# Witnessed A Shunt This Morning.



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

I dunno how many times I've promised myself not to get involved! :roll:

BMW turning left- signals - takes a line on the approach and at the last moment makes one of those completely unnecessary swings out towards the crown of the road - straight into the nearside of a Volvo which has seen the signal and decided to overtake. Nasty looking damage to the sides of both vehicles. The road was completely blocked so I sat there, lit a *** and patiently waited for them sort it out. The Volvo driver was quite unflustered just trying to get the details of the other driver, who was bawling and shouting, to the point of being objectionable. In the end I just went and gave my details to the Volvo driver, said my piece and left 'em to it.

I'd never overtake a vehicle turning left for the very reason so many seem to need this swing to the right to make a left turn, but that apart no doubt who was to blame.


----------



## X5TUU (Sep 4, 2012)

It's amazing what I see when out and about and agree comment about some people swing right to go left, as if driving some HGV, baffling

No doubt you will get a witness statement to complete then and be the one who's statement sets the 'at fault'


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

X5TUU said:


> No doubt you will get a witness statement to complete then and be the one who's statement sets the 'at fault'


I doubt it will go that far tbh - I left the BMW driver in no doubt about whose fault I thought it was, so if I'm the only witness he'd be well advised to sort it out with the other driver. I'm quite happy to go to court if need be , but having been caught before, I know what a pain it can be with repeated adjournments - hence me promising myself not to get involved. I can't help thinking though that it could be me in the Volvo driver's position.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

So you say it's 'no doubt' who's at fault.

I think that realistically you're right, but technically it would be very easy to argue that it's the Volvo driver.

You should never overtake unless it's safe to do so, that includes cars turning left. You could also argue that even if he hadn't hit the BMW (or vice versa) then the manoeuvre was still unsafe as there could have been a car/motorbike/pushbike coming out of the junction that the Volvo driver had not seen.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you might think.


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

I would say on what you say on the details of the accident, its 100% the Volvos fault, he was overtaking a turning vehicle im pretty sure that's going to be seen as the fault.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Yep, I'd agree it's the Volvos fault. The fact that there's no real _need_ to swing right before a left hand turn doesn't mean you're in the wrong for doing it.

Whilst I don't understand why someone in a normal sized vehicle would swing out before turning, I really can't fathom the amount of impatience needed to make someone want to overtake a car that's turning off. If you can't handle a few seconds delay to your journey, there's something a bit wrong with you.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Sorry guys, but I think you're confusing a pretty clear cut issue. You don't signal to turn left and then deviate to the right. In this instance I wouldn't apportion blame to the Volvo driver. As I said earlier, I would never overtake a vehicle turning left in this situation as I'd be more than half expecting the swerve to the right which is quite a common (very bad) practice. The Volvo driver signalled and moved out in plenty of time with no danger from oncoming traffic so the fact that the BMW deviated from his indicated course doesn't make the Volvo driver to blame.

Actually, I don't know which is more dangerous - the 'twisters' who veer to the right, or the following drivers who don't adjust their speed, expecting the car to have completed the turn when they catch up, but instead find their path still blocked and swerve out violently to overtake at the last moment posing a threat to oncoming traffic.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

As long as the BMW didn't swerve out into oncoming traffic (which I assume they didn't, as the volvo had a clear overtake ahead of them) then they're allowed to 'deviate' as much as they like. It's their choice how they position themselves on the road for the manoeuvre they're about to make. I'm not even sure what 'deviate' means in this context, other than deviating from what the Volvo driver expected - in which case the problem is with the volvo drivers expectations, rather than the BMW drivers actions.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> As long as the BMW didn't swerve out into oncoming traffic (which I assume they didn't, as the volvo had a clear overtake ahead of them) then they're allowed to 'deviate' as much as they like. It's their choice how they position themselves on the road for the manoeuvre they're about to make. I'm not even sure what 'deviate' means in this context, other than deviating from what the Volvo driver expected - in which case the problem is with the volvo drivers expectations, rather than the BMW drivers actions.


Well I'm not going to argue with you but if there's a need to take a wider line on the left turn, you adopt that line on the approach - not at the last moment and completely at odds (opposite in fact) with the signal you're currently giving.

Mirror/signal/ manoeuvre - not - mirror /signal manoeuvre.. I'm turning left but I might move out to the right! Even heavy goods drivers tend to take their wide line on the approach and with a left indicator going it's pretty obvious what their intentions are anyway.

I think this swervy left turn thing is just a showy flourish which some drivers have got into the habit of doing, but it's potentially dangerous and I'm quite surprised you can't see that.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> I think this swervy left turn thing is just a showy flourish which some drivers have got into the habit of doing, but it's potentially dangerous and I'm quite surprised you can't see that.


I can see it can be dangerous, but that danger goes away if the car behind drives sensibly. I agree that it's a stupid thing to do and is completely unnecessary, but we're talking about who's legally at fault and I don't see how it can be anyone elses fault but the Volvo driver for impatiently overtaking when it wasn't safe to do so.

It's a common theme on here when people post about accidents they've been in - they blame the other driver just because they did something they didn't expect, not because they actually did something wrong.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > I think this swervy left turn thing is just a showy flourish which some drivers have got into the habit of doing, but it's potentially dangerous and I'm quite surprised you can't see that.
> ...


We can argue about it all day, which I'm not going to do, but the fact is there'd have been no collision had it not been for the BMW which hit the Volvo (not vice versa). Did the BMW driver check his mirrors before he swung out to the right ? Clearly not. It has to be sloppy driving however you look at it.

I've no doubt that left to the insurance companies they'd do the easy thing and settle it knock for knock, but if I'm contacted I shall certainly be making a statement supporting the Volvo driver. I saw the accident- you didn't. :wink:


----------



## uv101 (Aug 17, 2013)

Always great fun these!!

Here's a thought. I bet neither driver ride a motorbike!! Reason I can tell is that either of the manoeuvres described in the OP show that drivers considered any possible problems with their chosen course. BMW driver moved over to the right without checking that the change in course was to clear road (that hurts on a bike) and the Volvo driver overtook without giving "just in case space" to the BMW and potentially without a full view of the junction which would have been obscured by the BMW (that hurts on a bike).

Riding a bike and the vulnerabilities associated really make you consider much more that most do in their metal boxes!!

As you can probably tell, I also ride a bike!!!


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

See, you all need dash cams so you can post them on here. Sadly I haven't see any prangs since I fitted mine. I'm sticking another on in my rear window too soon. 8) . As a fellow biker I also drive expecting every idiot is out to kill me.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

From what I have read, I would also blame the Volvo driver for not waiting for the car infront to have cleared before attempting an overtaking procedure. To be overtaking at that time, maybe he was also too close to the BMW and in his rush to get by got caught out. Agreed the Beemer shouldn't have swerved, but then again how can the Volvo driver actually know he was turning and hadn't just knocked the indicator by mistake. Hmmmm tricky lol


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

just because you are not wrong does not make you right :roll: ( especially if you are turning left  )


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> if I'm contacted I shall certainly be making a statement supporting the Volvo driver. I saw the accident- you didn't. :wink:


You'd be contacted for your witness statement, not your opinion on right and wrong. They don't ask passers-by whose fault it was.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

i would say bmw driver all day long, 
lets just say this was on a duel carrage way....
the volvo driver still to blame for over taking? no... 
so why should it make any diffrence if its on a singal carrige road which from op was clear.

the bmw driver should not have serverd to the right to turn left end story

if he didnt hit the volvo over taking he might have hit a on coming car or worse a bike coming either way.


----------



## NoMark (Jul 6, 2011)

anthony_839 said:


> i would say bmw driver all day long,
> lets just say this was on a duel carrage way....
> the volvo driver still to blame for over taking? no...
> so why should it make any diffrence if its on a singal carrige road which from op was clear.
> ...


The difference is there is no possibility of traffic coming towards you on a dual carriageway (normally).

I don't think it's clear cut and I agree that the driver of the BMW is a plonker, but I seem to remember that you're not supposed to overtake on a junction?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

If the Volvo hadn't started to overtake, the BMW driver would have had no one to hit.

As I mentioned above, I do think it might be accepted practice to overtake someone turning left, but the onus is ALWAYS on the driver behind to make sure it's safe to do so.

Aside from the fact that he shouldn't have overtaken at a junction anyway, the argument of what if the BMW driver had swerved into oncoming traffic is equally true of the Volly driver.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

NoMark said:


> anthony_839 said:
> 
> 
> > i would say bmw driver all day long,
> ...


under stand what you are saying 
You MUST NOT overtake

if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
after a 'No Overtaking' sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.

but it also says 
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Conveniently missed out these ones:

167
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*
where the road narrows
when approaching a school crossing patrol
between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
at a level crossing
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic.


----------



## NoMark (Jul 6, 2011)

Kell said:


> Conveniently missed out these ones:
> 
> 167
> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
> ...


Thanks Kell, thought I was going mad there for a while.

Good to know I haven't forgotten the whole highway code :lol:


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Its also worrying how much the Volvo was paying attention as he A. Couldn't stop in time when he saw the BMW pulling out to the right??? B. Couldn't move over to avoid the BMW meaning he was passing in narrow inappropriate place??

BMW will probably be able to claim whiplash from being hit as he was turning from someone who "was" behind him.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

Kell said:


> Conveniently missed out these ones:
> 
> 167
> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
> ...


just copied a bit of it i could have done a lot more than just the 2 i did but then i would be copying the whole highway code.

im was just showing you are right in some respcet and also the fact that the bmw driver is also in the wrong,


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

anthony_839 said:


> im was just showing you are right in some respcet and also the fact that the bmw driver is also in the wrong,


I've said all along that the BMW shouldn't have pulled out to the right to take the corner - it's unnecessary at best and (obviously) dangerous at worst

BUT

he has every right to do so bearing in mind that the Volvo should not have been there.

Personally I think it's reasonable to expect someone to want to overtake you in a situation like this, but legally the insurance company of the BMW driver will probably claim that the Volvo driver disobeyed the rules and is therefore at fault regardless.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > if I'm contacted I shall certainly be making a statement supporting the Volvo driver. I saw the accident- you didn't. :wink:
> ...


Wow! Thank you so much for that pearl of wisdom. If I make a witness statement it will certainly include in this case, my opinion of the cause. I've been a witness in RTA cases a few times and have always included my opinion in my statement where I have an opinion as to the cause.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Danny1 said:


> Its also worrying how much the Volvo was paying attention as he A. Couldn't stop in time when he saw the BMW pulling out to the right??? B. Couldn't move over to avoid the BMW meaning he was passing in narrow inappropriate place??


The Volvo was actually alongside the BMW with a good 5 feet gap between the cars, when the BMW swung over and into the side of the Volvo - no chance at all.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I think exactly as you say; stopping to be a witness can rapidly sort the problem out by bringing people to their senses so well done for stopping an argument in the heat of the moment. I was very grateful many years ago when as a new driver I was driven into (me in my Dad's car!) by someone who thought he could then bully me. A young lady appeared as he ranted and simply said, "I'm a witness, here's my number" and went. The other driver then pleaded with me not to call the police. Makes all the difference :lol:

Swinging out is dangerous and you can get pulled for it. Also, if there were two lines of traffic and the left turner swung out into the path of the line of traffic overtaking what then? I think that would be more clear cut. The Volvo could be seen as contributing if a single line but it might well depend on exact circumstances. Mark Davies is your man to ask.

A brief look at the highway code:



> 183 When turning
> 
> •keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable ...


You are usually pulling onto a minor road and you can see if going on the wrong side of that road would cause a problem. It's usually better to swing across the end of a minor road, not the middle of a major. I'm sure there's other advice about not overtaking at junctions but this is mainly because of unseen hazards like cyclists hidden by the vehicle you are overtaking as far as I remember.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

I think it is just as well that you were there and witnessed this and know how to make a clear statment otherwise this BMW plonker might get away with this.... Interesting that it was the bM driver who who obv is not much of a driver who was the one who was being abusive afterwards , a clear sign of guilt , :wink:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Since there has been no mention of two lines of traffic , lane lines , crossing centre of road , dual carriage way then let's not introduce them and muddy the waters ,, does not help with the discusion.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

roddy said:


> I think it is just as well that you were there and witnessed this and know how to make a clear statment otherwise this BMW plonker might get away with this.... Interesting that it was the bM driver who who obv is not much of a driver who was the one who was being abusive afterwards , a clear sign of guilt , :wink:


Well if I was cross examined in court I'd concede that the Volvo driver was unwise in overtaking when he did, but having said that, he signalled ,pulled out in plenty of time and was leaving himself bags of room to get past the BMW. I doubt the BMW driver ever checked his mirror tbh, but had he not swung to the right for no logical reason whatsoever, there would have been no collision. I suspect they'll still settle it knock for knock, but at least I've offered myself as a witness and my sympathies are squarely with the Volvo driver.


----------



## Chris Woods (May 12, 2013)

I witnessed. Crash last week , on a roundabout and the car in front of me decided to change lane and side swipe the car to his left ,

I pulled over and gave my details to the innocent party

Then ended up having peacekeep as the guilty party (4 Turkish ) decided to start offering the other guy a tenner to cover the damage ! Haha ! As you can imagine it didnt go down too well , Got to the point were me and my mate were getting ready for a scrap lol

Glad I stopped as the innocent guy was on his own and those Turks were a bunch of tards .


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

igotone said:


> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in court I'd concede that the Volvo driver was unwise in overtaking when he did, but having said that, he signalled, pulled out in plenty of time and was *leaving himself bags of room to get past* the BMW. I doubt the BMW driver ever checked his mirror tbh, but had he not swung to the right for no logical reason whatsoever, there would have been no collision. I suspect they'll still settle it knock for knock, but at least I've offered myself as a witness and my sympathies are squarely with the Volvo driver.


 Not _enough _room though? 
So without dimensions ie. how far did the BMW swing out, one cars width, two etc, then it has to be the Volvo at fault.


----------



## SalsredTT (Jan 8, 2011)

Just a though (and don't forget I wasn't there so couldn't see it) but did the BMW indicate, then once he could see his left hand turn properly, was there possibly some idiot parked/some sort of obstruction which he couldn't have seen until he was on top of the junction ready to turn which caused him to take a wider turn? This would only be in a built up area obviously, or high verges perhaps?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

igotone said:


> Well if I was cross examined in court I'd concede that the Volvo driver was unwise in overtaking when he did, but having said that, he signalled ,pulled out in plenty of time and was leaving himself bags of room to get past the BMW. I doubt the BMW driver ever checked his mirror tbh, but had he not swung to the right for no logical reason whatsoever, there would have been no collision. I suspect they'll still settle it knock for knock, but at least I've offered myself as a witness and my sympathies are squarely with the Volvo driver.


It's entirely possible that the BMW driver was looking for contact, it's possible that he was going to go left but changed his mind, it's possible that he just wasn't paying attention, whatever the reason, the fact remains that the Volvo driver shouldn't have been there.

I suspect you're right though, it will go 50/50.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

igotone said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > igotone said:
> ...


Did the BMW driver cross a solid white line or any other such limiting road marking? I'm guessing not as this would make the Volvo drivers actions illegal. If it's a broken white line then i agree that you'd not expect a driver indicating left to move right & certainly not across the line, however i can't see it being against any law.

The law doesn't dictate how much of your lane you're allowed to take up but i'm pretty sure it's all or any so within lane the BMW driver did nothing wrong. That said, you should always assume the worst & as per someone elses post, the BMW driver should really have checked his mirror before moving within the right side of his lane. However i like many would proportion the actual blame on the Volvo driver.

Due to the location of our road, i often do what the BMW driver did to enter my road as it's a tight turn & often vehicles parked awkwardly on the approach so i need to swing right a little to get access, however i always check & double check nothing is likely to attempt an overtake & i usually move right in sufficient time to make it obvious to vehicles behind as to what i'm doing. That said every now & again some tool tries it on & then has to back off when they realise.

As someone else said, as a Motorcyclist i assume everyone is trying to kill me so probably check more than an average car driver what is happening & what could happen


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

igotone said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is just as well that you were there and witnessed this and know how to make a clear statment otherwise this BMW plonker might get away with this.... Interesting that it was the bM driver who who obv is not much of a driver who was the one who was being abusive afterwards , a clear sign of guilt , :wink:
> ...


I'm interested why you say the BMW driver had no logical reason to swing right??

As per my post above, i do this virtually every time i pull into my road but i have little choice as would at best damage my wheels keep driving over raised curbs. I know for sure that most drivers do not look at the situations surrounding them so nobody behind me would calculate what i may/may not need to do.

Of course the BMW driver could have purely been driving like a c0ck, however i assume he needed for whatever reason to give himself more room to turn left so pulled right a little to make the turn??


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I also have to move right when turning left into my road. My car is almost 5m long and pretty wide, and the road is narrow. If I don't move right to give myself more room, I'll either cut the corner, or swing my nose over the centre white line. That's not an option if there's another car waiting to pull out, and as the corner is pretty blind, I can't tell in advance if there's someone in my road approaching the junction so I have to do it every time regardless.

I move out early enough that no one will be surprised by it, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm allowed to be there and no one is supposed to be overtaking at a junction anyway.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

W7 PMC said:


> I'm interested why you say the BMW driver had no logical reason to swing right??


OK- fair question and just to clarify that, he had no reason whatsoever to swing to the right as far as he did (anyway) in order to make the left turn. I'm sure it's just a conditioned habit which a fair few drivers seem to have got into, but he wouldn't have needed to move right at all had he adopted a proper line on the approach



> As per my post above, i do this virtually every time i pull into my road but i have little choice as would at best damage my wheels keep driving over raised curbs. I know for sure that most drivers do not look at the situations surrounding them so nobody behind me would calculate what i may/may not need to do.


Well if you know you're going to have to do this virtually every time, then why don't you take a wider line well in advance? I'm sure you don't swing as drastically as this guy did, but my situation is the same - I turn left into my narrow street off a very busy but not- so -wide main road. To make matters worse, my street runs slightly back at an angle from the main road, making the turn very tight, particularly if there are cars waiting at the junction. Knowing the situation I always take a wider line well in advance and then signal my intention to turn left which lets all and sundry know exactly what I'm doing and also positively discourages dodgy overtakers by limiting the room for them to try it.



> Of course the BMW driver could have purely been driving like a c0ck, however i assume he needed for whatever reason to give himself more room to turn left so pulled right a little to make the turn??


Well he shouldn't have needed to give himself more room. There's a world of difference between moving right early to take a sensible line on the approach and a last minute huge erratic swing to the right with a left indicator going, which just shows that this driver is using no advance anticipation and planning whatsoever which is the basis of safe driving.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

it is quite amazing how many rediculous excuses are being thrown up to try to justify why the BMW driver was behaving in such an icomprehensible and downright dangerous manner,,, i think that if there had been delibrate self sabbotage, lane changing , crossing white lines , bicycles , babies in prams and blind areas involved then perhaps the OP may have included these,,in reality it is just another example of s*** driving which we all see every day, yes everybody has to drive in such a manner as to be prepared for the idiots doing stupid things but that does not mean that when there is the odd colision they they are not to blame.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> it is quite amazing how many rediculous excuses are being thrown up to try to justify why the BMW driver was behaving in such an icomprehensible and downright dangerous manner


All anyone is really saying is that the Volvo driver is squarely in the wrong for overtaking at a junction, as confirmed by the Highway Code. No one is making excuses for the BMW drivers actions.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i think if you read throo this thread you will find everything i have mentioned,, and more !!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> i think if you read throo this thread you will find everything i have mentioned,, and more !!


People haven't suggested these things as excuses for the BMW drivers actions. They've simply pointed out that things can cause people to move right when turning left, so only a fool would chose that moment to overtake.

Why are _you_ making excuses for the fact the Volvo driver overtook at a junction - something that's contrary to the Highway Code and something that common sense should tell you is a very bad idea, regardless of what the other driver does. There are simply too many potential hazards at a junction for it to be a sensible place to overtake. Not to mention the fact that overtaking there is completely pointless as the car you're passing is turning off anyway so you gain nothing.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

US guy here need to ask questions:
1. is there a middle turning lane?
did the BMW enter and stay in lane just for a moment ?

if so BMW would be at fault as the BMW exited and entered the lane where Volvo was 
whether or not the Volvo had sped up....... at least in US


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> it is quite amazing how many rediculous excuses are being thrown up to try to justify why the BMW driver was behaving in such an icomprehensible and downright dangerous manner,,, i think that if there had been delibrate self sabbotage, lane changing , crossing white lines , bicycles , babies in prams and blind areas involved then perhaps the OP may have included these,,in reality it is just another example of s*** driving which we all see every day, yes everybody has to drive in such a manner as to be prepared for the idiots doing stupid things but that does not mean that when there is the odd colision they they are not to blame.


Best avoid a career in Law my friend :lol:

Pretty much everything that others have posted is totally relevant. I see stuff everyday that looks out of character or out of place & then follow with an ohhh, that's why they did that.

At the very worst i think the BMW driver may have driven without due care, however i don't see that any law has been broken by the BMW which is why i asked about the road linage as had he crossed a solid white line then he'd have broken the law, however so would the Volvo. Reading everything the OP has typed, if anything the legal fault would lie with the Volvo however as siad i reckon it will end up knock for knock.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

SalsredTT said:


> Just a though (and don't forget I wasn't there so couldn't see it) but did the BMW indicate, then once he could see his left hand turn properly, was there possibly some idiot parked/some sort of obstruction which he couldn't have seen until he was on top of the junction ready to turn which caused him to take a wider turn? This would only be in a built up area obviously, or high verges perhaps?


Totally agree. As said in a previous, i have to do this every time i turn into my road, however as it's a regular occurrence i'm positioned better as will already be further right in my lane (when turning left) so no sudden or late movements, however if the BMW driver wasn't fully prepared with the distances/gaps/conditions then perhaps a late swing was required.

That said it has happened to me that one of my 2 neighbours is exiting our road as i'm turning in so i have at times been left stranded partly on the wrong side of the road for a few seconds. Sh1t happens & we have to react however appropriate at the time.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

I don't see why just because it is at a junction that you think that someone can swerve around the road and hit other people ,, but I am not an expert on the law . And someone is suggesting that thw bmw driver has actually crossed lanes ( not ststeded by OP ) well I don't have to be an expert to know that is on .if the law states that if someone is doing something wrong then you can just run into them ,,I will leave that to the experts to discuss !!! Pfob as said 50/ 50. . Just another , if needed , example of why to avoid BMW drivers .


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> I don't see why just because it is at a junction that you think that someone can swerve around the road and hit other people ,, but I am not an expert on the law . And someone is suggesting that thw bmw driver has actually crossed lanes ( not ststeded by OP ) well I don't have to be an expert to know that is on .if the law states that if someone is doing something wrong then you can just run into them ,,I will leave that to the experts to discuss !!! Pfob as said 50/ 50. . Just another , if needed , example of why to avoid BMW drivers .


No one, at any point in this has said that the BMW driver was right to swerve into the other car. What we're all saying, and you're conveniently ignoring, is that the primary fault lies with the driver who overtook at a junction. Were this to go to court, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the judge said that the BMW driver had contributed in some way to the accident, but the fact remains that the Volvo would have been in the wrong even if the BMW had not swerved, whereas the BMW was only in the wrong because a car was next to him when he made the maneuver.

1. Moving to the right before turning left is not against any laws and isn't even an example of bad driving. The only thing the BMW driver did wrong was not checking his mirror before he moved.

2. Overtaking at a junction is wrong. No exceptions. No excuses.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

So in your reasoning , as I said , if someone is doing something wrong then you are entitled to run into them ,,, I don't think so


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> So in your reasoning , as I said , if someone is doing something wrong then you are entitled to run into them ,,, I don't think so


I honestly can't understand how you got that from what I posted. I quite clearly haven't said or implied that anyone is 'entitled' to run into anyone else.

There are two people involved in this accident. They have both done something wrong. Had either of them not done the 'wrong' thing, then the accident wouldn't have happened. That much is clear. But, the BMW drivers action was only wrong because there was a car overtaking him. The Volvo drivers action was wrong regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

But there would have been no " circumstance " if the bmw driver had not randomly swerved across the road and hit the volvo


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

What's quite amusing about this is the way people are leaping to judgement based on the Highway Code advice on not overtaking vehicles turning left. In a contested matter in court that advice would most certainly be referred to, but there'd be a whole lot of other relevant facts to be considered before the Volvo driver gets potted for 'Due Care'. .. was he in a position to see the junction and that there was no danger from vehicles pulling out? Did he signal to indicate the overtake and did he leave himself sufficient room? The statements of those involved and any independent witnesses would have a huge bearing on the outcome.

I was immediately behind the Volvo and could see that the junction on the left was clear, so I think we have to give the Volvo driver credit for having seen that too. He signalled his intention to overtake, pulled out in plenty of time, and gave the BMW a lot of room in passing. He was very unfortunate IMHO to have been hit by the very erratic BMW driver.

Far from being a "passer by'" as far as I know I'm the only independent witness to this accident. When I left there was no suggestion they intended to call the police, so it will no doubt be dealt with by the insurance companies who will do the easiest thing for them and settle it on a knock for knock basis anyway.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> But there would have been no " circumstance " if the bmw driver had not randomly swerved across the road and hit the volvo


Yes there would. That's my whole point. The 'circumstances' would have been the fact that they were overtaking at a junction, which is clearly an unsafe place to do so, regardless of what the car you're overtaking does.

Had the BMW kept a predictable course and turned left without incident, the Volvo driver would STILL have been in the wrong.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Igitone,, i wish you had pointed out these simple, but important, issues in your OP,, then perhaps this debate could have been settled in one or two pages without the inclusion of the various " possabilities " which people have introduced in their attempts to excuse the BMW driver of his obviously erratic and downright dangerous, to other road users, behavour.
not being an "expert on the law" i will now rest my case for the defence . [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Far from being a "passer by'" as far as I know I'm the only independent witness to this accident.


And we're basing our comments on your description of what happened. If we're missing some important point, then it's because you've not told us. If we're not missing anything, then we're in as good a position to judge as you are.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> Igitone,, i wish you had pointed out these simple, but important, issues in your OP,, then perhaps this debate could have been settled in one or two pages without the inclusion of the various " possabilities " which people have introduced in their attempts to excuse the BMW driver of his obviously erratic and downright dangerous, to other road users, behavour.
> not being an "expert on the law" i will now rest my case for the defence . [smiley=book2.gif]


To be honest Roddy, the last time we had a 'discussion' on road use, it ended with you having to admit you had no idea what the different colours at traffic lights meant, so you'll forgive me if I don't completely trust your assessment of this incident. :wink:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > Far from being a "passer by'" as far as I know I'm the only independent witness to this accident.
> ...


Well forgive me, I didn't realise I was required to submit a full witness statement. It was a brief description of a shunt on my commute. I gave an opinion and people might have had the nous to realise that there were a lot more relevant facts than those in my post and on which I'd based that opinion before they got quite so opinionated about an accident they didn't witness.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Spandex said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > Far from being a "passer by'" as far as I know I'm the only independent witness to this accident.
> ...


no you are not ( with respect  ) basing your coments on his description of what happened but on as many fictitous possabilities as can be dreamt up ,, it is you, and others , that introduce the aspect of the junction being blind, narrow, treacherous in so many ways,, bicyles, cars ," idiots " etc etc..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Well forgive me, I didn't realise I was required to submit a full witness statement. It was a brief description of a shunt on my commute. I gave an opinion and people might have had the nous to realise that there were a lot more relevant facts than those in my post and on which I'd based that opinion before they got quite so opinionated about an accident they didn't witness.


You're not _required _to do anything. But, as we only have your description to go on, if we're missing information, it's not really our fault.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> no you are not ( with respect  ) basing your coments on his description of what happened but on as many fictitous possabilities as can be dreamt up ,, it is you, and others , that introduce the aspect of the junction being blind, narrow, treacherous in so many ways,, bicyles, cars ," idiots " etc etc..


If you can find a post of mine where I've suggested the junction in question was blind, narrow or treacherous in any way, please post it here. My view on overtaking at a junction stands regardless of the junction in question or whatever hazards you can see (or more importantly, not see) at it. It's just a dangerous thing to do.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Spandex said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > Igitone,, i wish you had pointed out these simple, but important, issues in your OP,, then perhaps this debate could have been settled in one or two pages without the inclusion of the various " possabilities " which people have introduced in their attempts to excuse the BMW driver of his obviously erratic and downright dangerous, to other road users, behavour.
> ...


 ok point taken, [smiley=bigcry.gif] 
but,Spandy,, shame on you :? ,, again when you have run out of argument you revert to attempted character assasination ..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> ok point taken, [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> but,Spandy,, shame on you :? ,, again when you have run out of argument you revert to attempted character assasination ..


I haven't run out of argument... :wink:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

LOL. I think there's a hard core of serious arguers in this forum who'll still be arguing when everyone else has gone to the pub. :wink:

So just to change the subject slightly, would you never overtake a vehicle turning left in_ any_ circumstances?


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

no Spandy, not entirely,, there are many many open clear and in no way at all dangerous junctions in which a safe overtaking can be taken,, it may in some cockeyed way be in the highway code " wrong " but in no way dangerous,,,,,,,,,,, as would appear to be in the case in question.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I'm assuming we're talking about 'standard' side road junctions on single carriageway, single lane roads? I don't think I would ever overtake, no. I think the most I've ever done is move over slightly to clear the back end of a car that's already most of the way into the side road, but even then I don't think I'd cross the centre line to do it. I honestly don't see the point - they're not going to hold me up for more than a second or two.

If someone had, for example, broken down across or right before a junction, I'd go round them slowly, but I wouldn't class that as an overtake.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Well I rarely overtake vehicles turning left, I adjust my speed so that they've completed the turn by the time I get there. That's my general approach and I agree it's the safest, but how about a country single lane road with a 50 mph limit and a ditherer in front of you doing 30 mph with a left indicator going 300 yards before the turn on a clear road? Don't tell you you haven't see plenty of these? :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Well I rarely overtake vehicles turning left, I adjust my speed so that they've completed the turn by the time I get there. That's my general approach and I agree it's the safest, but how about a country single lane road with a 50 mph limit and a ditherer in front of you doing 30 mph with a left indicator going 300 yards before the turn on a clear road? Don't tell you you haven't see plenty of these? :wink:


I've recently got back from a week in North Wales, where I saw plenty of people nervously driving at 30mph on NSL country roads, indicating miles before their turning. I think I can safely say I didn't overtake a single one of them at or just before the junction - why would I? Any desire I had to overtake them vanished as soon as they put the indicator on.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > Well I rarely overtake vehicles turning left, I adjust my speed so that they've completed the turn by the time I get there. That's my general approach and I agree it's the safest, but how about a country single lane road with a 50 mph limit and a ditherer in front of you doing 30 mph with a left indicator going 300 yards before the turn on a clear road? Don't tell you you haven't see plenty of these? :wink:
> ...


Well now you're dodging the issue - we're 300 yards from the junction (not at or near it) - the road is clear for an overtake which can be safely done without exceeding the speed limit.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Well now you're dodging the issue - we're 300 yards from the junction (not at or near it) - the road is clear for an overtake which can be safely done without exceeding the speed limit.


I'm not trying to dodge any issue. I'm just not sure what you're asking. I've said I don't overtake at junctions - are you now asking if I overtake 300 yards from a junction?

I guess you mean if there was a long straight road with good visibility, no oncoming traffic and I have room to complete my overtake before I get to the junction? To be honest, I think at that point I'd just wait, as they're going to turn off anyway and I'm already going at their 'dithering speed', so why bother. I'd actually be more likely to overtake in that situation if they *weren't* indicating, as I'd just treat it as an opportunity to get past them while the road ahead was clear.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

igotone said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > igotone said:
> ...


In all honesty, no I wouldn't.

Aside fromthe fact that if they're dithering, it may be possible they've left the indicator on and have no real intention of turning, there could still be someone coming up the side road and wanting to turn right. Because they've also seen the indicator of the car in front, they might just decide to pull out because the car's 300 yards away. If you go to overtake, you hit them head on.

I'm with Spandex on this one. No one's said the BMW driver wasn't reckless or entirely faultless, but the fact remains that his actions only resulted in a crash because the Volvo driver broke the rules of the highway code.

He took a calculated risk - and didn't calculate in the fact that the BMW driver was a tool.

There are lots of things that we all do as 'accepted practice' but which would see us copping the blame if it went wrong:

Someone indicating to pull left into a junction, you pull out, they don't turn and run into you? Your fault - you're supposed to make sure they make the turn before you move - same applies on roundabouts.

The more worrying trend I read recently is when someone flashes their lights at you to say "go on" is now being used by criminals to get extra compensation.

i.e. I approach a section of road with cars parked on my side. Coming the other way is another car. He has right of way because I'd have to cross the centre line to overtake. So I slow down with the intent of letting him go first. But he also slows down and flashes - accepted signal of 'after you'. So I go to overtake the cars and he rams me head on.

He then refers to the bit in the highway code that says flashing your lights is meant to be used as a warning, and far from inviting me to overtake, he was letting me know that he was there and that it was his right of way. He claims for whiplash and I get screwed over on my insurance.

Be warned, there are some devious people out there.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

The point is I don't think there's a wrong or right whether you decide to overtake or wait, but I'd probably overtake in those circumstances.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Kell said:


> In all honesty, no I wouldn't.
> 
> There could still be someone coming up the side road and wanting to turn right. Because they've also seen the indicator of the car in front, they might just decide to pull out because the car's 300 yards away. If you go to overtake, you hit them head on.
> l.


Here we go again with the 'What ifs" Take it as read in this example that it's a safe overtake and that you can clearly see the junction ahead which is clear.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

igotone said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > In all honesty, no I wouldn't.
> ...


But the 'what ifs' are the whole point of this debate. If we all saw everything, then there'd be no more crashes. The reason the highway code lists it as unsafe to overtake in these circumstances is because there are too many unknowns. You think it's clear, but what if you've looked but not seen?

Maybe it's because I cycle in London that I'm more aware of potential dangers. I know for an (all too painful) fact that car drivers often don't see cyclists - I have the many scars to prove it. It's just not worth the risk for the little amount of time you'd gain.

Don't get me wrong though, I WOULD have done it when I was younger, more immature and less experienced. But the older I get, the more I realise that thinking about the 'what ifs' is what prevents the 'oh f*cks'.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Here we go again with the 'What ifs" Take it as read in this example that it's a safe overtake and that you can clearly see the junction ahead which is clear.


My point is that I wouldn't even consider it if I wasn't going to complete my overtake before I got to the junction. I wouldn't need to be making *any *assumptions about the safety of the junction (especially not from 300 yards away, as a lot can change in the time it takes to cover that distance).


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Suppose there was no junction and the ditherer was indicating left? Some would take that as an invitation to overtake :twisted:

There's a main road I go along that's wide wide wide - wide enough for at least four parked cars side by side easy and a 30 mph limit. In fact I've seen a lorry do a quick single U-turn without touching the kerb. That wide! There's an entrance people regularly queue up for, often up to two or three cars at a time, whilst they get let in. It would be ridiculous to join the queue just so you are "not overtaking at a junction" (yes it is a junction as it's a road that people come in and out of but onto private property) - So you indicate to pull out well before and position yourself in the middle of the road to pass without any danger at all because there's so much room - very easy and very safe - even BMWs swinging out wouldn't touch you. :wink:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> I don't see why just because it is at a junction that you think that someone can swerve around the road and hit other people ,, but I am not an expert on the law . And someone is suggesting that thw bmw driver has actually crossed lanes ( not ststeded by OP ) well I don't have to be an expert to know that is on .if the law states that if someone is doing something wrong then you can just run into them ,,I will leave that to the experts to discuss !!! Pfob as said 50/ 50. . Just another , if needed , example of why to avoid BMW drivers .


Because plain & simple the Volvo should NOT have been there. As most have said the BMW driver is far from blameless, however the Law & Highway Code are there for a reason & if drivers feel the need or desire to ignore them then so be it. [smiley=book2.gif]

The law does state that someone did something wrong & as above, that appears to be the Volvo driver based on the O/P's account of the event. Totally agree the BMW driver appears to have acted somewhat foolishly.

I do like your stereotype for BMW drivers, however i again think you've misunderstood as that stereotype is based on lack of direction indication, however it appears that wasn't the case here as the BMW driver clearly indicated 

Perhaps i should now avoid Audi's or better still just single out TT's.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Suppose there was no junction and the ditherer was indicating left? Some would take that as an invitation to overtake :twisted:


I don't see how the indication has anything to do with it in that case. Either it's safe to overtake or it's not. I certainly wouldn't make any assumptions about what the other car planned to do based on a random (and potentially meaningless) indication.


John-H said:


> There's a main road I go along that's wide wide wide - wide enough for at least four parked cars side by side easy and a 30 mph limit. In fact I've seen a lorry do a quick single U-turn without touching the kerb. That wide! There's an entrance people regularly queue up for, often up to two or three cars at a time, whilst they get let in. It would be ridiculous to join the queue just so you are "not overtaking at a junction" (yes it is a junction as it's a road that people come in and out of but onto private property) - So you indicate to pull out well before and position yourself in the middle of the road to pass without any danger at all because there's so much room - very easy and very safe - even BMWs swinging out wouldn't touch you. :wink:


I'd still be cautious if the queue was blocking my view of cars waiting to pull out of the side road, or blocking their view of me. I'm not sure passing a queue of stationary vehicles counts as overtaking though.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

really did not get my question answered but from these other posts and some sleep

feel have a grasp now of what happened .........

1. UK drives on wrong side of road anyway :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 
2. OK not funny.....

So, anyway person signals to take left ... and the overtake lane is on right ....

this means Volvo (car behind) decides to overtake as there is no one coming

and as Volvo is overtaking BMW (that is turning left) The BMW decides to go into

take over lane to help out with left turn... in the US it would clearly be the BMW fault

as the BMW crossed into a lane of traffic whether from the front or behide........


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

perhaps (  ) because we all drive on the " wrong " side of the road we do not have an overtaking lane on our roads,, however , no mention has been made of anybody changing lane so let us not asume that they did,, surely if the BMW driver crossed into another lane that would settle any disagreement on culpability..


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

whanab said:


> really did not get my question answered but from these other posts and some sleep
> 
> feel have a grasp now of what happened .........
> 
> ...


 So please let me know if the overtaking lane is same as on coming traffic......

UK drives on left so a left should be taken from the left side of the road

and that when one takes a left but goes into overtaking / on coming traffic lane this is legal ?????????

as there was a car there and BMW crossed into a traffic lane without looking....... in US all with and on the BMW

you cross your fault........


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

it has not been made clear whither the BMW crossed onto another lane or whither all this took place in the one lane, ( some of our roads can be quite wide ), as in US what you say is the same regarding overtaking...


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

so, is it bmw words against volvos word ???


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

fortunatly there was a witness


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

roddy said:


> fortunatly there was a witness


well do the BMW cross the line into Volvo ?????????


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose there was no junction and the ditherer was indicating left? Some would take that as an invitation to overtake :twisted:
> ...


With the first point, the indicating left dawdler could be trying to encourage overtaking, or looking for a left turn they believe to be there and you believe isn't, our they could have forgotten to cancel. You cam overtake of course and they should allow you to pass safely. I'd be careful to get them to notice you though as their mind may be elsewhere. If it's a country lane there may new a hidden entrance we don't know about too :wink:

On the second point the queue often is still moving. I looked tonight and you can probably get six cars side by side across the road so there is a lot of room. I usually indicate and move to the middle of the road if I think they will stop in lane so if they do I overtake by default. As I say there's lots of room.

Both examples could end up as "overtaking at a junction". I think my point is circumstances are often more important than a rigid application of a rule.

Take for example overtaking two slow cars on a country A road. You indicate and accelerate up to the speed limit, overtake the first and then as you overtake the second vehicle someone pulls out of a junction to your right some distance ahead and accelerates fast in your direction. This makes you recalculate. You could apply the brakes and try and pull back in between the two cars but that could be dangerous, so you sensibly decide to accelerate and quickly finish your overtake, pulling back in well before the oncoming car. A good few second later you pass the junction. Technically you've broken the speed limit but you took the safer option given a sudden hazard you had no way of predicting - in this case you were not overtaking at a junction of course.

Whanab - I presume your "overtake lane" is just the opposite direction lane on the other side of the road and not a third middle lane expressly for overtaking. It's legal to overtake here as long as the dividing line isn't solid.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

> Whanab - I presume your "overtake lane" is just the opposite direction lane on the other side of the road and not a third middle lane expressly for overtaking. It's legal to overtake here as long as the dividing line isn't solid.


with a witness were they able to say whether the BMW crossed the line into the over taking lane/passing lane ?

if witness says BMW went into over taking lane it would be BMWs fault in US


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

whanab,, if the BMW crossed the ( centre , as in US ) line he would also be wrong here, obv ok to cross but not if it means coliding with another vehicle already in that lane


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> With the first point, the indicating left dawdler could be trying to encourage overtaking, or looking for a left turn they believe to be there and you believe isn't, our they could have forgotten to cancel. You cam overtake of course and they should allow you to pass safely. I'd be careful to get them to notice you though as their mind may be elsewhere. If it's a country lane there may new a hidden entrance we don't know about too :wink:


Exactly, hence me saying it's either safe to overtake or it's not. I certainly wouldn't assume they were 'encouraging' me to overtake and I wouldn't overtake just because someone else decided they wanted me to.



John-H said:


> On the second point the queue often is still moving. I looked tonight and you can probably get six cars side by side across the road so there is a lot of room. I usually indicate and move to the middle of the road if I think they will stop in lane so if they do I overtake by default. As I say there's lots of room.
> 
> Both examples could end up as "overtaking at a junction". I think my point is circumstances are often more important than a rigid application of a rule.
> 
> Take for example overtaking two slow cars on a country A road. You indicate and accelerate up to the speed limit, overtake the first and then as you overtake the second vehicle someone pulls out of a junction to your right some distance ahead and accelerates fast in your direction. This makes you recalculate. You could apply the brakes and try and pull back in between the two cars but that could be dangerous, so you sensibly decide to accelerate and quickly finish your overtake, pulling back in well before the oncoming car. A good few second later you pass the junction. Technically you've broken the speed limit but you took the safer option given a sudden hazard you had no way of predicting - in this case you were not overtaking at a junction of course.


Sure, but the fact that you have to come up with very specific exceptions just goes to reinforce the point that the rule is a sensible one in the vast majority of situations.

By the way, I rarely try to overtake more than one car at a time because it's too easy to end up in situations like the one you describe.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

By the way, I rarely try to overtake more than one car at a time because it's too easy to end up in situations like the one you describe.[/quote]

from my experience this is one of the major causes of hold ups and massive lines of traffic on A roads,, the inability or unwillingness to OT more than one slow moving vehicle,,, aaaarrrrghhhh [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> from my experience this is one of the major causes of hold ups and massive lines of traffic on A roads,, the inability or unwillingness to OT more than one slow moving vehicle,,, aaaarrrrghhhh [smiley=bomb.gif]


Nonsense. Firstly, you have no way of knowing why the people behind aren't overtaking. Secondly, how does it cause a hold up? if you're at the back and want to go faster than a line of cars, you can overtake them.

The only way hold ups are caused is by people driving too close and forcing you to overtake multiple cars at once - because opportunities to overtake multiple cars come along less often than opportunities to overtake single cars.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

so if as you say, " overtake them " then why dont you,,you say you only overtake one car a t a time,, what overtake a whole line of cars one at a time,, what a palaver,that will take all day !! why not just take them all ( or as many as possible ) why just one at a time ?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> so if as you say, " overtake them " then why dont you,,you say you only overtake one car a t a time,, what overtake a whole line of cars one at a time,, what a palaver,that will take all day !! why not just take them all ( or as many as possible ) why just one at a time ?


Exactly! If you're happy to do that, how on earth is it causing a hold up?? I'm not telling you how many you can overtake, just saying what I prefer.

To be honest though, this is all in your head. You have no way of knowing what speed everyone else wants to do and you have no way of knowing why people aren't overtaking, but you assume everyone is either unwilling or unable. If you were a bit more introspective, you'd be asking yourself why you make those assumptions.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Spandex said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > so if as you say, " overtake them " then why dont you,,you say you only overtake one car a t a time,, what overtake a whole line of cars one at a time,, what a palaver,that will take all day !! why not just take them all ( or as many as possible ) why just one at a time ?
> ...


you may of course be right,, i am just assuming others are not happy sitting at 30 mph on an open road,, but you may be right.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I agree Spandex, in general the rules of the Highway Code are good to apply generally as they make sense in most situations. I was just underlining that in some specific situations they might not be the best thing to do. Not knowing the exact situation of the BMW/Volvo accident then I'm not so sure I'm confident of an answer as to who should take the blame. It probably and basically comes down to who applied the least due care and attention in the circumstances.

Another thing I seem to remember the Highway Code saying is that you should leave space between you and the car in front and allow others to overtake. In Scotland they have "Police notice - use passing places and allow overtaking" (or something similar). Yet how many times do you come across a crocodile of slow moving vehicles bumper to bumper with no chance of anyone progressing past them one our two at a time.

The natural and inconsiderate thing to happen seems to be that a slow and timid driver will get stuck behind a slower moving vehicle but instead of dropping back to leave space, instead follows close behind and effectively forms a longer vehicle. Others will pass but eventually someone, perhaps not so timid as the second vehicle, will get stuck behind them, can't cope with overtaking two and applies the same lack of consideration by driving close. The next one to get stuck can't overtake three etc. Eventually you end up with a crocodile hierarchy of timidness with the brave at the back who have to wait for a very long straight to be able to get past - and probably receive increasing disapproval from each inconsiderate driver they pass - if they dare to overtake. You can wait for a gap to appear in the middle so you can make a halfway stop but who's to say someone won't see you coming amd close the gap out of spite? It's just inconsiderate driving like middle lane hogging.

Don'tget me started about the camper van who won't use passing places :wink:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> whanab,, if the BMW crossed the ( centre , as in US ) line he would also be wrong here, obv ok to cross but not if it means coliding with another vehicle already in that lane


That's totally incorrect as far as the law's concerned unless the road markings dictate otherwise.

If the white lines are broken or non existent then the BMW could pretty much have driven along the other side of the road (granted this would be viewed as a bit mad but not illegal). Broken white lines allow you to cross the centre of the road for overtaking purposes. You'll notice (i'd have hoped) that the broken lines are usually in places where you've a clear line of sight for a reasonable distance & away from hazards.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

sorry, if i did not make that clear, or you have missunderstood, what i meant was you are not allowed to cross the line and colide with a vehicle which is already in that lane, that is what lane marking is for..


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Let's have a look at the junction on Google maps.

Then we can all debate it for another couple of days...

Or at the very least, I feel like igotone should draw us a diagram.

:roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Kell said:


> ... Or at the very least, I feel like igotone should draw us a diagram.


That's a good point. Can't help feeling he's dropped the ball on this one...


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

I'm suprised this thread hasn't got to ten pages yet. Keep waffling folks :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

JNmercury00 said:


> I'm suprised this thread hasn't got to ten pages yet. Keep waffling folks :roll:


At least we're posting in this thread because we're interested in it. Why are *you* posting here? :?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> sorry, if i did not make that clear, or you have missunderstood, what i meant was you are not allowed to cross the line and colide with a vehicle which is already in that lane, that is what lane marking is for..


It's the former as i fully understood what you said which is why i posted my response quoting yours

Not sure your last point is valid either. I agree crashing into cars is not the done thing & to be avoided at pretty much all costs, however centre lines serve a variety of purposes but the main purpose i believe is to forbid (in the case of solid lines) you from crossing as there's an impending hazard or a difficult stretch of road. These are also found at the approach to bends, bridges or schools. The fact of a car being or not being in the other lane is totally irrelevant.

I'm confident that you're also not meant to cross a broken white line & crash into oncoming vehicles, however the centre road markings then play a different role as that isn't a law that's been broken in that case, however driving without due care would be


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

Spandex said:


> JNmercury00 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm suprised this thread hasn't got to ten pages yet. Keep waffling folks :roll:
> ...


Vested?


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

JNmercury00 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > JNmercury00 said:
> ...


So it's not waffle then :? It's of interest because you may get something out of it :wink:


----------

