Could the esteemed members of this forum please tell me which car would be in the wrong in this incident ?

A Ford wants to turn right out of a side street but it's a busy road and he's been waiting a good while.

A Toyota is coming along the main road and indicating left (onto the road the Ford is coming out of), so, once it is is obvious the Toyota is definitely going to turn left the Ford pulls out to turn right.

Unfortunately, just as the Ford pulls out to turn right, an Audi (pure coincidence I chose an Audi for this participant, or maybe it wasn't pure coincidence....) decides to overtake the Toyota. Result ? Head on smash.

Two competing rules of the road are in conflicting here :
 1 - When pulling out from a minor road onto a main road you have to give way to traffic on the major road.
But
2 - Overtaking is possibly the most dangerous manoeuvre on the roads and one should be 100% sure it's safe before attempting it, plus, at the point of impact, the Audi would be on the wrong side of the road.

I have always maintained it would be the Audi at fault, but what do others think ?

50/50 Audi and Ford!

Audi for overtaking at a junction and Ford for pulling out of the junction assuming the Toyota was turning and not waiting for it to at least start it's manoeuvre.

Personally, I would suspect that the insurance companies (or Police) will decide in the final analysis based on the evidence (especially any dashcam footage)?

The overtaking does seem very foolhardy but as we/I don't know the exact conditions it is difficult to say and anyway, as said, it won't be up to us!

5 minutes ago, Turvey said:

50/50 Audi and Ford!

Audi for overtaking at a junction and Ford for pulling out of the junction assuming the Toyota was turning and not waiting for it to at least start it's manoeuvre.

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear, the Ford did wait for the Toyota to start its manoeuvre. It was definitely turning left, indicating to do so, and had started doing (so by slowing right down).

20 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear, the Ford did wait for the Toyota to start its manoeuvre. It was definitely turning left, indicating to do so, and had started doing (so by slowing right down).

Indicating and slowing down doesn't, in my mind, say that it started it's manoeuvre. Waiting until it actually starts to turn or even totally turns in would say to me that it had started and finished it's manoeuvre. 

Not saying that we all don't do it but in a court of law.....

22 minutes ago, Turvey said:

Indicating and slowing down doesn't, in my mind, say that it started it's manoeuvre. Waiting until it actually starts to turn or even totally turns in would say to me that it had started and finished it's manoeuvre. 

Not saying that we all don't do it but in a court of law.....

I get your point, but I would have thought this incident is between the Ford and the Audi, is what the Toyota does actually that relevant ? If anything the Audio may be even more likely to overtake the Toyota if it had actually started turning (when, ironically, the Ford would be at even less risk from the Toyota ! )?

100% Ford.  It doesn't matter how long they'd been waiting, they could not see the main road was clear.  It could just as easily have been a cyclist or a moped overtaking the turning Toyota.  At minimum the Ford should have pulled forward slowly until they could see the lane on the right was definitely clear before completing the manoeuvre.  Tbh they were lucky it was a car.

Unfortunately, people will always try to defend and justify why they were in the right so this kind of thread is entirely pointless.  

I do find these hypothetical questions interesting from a legal/logical point of view.

However, in practice, when you are going through your insurance policy and the repair estimates in your hospital bed with a broken leg (or worse) that will be the least of your concerns. It's going to hurt either way, and be of little comfort to know that somebody else has been found to be legally liable. Your insurance premium will go up next year, regardless of whose fault the collision was.. Let's avoid the incident in the first place.

You don't want to be in the Ford blaming the Audi nor in the Audi blaming the Ford. So the "take-away" from this scenario is:

1. Don't overtake unless you can see that the way is clear (and that there are no potential hazards e.g. junctions)

2. Don't turn right unless you can see for sure that there isn't a car just about to overtake the Toyota.

Riding a motorbike sharpens the mind in cases like this! 

8 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

100% Ford.  It doesn't matter how long they'd been waiting, they could not see the main road was clear.  It could just as easily have been a cyclist or a moped overtaking the turning Toyota.  At minimum the Ford should have pulled forward slowly until they could see the lane on the right was definitely clear before completing the manoeuvre.  Tbh they were lucky it was a car.

Unfortunately, people will always try to defend and justify why they were in the right so this kind of thread is entirely pointless.  

Obviously one wants to avoid having an accident in the first place (though we all see many examples of driving where the relevant drivers appear to take a different view....) but who is responsible is not a moot point for a whole load of reasons.
I don't quite understand why you think the Ford driver is 100% to blame. What about the point that the Audi would be on the wrong side of the road at the point of impact ? Why does that not account for anything in your conclusion ?

What about the case where a vehicle turns left and is hit by an overtaking vehicle ?
Again, to me, despite the fact he is driving onto a major road the overtaker is in the wrong because he (and it almost always will be a man ! ) is on the wrong side of the road.
As mentioned by @alanfp (above) one should not overtake in the area of a junction.
As a general rule, to me, in almost every case the driver overtaking is in the wrong in the event of an accident. They are on the wrong side of the road, usually at high speed (possibly even speeding) and therefore should only make that manoeuvre if 100% certain it is safe.

7 hours ago, alanfp said:

2. Don't turn right unless you can see for sure that there isn't a car just about to overtake the Toyota.

But what does that actually mean though ?
If you mean a car is already half way out onto the other side of the road then yes obviously you are right.
But if you mean the very presence of a vehicle behind the left turner means it could possibly overtake is a very different argument.

This scenario does remind me why I prefer roundabouts, no head on smashes and although they may well be as many accidents they will not usually be serious.

Everyone has missed the correct answer!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100% cyclist's fault!!! 🤣

On 12/30/2024 at 7:40 AM, Turvey said:

Everyone has missed the correct answer!

100% cyclist's fault!!! 🤣

But he had to swerve out to avoid a pot hole !

On 12/28/2024 at 10:08 PM, Justin Smith said:

Could the esteemed members of this forum please tell me which car would be in the wrong in this incident ?

A Ford wants to turn right out of a side street but it's a busy road and he's been waiting a good while.

A Toyota is coming along the main road and indicating left (onto the road the Ford is coming out of), so, once it is is obvious the Toyota is definitely going to turn left the Ford pulls out to turn right.

Unfortunately, just as the Ford pulls out to turn right, an Audi (pure coincidence I chose an Audi for this participant, or maybe it wasn't pure coincidence....) decides to overtake the Toyota. Result ? Head on smash.

Two competing rules of the road are in conflicting here :
 1 - When pulling out from a minor road onto a main road you have to give way to traffic on the major road.
But
2 - Overtaking is possibly the most dangerous manoeuvre on the roads and one should be 100% sure it's safe before attempting it, plus, at the point of impact, the Audi would be on the wrong side of the road.

I have always maintained it would be the Audi at fault, but what do others think ?

Read this the other day (which is pretty relevant for this thread ! ) :

rule 167 of the Highway code says :

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.

Surely that settles it, it is the Audi drivers fault ?

As nothing indicates this is at night, the Ford driver should have seen there was a 2nd car too close to go. If the Audi was allowed to overtake or not depends of the local setting.

1 hour ago, Ponch said:

As nothing indicates this is at night, the Ford driver should have seen there was a 2nd car too close to go. If the Audi was allowed to overtake or not depends of the local setting.

To be fair to the Ford driver he knows that the Audi cannot hit him whilst he turns right so long as he has pulled out fully onto the other side of the road before the Toyota driver has completed turning left off the road. The only way the Audi driver can hit him is by overtaking (and thus being on the wrong side of the road), and the highway code rule 167 specifically states that overtakes should not be attempted "approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road".
Doesn't that officially settle it ?

To be fair to the Audi driver:

170
Take extra care at junctions. You should

• look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.

172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

180
Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

I can't believe this thread is still going. You were both at fault here.

23 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

To be fair to the Audi driver:

170
Take extra care at junctions. You should

• look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.

172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

180
Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

I can't believe this thread is still going. You were both at fault here.

I think you mean they would both be at fault ! But whatever, the highway code snippets you quoted :

Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely

Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap

But there would be in infinite gap (well up till the next car comes along) had the Audi not overtaken where he shouldn't, i.e. across a junction (which the highway code specifically forbids).

Similarly for :

The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road

The Ford driver would be giving way (to all vehicle driving as per the highway code). The Audi would be on the wrong side of the road and, even more significantly, alongside a junction. Thus I still think it would be the Audi at fault.
As an aside what happens when a vehicle on the main road is speeding, as in grossly speeding ? I will always remember an incident about 30 years ago (it's imprinted on my brain...) when I pulled out of a side road with a car coming and he would not even have had to slow down but for the fact he was doing about 60 in a 30 limit.... Thus he had to brake and therefore, in his opinion, I had pulled out on him which I seem to remember he communicated to me "quite clearly". But to me one has only pulled out on a vehicle if two conditions are met : (A) that vehicle has to brake or they'd hit you, and (B) he is traveling at (or under) the speed limit.

I think you will find that in a scenario like this the insurance companies will settle as knock for knock ie equal blame on both Audi and Ford. I base this on a good few years as a claims investigator for various insurance companies.

6 hours ago, boristhebold said:

I think you will find that in a scenario like this the insurance companies will settle as knock for knock ie equal blame on both Audi and Ford. I base this on a good few years as a claims investigator for various insurance companies.

Well you would know then !
So both drivers would lose their no claims bonuses then ?

Just out of interest, would the police be interested in either driver, particularly the Audi driver (overtaking across a sideroad as he was) ?

Yes I would expect both to lose some or all of their NCB dependant on their policy terms. But I only did the investigating / statement process I had no involvement in how the claims were actually settled.

In respect of the police if it was a damage only with no aggravating features ie excess speed ,drink or drug use then probably not If there were injuries that could be a different case depending on the individual force policy .

In this case both drivers had some culpability in my humble opinion the Ford should be aware of all conditions before entering from the side road and to always expect the unexpected ie the car behind the Toyota to try to pass

The Audi driver should also consider how safe the overtaking manoeuvre was ie any oncoming traffic or not and he also should be prepared to expect the unexpected ie the Ford emerging from the side road .

I take it this scenario has happened to you or someone you know.

Insurance companies tend to try and settle on the best terms for them not the policyholder.