are using it at the same time, meeting each other.

In normal traffic conditions you simply shouldn't encroach on the oncoming lane unless there is no traffic approaching.

kaiphas

Well put IMPR0V. I think you're on the money with your explanation.

De Hipster

Agressive drivers who are overtaking into the lane of on-coming traffic & expect them to hardsholder their vehicle to make room are asking for trouble, I generally hold the white line & make them reconsider, why should I be literally run off the road?!

comanche

You know, if you drive in the hard shoulder in the North of Ireland you can get pulled over by the police. That is why you never see this sort of behavious up when driving in the North. There is a good reason for this - the hard shoulder is only for break downs/emergencies.

We don't have this attitude down here, we expect people to move into the hard shoulder which is fine to do in most cases but could potentially cause a nasty accident - hitting an already stationary vehichle.

The problem is that with the volume of traffic on the roads today it is sometimes very hard to overtake without forcing people into the hardshoulder. It is dangerous driving but we all end up doing it from time to time unfortunately.

ambro25

We don't have this attitude down here, we expect people to move into the hard shoulder which is fine to do in most cases but could potentially cause a nasty accident - hitting an already stationary vehichle.

You fudding what?!? :eek:

No wonder insurance premiums are so expensive over here!

If there's a hard shoulder, it's for stopping in case of emergency - period (no, not even to take a mobile phone call).

If there's only 2 lanes and oncoming traffic & you want to overtake, you wait until there's no oncoming traffic.

I can't understand any 'exception' to this state of affairs - unless of course:
1. there's an emergency vehicle (ambulane/fire truck/Gardai car) coming up behind/in front
2. they need the room to get where they're going in a hurry
3. and there's no obstruction on the hard shoulder

Drivers sticking to the speed limit (or driving thereunder) and being overtaken (I'm not talking about drivers in the ocoming lane) should not be expected to 'move' anywhere - it's up to the driver in the overtaking car to exercise due care & attention when driving (my understanding of the law, at any rate).

impr0v

I think there is some obscure regulation which states that vehicles which are being an impediment to traffic flow should move into the hard shoulder to let others pass, though I think it is meant to apply to tractors and slow moving machinery, rather than Granny in her micra, or the truck struggling up the hill at 35-40mph.

comanche

Oh i agree with you - people should never move into the hard shoulder, but people do pull in to let people pass, thats just the way it is. Its a dangerous practice.

But there are two parties at fault here, the person moving into the hard shoulder to let the person pass and the person over taking. If the on coming car has to move into the hard should they are only doing so to take evasive action due to the actions of the two other cars.

ambro25

I know this will be totally dependent upon road planners (whoever that is) and/or local regulations (I mean 'Irish' by that, no offense intended), but there's usually a specific lane provided in case of steep hills or long ones, for such slow-moving traffic (artics struggling up) to drive in, and still a hard shoulder.

Problem with these is situations with one artic going up 30, one artic going up 35 and not wanting to lose momentum so 'suddenly' overtaking the other, and everybody else driving up at 60-70 - with some interesting results at night or in fog (seen it in Belgium, wasn't pretty at all - not much left of the A6 that had passed me doing 90-100 ).

Worse situation than the one alluded to in this thread is when the car being overtaken accelerates as you are overtaking it. Now, I've said my piece about being all nice & careful when overtaking others, but this one has happened to me enough times also - and this could actually (on reflection) modify my previous stance 'slightly': the last time someone pulled that one on me, I did force them on the hard shoulder for an... explanation.

John R

Well the expectaion is that only people whose vehicles are incapable of a reasonable speed need get out of the way of traffic, granny in her micra is already not complying with the law by driving too slow for the road conditions.


The Irish rules do allow for regular traffic to use the hard shoulder to allow others to pass when conditions allow.

ambro25

John R wrote:

The Irish rules do allow for regular traffic to use the hard shoulder to allow others to pass when conditions allow.

Ah - thank you for this, taken good note.

"when conditions allow" sounds dangerous all the same though, as totally subjective (all the more so when you need to "have a chat" with your insurer after an "incident" in such conditions).

John R

De Hipster wrote:

Agressive drivers who are overtaking into the lane of on-coming traffic & expect them to hardsholder their vehicle to make room are asking for trouble, I generally hold the white line & make them reconsider, why should I be literally run off the road?!

So you think that acting equally agressive in response is good driving?

Quite apart from there never being a need to drive a 5 foot wide car in the extreme right of a 10 foot driving lane. In this instance you are actively making an already dangerous overtaking procedure more dangerous. You could make the difference between some poor sap driving in the other direction having a head on collision when if you kept to the left he could have scraped by the overtaking nutter.

John R

ambro25 wrote:

Ah - thank you for this, taken good note.

"when conditions allow" sounds dangerous all the same though, as totally subjective (all the more so when you need to "have a chat" with your insurer after an "incident" in such conditions).

The big problem is that pulling over to let one car pass is generally fine as you can see far enough to ensure there is no obstruction but as anyone who drives a truck or bus regularly will tell you, if you pull into the hard shoulder when there is a tail-back behind you the whole lot of them will stream past without any consideration that you may have to return to the driving lane.

So what was initially a safe action can lead to you being stuck in the hard shoulder bearing down on an obstruction ot a junction with a wall of cars blocking the driving lane.

The only available actions then being to brake to a stop and wait for a gap in the traffic large enough to accelerate to driving speed or force your way back into the driving lane. Unfortunately indicating your need to return to the driving lane is often ignored by car drivers as each one just has to nip by you.

In case anyone was wondering it is situations like this that cause many truck/bus drivers to have a strict no hard shoulder rule.

ambro25

Fair comment, insofar as aggressive x 2 often as not means problems in a too-short while, of the car-wrapped-around-a-tree variety, but I can nonetheless see the wisdom of De Hipster's reaction if in appropriate circumstances, e.g. he can see oncoming traffic which the overtaker could not possibly... That's just being proactive, safety-wise, of course and if the guy behind does not realise (after the fact) that De Hipster more likely than not saved his bacon, then he shouldn't be driving anyways...

And re. second post - of course, that is common sense, John R.

But then again, it sounds like we've both got a fair few '0000s of miles under us (read: experience), which unfortunately a fair few "young'uns" believe they possess within days of obtaining the right to sit behind a steering wheel. I should know, I've been there and broken my fair share of motors and bones (though never anybody else's, might I add)...

Fionn101

ambro25 wrote: Worse situation than the one alluded to in this thread is when the car being overtaken accelerates as you are overtaking it. Now, I've said my piece about being all nice & careful when overtaking others, but this one has happened to me enough times also - and this could actually (on reflection) modify my previous stance 'slightly': the last time someone pulled that one on me, I did force them on the hard shoulder for an... explanation.

it is dangerous but this does go on , some people just don;t like to be overtaken . what did this person do when you forced them of the road ?

Also , what really freaks me out about country driving is when you are leaving a bit of room between yourself and the car in front (u know safe distance) and some lunatic comes hurtling along at 90mph , overtaking about 5 cars and then slotting into my safety space , thereby forcing me to slow down further to create another safety space and then some other p-rick goes and does the same . anyone have thoughts on this ??? there'snt much you can do expect give them a flash or perhaps give them the fingers as they go by , neither of which is really emotionally scarring

ambro25

Fionn101 wrote:

it is dangerous but this does go on , some people just don;t like to be overtaken . what did this person do when you forced them of the road ?

What do you think? Considering I didn't slow down or accelerate, but just kept pace with him as he accelerated and turned (progressively) left until he had no choice to to pull over else we'd 'bump' (I must admit - I was so bloody annoyed by it I didn't care one bit of we did. I guess call it road rage and flame me to your heart's content)...

Much swearing and gesticulations, but I must have looked particularly scary that day (2-day beard, black leather 3/4 coat) as he piped down quick when I got out the car

I did ask him "why the f*** did he accelerate when he'd been doing 45 mph on a 60 mph A-road for the last 7 minutes?", the reply was babbling along the lines of "young drivers... think they know it all... bloody danger..." muttered under breath and eyes wide in fear (probably thought I was going to stick him or something). I left it at that & got back in the car under the distinct impression the guy was just pissed he was driving a Mondeo & I was half his age, driving an MX-5.

Good driving, bad driving... There's one thing no car salesman will ever tell you before you get your dream motor: other drivers' jealousy generates the worst risks of accidents once you've got a nice ride. You'll find people who never blinked an eye when you were pottering about in a Fiesta or whatever turn psycho as soon as they think you're doing better than them and they always have a point to prove: they "can take" you at the lights, on the road, you don't deserve your right-of-way, etc, etc.

Kell

Hmmn.

Have read all posts and there pretty much seems to be an agreement that the overtaker is at fault. Consider this-

everyone has alluded to agressive driving behaviour i.e. the overtaker deliberately making a dangerous move, but you have all forgotton my intro statement i.e. "what happens if he miscalculates the distance".

My reading of a head on collision in those circumstances goes like this-

1) Error made on part of overtaker. Errors happen, we are all fallible

2) Oncoming driver a) takes aggressive action and thinks "fúck you, I'm not moving over" or b) (see point 3). The aggressive behaviour means that they are prepared to risk a collision/death rather than take an evasive manouvre to save a life/lives. This in my book means that they are effectively playing chicken with the oncoming car and I believe this makes it a clear case of shared blame. In fact, they take more blame as they have made a conscious decision to cause an accident. The erroneous overtakers only mistake was mis-calculating distance/speed of oncoming traffic. People do it all the time i.e. pulling out of a junction and thinking in hindsight "fúck; I didnt think he/she was that close/travelling that fast".

3) b) The oncoming driver hasn't seen the erroneous overtaker, in which case they are not driving with due care and attention and also takes a cut of the blame as a result.

It's not good enough to point a finger at a single driver and say "thats your fault. You shouldnt have done x". If I/you didnt make evasive manouvres at some point in our driving history, we'd be dead or in a serious accident when we're not the ones at fault.

Everyone on the road has a responsibility to make sure that they dont have an accident and to be aware of everything on the road front, rear and to the side. Maybe when everyone in the country thinks like that, the road death toll will drop.

K-

ambro25

Kell wrote:

Hmmn.
everyone has alluded to agressive driving behaviour i.e. the overtaker deliberately making a dangerous move, but you have all forgotton my intro statement i.e. "what happens if he miscalculates the distance".

Then he brakes & slots back behind the car he was going to overtake - when are people going to realise & adjust to the concept of 'relative motion', that if you simply tap you brakes gently, the car you were going to overtake will just shoot back out in front and leave plenty of room to slot back behind...

Re. 1), 2) and 3),

Point 1) - Fair enough, sh*t happens.
Point 2) - good riddance, they're both an equal danger to me.
Point 3) - it's a bit easy to generalise this quick... What if "the oncoming driver hasn't seen the erroneous overtaker" because he's coming around a bend?

It's not good enough to point a finger at a single driver and say "thats your fault. You shouldnt have done x".

Everyone on the road has a responsibility to make sure that they dont have an accident and to be aware of everything on the road front, rear and to the side.

Make that road front and side, thanks - rear is the responsibility of the driver behind me - same as it's mine when I'm behind you, etc. at the end of the day, you are in control of where your carriage is going, nobody else.

comanche

I think the idea is not to put yourself in the situation where you have to take evasive action!

ambro25 wrote:

Make that road front and side, thanks - rear is the responsibility of the driver behind me - same as it's mine when I'm behind you, etc. at the end of the day, you are in control of where your carriage is going, nobody else.

The rear is also your responsibility - maybe not in law, but you can avoid accidents by watching your rear as well, thats why you have a rear view mirror.

There is a road safety video where they show an accident where a truck rear ends a car in stationary traffic on a motorway. Most people think its the truck drivers fault when they first see it.

What actually happens is that the fella in the car is speeding in the outside lane of the motor way. Thinks there is a speed check ahead coz traffic is slowing down. Pulls into the inside lane into the trucks braking area, realises that that traffic is stopped for another accident stops well short of the traffic infront of him and truck goes into the back of him. The truck doesn't even push the car into the next car but its still a nasty accident - the car was a complete write off.

The funny think is this guy could have avoided this accident if

1. he had stayed in his lane
2. if he was checking his rear view mirror he could have seen that truck coming and had time to move back into the outside lane.

ambro25

Well, yeah - of course! If you see something's going to rear-end you without fail and if you've got time/room to do something about it (that is a big "if", BTW), you do shift. I don't want my car deflowered and in the garage for the next 2 months anymore than the next man...

But my comment was specifically targeted at the situation originally floated, e.g. overtaker/overtaken.

To my mind and in practice, if someone thinks I don't drive fast enough & they want past - fine, so what? But it's their ass, not mine, i.e. not my job to check for them whether the coast is clear or not & accelerate or otherwise because -in the overtaking process- they're crawling in my boot.

Likewise, if I'm going to turn and go across the oncoming traffic lane, I'll first check whether some idiot is not already overtaking and in my blind spot (both sides, since a lot of bikers can't be arsed to check my indicators, or don't find find them orange enough to their taste). But still, all the same - if they 'plough' - their fault, not mine.

De Hipster

Eh JohnR ...I WAS the poor oncoming sap!

seamus

ambro25 wrote:

Likewise, if I'm going to turn and go across the oncoming traffic lane, I'll first check whether some idiot is not already overtaking and in my blind spot (both sides, since a lot of bikers can't be arsed to check my indicators, or don't find find them orange enough to their taste). But still, all the same - if they 'plough' - their fault, not mine.

Not exactly, remember, indicators are only a notice of intention, they don't confer right-of-way. It's your responsibility to check your blindspots before you turn, you're at fault if you rely on others to have the good sense to stay out of them.

I'm not sure what the actual position is, but I'm pretty sure that nine times out of ten, if you turn while someone is overtaking you, you're at fault, because you're the one who deviated into the other driver's right-of-way (i.e. the roadspace in front of him).

The overtaking situation can be grey at times. The sanctity of hard shoulders isn't the same on national roads as on motorways. One is never permitted to drive in a hard shoulder on a motorway, but the same isn't true on other roads.

As for Kell's thoughts, I'd say in general, the law will tend to fall on the side of the guy who had right-of-way, in the absence of anything else. Where the oncoming driver is too dozy/aggressive to move over for the overtaker, that puts both drivers at some degree of fault, but at the end of the day, the oncoming driver has right-of-way.

Different situations would call for different judgements though. There's no way you can say that "Driver X will always be at fault for accident type Y".

ambro25

seamus wrote:

Not exactly, remember, indicators are only a notice of intention, they don't confer right-of-way. It's your responsibility to check your blindspots before you turn, you're at fault if you rely on others to have the good sense to stay out of them.

True - and I was not inferring that they do confer right-of-way. All the same, someone coming up behind the indicating car in the same lane does not have any right-of-way, they're supposed to wait until the road/situation is clear to overtake (e.g. no oncoming traffic, car indicating before they're going to overtake has completed manoeuvre) and they certainly have no legally-sanctionned right to overtake on the left (slow-lane/hard shoulder/whatever you want to call it), the same as a car travelling contra-flow never has any right-of-way, irrespective of the situation.

seamus wrote:

I'm not sure what the actual position is, but I'm pretty sure that nine times out of ten, if you turn while someone is overtaking you, you're at fault, because you're the one who deviated into the other driver's right-of-way (i.e. the roadspace in front of him).

It is (as you quite rightly put it thereafter) a gray area, but I'm pretty sure the odds are not so stacked as you suggest. I'm personally aware (though no part of-) 4 such situations, and based on this the odds are 3/4 in favour of the turning car, since the overtaker had (ref. above) no right-of-way in the oncoming lane and driving without due care & attention...

seamus

ambro25 wrote:

True - and I was not inferring that they do confer right-of-way. All the same, someone coming up behind the indicating car in the same lane does not have any right-of-way, they're supposed to wait until the road/situation is clear to overtake (e.g. no oncoming traffic, car indicating before they're going to overtake has completed manoeuvre) and they certainly have no legally-sanctionned right to overtake on the left (slow-lane/hard shoulder/whatever you want to call it), the same as a car travelling contra-flow never has any right-of-way, irrespective of the situation.

Ah, but what's the story once the overtake has begun? As said, indicators give you no rights, so whether you had them on or off is largely irrelevant, it just gives you a little more pull in the "He wasn't looking" department. The problem with indicators is that they cannot be proven, which is why they can't really support either side's testimony if one person says they were, and the other says they were off.
Plenty of times, I've nearly been side-swiped by people indicating right when I'm mid-overtake, but by the same token, I've seen plenty of people overtake a car indicating right (and a few nearly clipped by them).

An overtake is a valid manouver, and the vehicle in the overtake position also has some rights-of-way. It's not just a matter of "pull out and hope no-one else f*cks up".

The_Bullman

Fionn101 wrote:

Also , what really freaks me out about country driving is when you are leaving a bit of room between yourself and the car in front (u know safe distance)

If I remember correctly, from the rules of the road, if you are not intending to overtake the vehicle infront of you then you have to leave sufficient distance infront of you for a vehicle to overtake you.

From your post it seems to me that you aren't leaving sufficient space infront of you if you are having objections to having to slow down due to being overtaken.


In my experience, this is the main reason that overtaking is so dangerous in this country. Cars have are driving along too close to one another, behind a slow moving vehicle. When someone choses to overtake they have nowhere to go.

De Hipster

The_Bullman wrote:

If I remember correctly, from the rules of the road, if you are not intending to overtake the vehicle infront of you then you have to leave sufficient distance infront of you for a vehicle to overtake you.

I've NEVER heard this or anything similar with regard to the rules of the road before...can you substantiate this claim TB?

The_Bullman

I remember reading it in the rules of the road booklet. I got this before the theorey test came into play. Can't find it now though. Anyone else heard of it?

BrianD3

The_Bullman wrote:

I remember reading it in the rules of the road booklet. I got this before the theorey test came into play. Can't find it now though. Anyone else heard of it?

I've heard of it and agree with it, but I don't think it's stated in the rules of the road that you must leave sufficient room in front of you for an overtaking vehicle to move into. However it would be taught in advanced/defensive driving courses.

But in any case, if you're leaving a sufficient braking distance between you and the vehicle in front there will almost always be plenty of room for an overtaking vehicle to move into safely unless you're travelling very slowly and/or the overtaker is driving an articulated lorry.

The problem is that most Irish drivers tailgate and don't leave enough braking distance. And there are plenty of begrudgers who will do everything in their power to make life as difficult as possible for an overtaking vehcile (eg speeding up when someone tries to overtake)

BrianD3

ambro25

Now, now, children

To calculate approximatively the braking distance (a.k.a. safety distance in this thread):

1) First digit of the current speed e.g. 5 in 50 kph (adjust hereafter if using imperials, of course)

2) Squared 5 x 5 = 25 meters

3a) -10% (if dry road) = 25 x 2.5 = 22.5 meters

3b) +30% (if wet road) = 25 x 1.3 = 32.5 meters

And no, ABS doesn't make a blind bit of difference, as it does not slow a car any faster - just safer with safeguarding control of the vehicule.

Considering most cars fall between 3.5 and 5 meters, that should be plenty big enough to overtake & slide in without causing any inconvenience to the overtaken. But do factor in acceleration and subsequently-required deceleration, of course.