What regulation is this? what is "road space"?
Road position. The same rules apply when you occupy any space that another vehicle would 'like' - if you get to it before them without causing that vehicle to alter speed or direction.
Watch a London cabbie crossing or emerging from a busy junction when both lanes are never empty (or free to enter) simultaneously - the driver 'blocks' the open lane & waits for a gap in the occupied lane. All quite legal & not proscribed by highway code or traffic law.
From the OP's description, that's excactly what he/she was doing.
|
Yes I underdstand the theory, and indeed practise it myslef, In london you wouldn't get anywhere without using it. I am more interested in the legal bit. Is it really legal to pull out and occupy half a lane? I always understood that to be legally naughty.
------
< Ulla>
|
|
I reckon there is an additional dynamic here. I think it is also culturally functional of what you are driving, regardless of the legality. I found the "best" city car was my ratty old Defender, you could get away with murder in that ! I guess no one felt like testing the strength of their body panels against it. Conversely, when I drove a 5 series it really was the case that no one gave you any quarter, apparently on principle. Nowadays, in the Mondeo estate I appear to be invisible to all and have to drive accordingly.
|
|
|
I always understood that to be legally naughty.
It probably is in respect to 'obstruction' - just as recent thread(s) note that any parking on a public highway is technically obstruction - although tolerated.
I think the 'legal' bit really comes into force if you drive in such a manner as to cause the other vehicle to have to brake or alter direction before you're stationary & in position & clearly carrying out a legal manoeuvre. It's all about degrees imo - it would be unreasonable to dart out & screech to halt in the path of another vehicle (not to say suicidal!) & 'claim' the road, just as it would be (at the other extreme) if a following driver rammed you up the jacksie if you were driving at 40mph & they were driving at 60mph, since you were in their 'way'.
|
Sometime back in this very forum a former bus driver wrote that they often decide to hit a car - as they prefer hitting one motorist than getting lawsuits from several passengers following an emergency stop!
|
|
|
|
Is it really legal to pull out and occupy half a lane? I always understood that to be legally naughty.
On an A road with stuff scuttling along at 60 it is far from wise, AE, but as you say yourself it is a perfectly safe and normal manoeuvre in London, used by all but provincial mice who shouldn't venture into the Metropolis without a chauffeur. The 30% of yobbos and idiots apart, someone in the other lane will soon back off and flash to allow the manoeuvre to be completed with minimum disruption to the traffic flow.
From the OP's description this is all he was doing. Sounds to me as if the bus driver was at fault, despite the rush to judgement above. Like HGV drivers bus drivers are perforce pretty good, but they aren't perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
> you have the road space in accordance traffic & driving regulations. What regulation is this? what is "road space"?
>>>>
I think the poster is saying, if your exit is clear, you may proceed as long as you do not cause another vehicle to have to slow unreasonably. The contention here is that the OP's exit was clear, because the driver coming from the left on the opposite carriageway was preparing to let him in.
But I am still intrigued to know why the bus didn't collide with the other car, as it appears to have been head on on the wrong side of the road.
|
Someone had a near miss in a similar situation with me the other week.
I was on the main carriageway, and had stopped to let someone pull out and turn right from a side-road on the left. In this case, it was because I was wanting to turn left into the side-road, and the side-road was single-track so I had to wait for the car to come out.
Some nutcase decided it would be a good idea to overtake me and went around me on my right (at some speed) just as the car from the side road turned right around me. Very nearly a head-on collision - fortunately the car pulling out slowed enough, and the overtaker had an oncoming bus lane to veer right into.
Extremely dim driving from the overtaker - I can't imagine why he thought I was stopped indicating left - I was in mid-lane, outside a cycle lane, so I obviously wasn't parked.
In that case, I would certainly have put the majority of the blame on the overtaker, but arguably the person pulling out should have been paying attention - even for the possibility of vehicles in the wrong lane.
Interestingly, if the car pulling out had done what the OP did - pulled out half-way to the lane divider, rather than waiting for my oncoming lane to clear, it might not have happened, as the overtaker should have seen him.
|
|
|
I read it that the OP had crossed over the give way line, blocking traffic from right. Car coming from left sees this and kindly slows to a halt to allow the OP in, but before the OP can complete the right turn, the bus is upon him and hit his front at an angle. I'm guessing that car from left that has come to a stop, did so sufficiently far back that the bus could return to the "right" side of the road.
The key to it is how safe was the OP's decision to cross into the path of the bus? If the bus was way into the distance or stopped, then moving in front of it isn't a big risk as the whole move is likely to be completed before the bus reaches him. If the bus is doing 30mph and is 100m away when he makes his move then his decision is a bad one as it's obvious the bus is going to have to brake smartly or move out of the way.
|
|
I was in an accident a bit like this shortly after I passed my test. While driving through a village I was momentarily distracted , then on looking back at the road ahead some chap had reversed out of his drive and was blocking the road in front . I managed to break an indicator and put a minor ding in his wheelarch. The blame was split 50/50 , I think the thought process was that the other driver shouldn't have pulled out on me , but also that I should have seen him in time to stop.
|
how about this for the scenario
bus driver sees car pull out and block his carriageway. Being large slow vehicle and wishing to keep his momentum up..throttles off a bit, but presumes car will fully pull out of his way before he gets there...unfortunately for all concerned, car can't/doesn't pull out of the way in the manner the bus expects, so bus has to take avoiding action, which isn't succesful.
which ever weay you look at it, the car driver is at fault, because although the bus driver should have had plenty of time to see the hazard (and therefore morally take action to prevent an accident), the car driver has made the hazard happen...and...the bus driver has right of way along the main road.
|
It seems, car driver at fault, but it took that particular bus driver to turn an incident into an accident.
I bet with 999 of of 1,000 bus drivers there would have been no accident.
Conclusion for the OP, `bad luck`.
Regards
|
I think Westpig has probably hit the cause. That's the problem that often arises in today's crowded and fraught motoring situations - how much is it safe and reasonable to rely on events unfolding in what looks like a sensible interpretation of what is happening, or is the proper course to always assume the worst?
If someone pulls out ahead of you and looks as if he is going to gun it out of the way, should you carry on on that assumption, or do an emergency stop anyway just in case?
|
..which ever weay you look at it, the car driver is at fault, because although the bus driver should have had plenty of time to see the hazard (and therefore morally take action to prevent an accident), the car driver has made the hazard happen...and...the bus driver has right of way along the main road.
So, let me understand this: the bus driver can prevent the accident but gambles on the obstruction being cleared before he reaches it? If that logic or driving attitude were applied to any or more everyday driving situations, we wouldn't get beyond the bottom of our street most days without an accident of some magnitude!!
The bus driver's 'way' is blocked, his right is neither here nor there, it being a 'main road' is utterly irrelevant.
|
Stranger you've got the devil of a job to persuade an insurance company (read: judge or jury) that you weren't in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If stranger claims on his own insurance (as I suspect he intends to) how relevant is it as to who was in the wrong? This may sound provocative, but in fact it's a serious question.
--
L\'escargot.
|
but gambles on the obstruction being cleared before he reaches it? If that logic or driving attitude were applied to any or more everyday driving situations we wouldn't get beyond the bottom of our street most days without an accident of some magnitude!! >>
That's my point. It may in many circumstances be as crude as a "gamble", but to a lesser extent it is a necessary feature of everyday driving we all do all the time.
I am driving along at a steady 40, and the car well ahead of me slows and indicates right. His way is clear, and I can see him beginning to turn. I realise that if he continues making the turn he will be well clear by the time I get there, so I merely ease off a bit and keep going. But he just MIGHT stop dead in the middle of the road. So should I have braked hard sooner, just in case?
|
there's a lot of hollier than you on here.
"100mtrs away, is not a great distance" - poppycock.
I often have to pull out in a similar fashion to join a main road (30MPH) and that distance is further than is visible, and the only time Ive ever had had a problem was a motorbike driving at well over 50.
I doubt there isn't one driver who has had to do this similar manouvre.
The one thing I didnt notice was was the type of main road it was and the applicable speed limit.
Logically, If it was a 60 zone, almost certainly 100 % your fault, if a 30mph, majority of the bus drivers fault. Legally probably will be counted against you.
At least you and the bus passengers were all unharmed
|
|
In reply to Cliff Pope, of course we do as you describe all the time - but don't we, just as habitually, make sure we can stop - just in case?
|
Quite so, Woodbines.
"But I had right of way" has often been proposed as a suitable gravestone epitaph....
|
Yes, of course we do. All the time we make little assumptions about what other people are going to do, but just occasionally circumstances or the really odd behaviour of others causes collisions or worse. In this particular case the reasonableness of the OP's anticipation seems to hang on the speed limit - 30 or 60?
When you build up speed on a motorway slip road, you assume that the car doing 70 you are just going to filter in behind of, will keep going at 70. Not, as once happened to a friend, suddenly do an emergency stop for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
