A saw an old work colleague yesterday who was telling me about an accident he had which resulted in his motorbike being written off. Fortunately he was OK.
The facts:
Windy A road between Wakefield and Huddersfield - he knows the road very well. Just after a rain storm - road wet, weather sunny. He knows a long left hander is coming up so positions himself accordingly near the centre of the road. Whilst going round the bend (which has double white lines) he notices a Police car on the other side of the road, parked up with the officers arresting two people (he found this out afterwards).
Next a 4x4 comes around the corner and has to pull over the double lines to miss the police car - in doing so puts himself on the other side of the road on a collision course for my collegue. 4x4 driver was no doubt shocked to find the Police car parked on a blind bend.
Colleague sees what could happen and does a controlled fall off - he skids along the road into the verge and bike ends up under the 4x4. Police see everything.
Insurance company now want to know off him whose fault the accident was.
Over to you!!!
|
If your colleague was on his side of the white lines (and it certainly reads that he was) then the fault lies with the oncoming motorist who overtook a stationary vehicle without properly checking that the oncoming route was clear despite the obvious warning of the double white lines to indicate that overtaking was exceptionally hazardous at that point.
|
|
whoever crossed the double white lines for whatever reason is at fault.
|
whoever crossed the double white lines for whatever reason is at fault.
Even if there was another vehicle parked illegaly which forced him over?
To be fair, the 4x4 driver should have been driving so he was able to stop. Also it's a good idea to blame the 4x4 driver because in another 10 posts it'll have degenerated enough to be winding up Mark ;-)
|
whoever crossed the double white lines for whatever reason is at fault.
>Even if there was another vehicle parked illegaly which forced >him over?
Yup fraid so. The double white lines are sacrosanct:
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
It is a MUST NOT rule, and contravenes a RTA law. So whoever crossed and caused the accident (if there was an accident it was not safe to do so) is responsible, and even more so will probably be done by plod who was there.
|
Sounds to me like:
65% the 4x4 for crossing a double white line (only 50% because he's allowed to do so to pass a stationary vehicle)
30% the police for stopping in an illegal position. A white line in the centre of the road also means no stopping on the side it applies to.
5% the biker for not riding at a speed which allows him to stop in the distance he can see.
(I am not a lawyer or road traffic expert - just my opinion!)
|
|
Didn't meant to be schitzophenic on the 4x4 score - meant to say 65% both times.
|
|
|
|
I'm confused now...how can the white lines be considered sacrosanct if :- 'You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.'
That doesn't sound very sacrosanct...presumably the 4x4 could be categorised as a 'stationary vehicle' in this particular instance?
|
|
|
> you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you
> need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross
> the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or
> overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if
> they are travelling at 10mph or less.
From a purely logical point of view, this is contradictory.
"You may cross if necessary to overtake a stationary vehicle" contradicts "you must not cross unless [...] you need to enter adjoining premises". If the punctuation were different, and a couple of "but"s or "and"s added it could be made to make sense, but lawyers thrive on punctuation and the minutest semantic detail.
So that's a bit of a pain.
Motorcyclist should by rights be in the clear - you have to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear IN YOUR LANE. If someone coming the other way swerves into your lane, you cannot possibly be moving slowly enough to always avoid it - there must come a time (even both travelling at 1mph) when he could cross over and you would hit him.
I say 4x4 driver is to blame, but can you be legally responsible if you didn't actually hit anything?
-Mark
|
Firstly, there is an exemption in the Regs that allows vehicles used by Ambulance, Fire Brigade and Police to stop opposite a double white line.
Secondly there is an exemption in the Regs that allows a vehicle to cross a DWL (continous drivers side).... in order to avoid an accident.
Thirdly there is a requirement (Rule 105 Highway Code) ... to drive at a speed that will allow a driver to stop well within the distance he can see to be clear.
To blame : Mr 4 x 4 and an offence of due care.
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, who is "fault"?
Pedantic or what?
|
I don't know, who is "fault"? Pedantic or what?
>>
We all noticed it and decided it was your turn to point it out.
|
Damn I missed that until pointed out - Reminder to self - engage Grumpy Old Man syndrome before reading discussion pages.
No doubt in my mind that it's the fault of the driver who crossed the white line. Motorcyclist was on correct side of road and the type of obstacle encountered by 4X4 is irrelevant. The onus was on the 4X4 to ensure the road was clear before crossing the line.
|
It's not really relevant to this case, which seems pretty conclusive from the replies above, but there are rare occasions when an obstruction means one has to cross the white line, but it is impossible to do so in total safety because of a blind corner.
One then has the choice - take a chance, or wait all day for something to happen, meanwhile causing an even greater danger to the traffic piling up behind.
|
One then has the choice - take a chance, or wait all day for something to happen, meanwhile causing an even greater danger to the traffic piling up behind.
In this case, the obstruction was a pair of police officers; if pulling out was impossible then I would suggest asking for their assistance.
|
|
|
> an obstruction means one has to cross the white line, but it
> is impossible to do so in total safety because of a blind
> corner.
This is true. A good sounding of the horn before you go round will improve matters slightly.
|
|
I'd say 50-50 on this one. I reckon it sounds like one of the accidents where you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|
|
If i was both drivers id see about prosecuting the police officers for illegally parking and causing the accident, i bet that if you or i was parked there illegally that the police would be coming down on us like a ton of bricks. I always thought that drivers were meant to be close to the white line by the kerb so what was your mate doing right by the white lines in the middle, if he had to go out that far out to take the bend it might suggest that he was going a bit fast .
|
I always thought that drivers were meant to be close to the white line by the kerb so what was your mate doing right by the white lines in the middle, if he had to go out that far out to take the bend it might suggest that he was going a bit fast .
Roadcraft teaches you to use the full width of the lane in which you are driving to assist you in both reading the road and also anticipating hazards ahead and this includes seeing as far ahead as possible.
Being near the centre of the road on a long left hand bend will allow the driver to see as far ahead as possible and could make a lot of difference from the sight lines at the kerb.
Jonathan
|
jonathan,
obviously didnt work in this case
|
|
|
|
Why on earth couldn't the police stop the miscreants on a safe straight bit of road?
--
"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do"
|
Original post doesn't mention scroats were in another vehicle.
Maybe found/chased to position found in which case grab them while you can as they don't as a rule take kindly to be cuffed.
DVD
|
|
|
|
