|
Sounds to me like WVM at fault: he ran out of road. I'd limit comments about what you saw to 'I'd seen him behind but assumed he'd tuck in behind me. The traffic and hazards ahead demanded by full attention after that.'
|
|
Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion, I didn't know you all cared so much ;-) I have taken all your comments on board and I will let you know the outcome. It's nice that there is help out there from such a wide variety of people. Once again many, many thanks.
|
From your description it does seem that the WVM was more at fault than yourself. He was trying to overtake you, and knowing most delivery drivers schedules, he was pushing his luck and hoping his size would make you slow down to let him in. Also when he swore at you and did not intially want to give his details, shows he did not care about the damage to your car. Most vans get dented regularly, so one more scrape would not make much difference. However you not being aware of another vehicle in close proximity does show you were not concentrating fully.
You could try approaching your insurers to say you do not accept responsibility for the accident and would they please put your claim on hold as you would like to pursue the repair cost from the other driver's insurers. You might have to sue the driver to get a result, but it is a lot of hassle to prove you were right. It would also save having a claim on your policy. It could also delay getting your car repaired. There will certainly be an element of risk in this approach, but your insure might agree and only payout if you loose. There is no harm in having a chat with your insurer.
If you could, I would argue also that it should be split on maximum of a 25:75 ratio, but you can almost guarantee the insurance companies will treat it as 50:50 as this is easier for them.
--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
|
It's always annoying not to have noticed something in one's mirror but what should the OP have done if he had seen WVM bearing down? Slowed to let him past? Why?
When you are in an outside lane that disappears you have to find a gap in the nearside lane to drop into. Sounds as if WVM in this case was a yob who simply drove into the side of the OP's car, and is entirely to blame.
|
It's always annoying not to have noticed something in one's mirror but what should the OP have done if he had seen WVM bearing down? Slowed to let him past? Why?
Because it's the least hassle option. How much time is the o/p going to have to spend on this, and I bet he didn't sleep well last night.
In fact, wave WVM past, then it looks as though you're being courteous, not that you're a wimp!
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Drew - I've got a clearer idea now. It is not the "neck-and-neck racing for the gap" situation I imagined. If the van wasn't even level with you when the collision occurred, quite obviously the driver should have been fully aware of the it being about to happen, as the situation was developing right under his nose, whereas you would only have seen it in your mirror. Clearly, no-one can give their undivided attention to their mirror at the best of times, and the road situation in front of you demanded your concentration. In any case, how could you be expected to take avoiding action from a situation that was, basically, happening behind you? It sounds pretty close to being rammed up the back to me.
In your position I would argue it was entirely the other driver's fault.
|
were the parked cars in your lane or a completely separate lay by........i know a road in Harrow that has parked cars in the nearside lane, which means you have to move out of the nearside lane into the offside lane...
...which puts a slightly different perspective to it...
..WVM would still have his part to play, but he would have had the right of way and you would have needed to merge into his lane, effectively....taking account of anyone coming up behind you at speed
i hope i've made this clear
(and i still think that WVM would have seen you, known what you were going to do and drove like a prat nevertheless ....)
|
I would say the van was at fault.
The outside lane is always an overtaking lane (I think I'm sure in saying that).
Usually you should merge in turn but my view would be that he was overtaking you whilst in the outside lane so should have merged with due care.
We have a similar road near us and it regularly causes problems as the 'he's not getting in front of me' brigade cause all sorts of problems.
|
|
Did either vehicle cross a broken white line or were there no markings, if there was a mergre cuved aroow then they do not have the right of way. Regards Peter
|
|
|
|
|
The vehicles parked were in a purpose built layby and off the carriageway. i did not venture into the outside lane as I had no need to.
|
If you described this event as , 'I was driving along in the left hand lane and an overtaking van cut in sharply and hit me', I dont think that there would be much discussion re blame.
KISS
--
pmh (was peter)
|
Interesting that you mention the speed camera - could it have indirectly contributed to this incident?
If the van was going at a fair pace and expected to get past before the merge, then saw the camera and braked, he may well in his own mind have still expected to complete the overtake but misjudged the effect of his reduced speed.
|
There's no rule that says you should merge in turn when two lanes become one. The only rule that's applicable in that situation is that the overtaking vehicle has to yield. Given that the right hand lane is an overtaking lane (you should have no other reason to be in it unless turning right) then the right hand lane should yield.
Lanes never 'suddenly' merge from two to one - if someone is having to fight to get in right at the end they've failed to plan ahead correctly.
That said, it's the responsibility of both parties to avoid having a collision. Just because someone is "in the right" doesn't mean they should blindly carry on regardless.
Terry...
|
|
racing? insurance null and void
|
I agree with Dyane 6 Mehari, and I can add nothing to what he has said.
I drive through a similar situation. The road changes from a dual carriageway before a set of traffic lights to a single carriageway after the lights and the two lanes then reduce to one. In this instance there is an arrow on the road indicating that the outside lane has to move over to the left where the road becomes one lane. A lot of drivers get into the outside lane before the lights and floor the throttle in an attempt to overtake cars in the left-hand lane before the road becomes one lane. When I start off as briskly as they do they don't like it and frequently show their disapproval by sounding their horn etc when they can't get past me. As far as I'm concerned if they haven't got what it takes to overtake me before their lane disappears it's their problem. Fortunately nobody has run into me yet, but if they did I would consider it to be their fault. The onus is always on the overtaker to ensure that they can complete their manoeuvre safely.
--
L\'escargot.
|
As a long-time ambitious overtaker, Escargot, I agree absolutely.. If you can't squeeze past before the road disappears, the only thing to do is drop back.
I am sure you aren't one of those people who drive along at constant speed, then start to accelerate when someone tries to overtake. Lethal behaviour, and not uncommon.
|
I am sure you aren't one of those people who drive along at constant speed, then start to accelerate when someone tries to overtake.
No. The situation I described is a Grand Prix start at traffic lights and I feel (in fact I know ) I'm just as much entitled to accelerate as hard as I can as the drivers in the right-hand lane. For some reason they don't like it. I think they expect my Focus to be a 1.4 litre and to accelerate accordingly. They're wrong ~ it's a 2.0 litre.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Lanes never 'suddenly' merge from two to one - if someone is having to fight to get in right at the end they've failed to plan ahead correctly.
I'd say they frequently suddenly merge - they're especially common on the exits to roundabouts. The one I have a problem with generally has stationary or slow moving traffic through the left lane of the roundabout (people going straight on - 6 to 12 o'clock) but free flowing right lane, with small amounts of traffic coming in from the 3 o'clock position. Of course the people who've been stuck in the left lane do everything they can to keep the people in the right lane from merging in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is a vehicle in an outer lane travelling faster than a vehicle in the inner by definition overtaking? Isn't the rule that the overtaking vehicle shall keep out of the way of the overtaken?
I would say that,when two vehicles are side by side,the outer one is overtaking,so the inner should allow that vehicle to complete it's manouvre.Had a similar one recently where a double decker bus refused to let me in,preffering to try and push me into the oncoming traffic,in spite of me indicating and sounding my horn.
|
I would say that,when two vehicles are side by side,the outer one is overtaking,so the inner should allow that vehicle to complete it's manouvre.Had a similar one recently where a double decker bus refused to let me in,preffering to try and push me into the oncoming traffic,in spite of me indicating and sounding my horn.
That's the opposite way round. Which is correct?
You mean the bus accelerated into the space you had identified before you started overtaking, or you started overtaking hoping a space would appear, and it didn't?
|
Yup, I think sierraman is describing a situation where the overtaker has to drop back. Bus drivers can be a bit self-important sometimes.
Hooting, yelling and flashing yr lights are not part of normal overtaking manoeuvre.
|
Irrespective of 'right of way', all vehicle drivers should do their utmost to avoid collisions. The costs - financial and emotional - of 'accidents' far outweigh the dents in pride or ego.
I'm sure that many gravestones could be inscribed, "but I did have right of way".
|
I'm sure that many gravestones could be inscribed, "but I did have right of way".
There's an old sea story of a gravestone allegedly saying:
"Here lies the body of Michael O'Shea,
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."
|
|
|
|
I would say that,when two vehicles are side by side,the outer one is overtaking,so the inner should allow that vehicle to complete it's manouvre.Had a similar one recently where a double decker bus refused to let me in,preffering to try and push me into the oncoming traffic,in spite of me indicating and sounding my horn.
We have 'defensive' (a misnoma, if ever there was one) driver training at work given by ex-Police driving instructors, and they tell us it's perfectly reasonable to overtake half a line of cars and then indicate and expect a space to open up. You then give the guy who let you in a friendly wave!
If the other driver doesn't let you in, then he's (in their opinion) driving with due care and consideration for other road users.
|
If the other driver doesn't let you in, then he's (in their opinion) driving with due care and consideration for other road users.
That's all well and good but it doesn't help you as you're having a head on with an artic because you couldn't pull back in.
We were taught on our defensive driving course to have overtakes planned in detail before we went for them, including the gap we were aiming to pull back into. We were also taught not to expect anything from other drivers except the most stupid / inconsiderate / dangerous thing they could do at any given time.
I saw a guy deliberately try to kill a filtering biker once, and since then I've believed that there are drivers out there who are capable of anything. I won't put my safety in their hands any more than I can possibly help it.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
If the other driver doesn't let you in, then he's (in their opinion) driving with due care and consideration for other road users.
Driving with or driving without?
--
L\'escargot.
|
Driving with or driving without? --
Without.
Sometimes (most of the time) the lack of an edit button on this forum is very frustrating - it's impossible (for me) to dip in and make a quick comment without proof reading it 3 times and then seeing there's a mistake immediately on sending. I don't bother to repost with corrections anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
