50:50?

[wemorgan]

I stopped to turn left and a T-junction. I looked right and then pulled away. After about 1/2 a car past the junction I noticed a car on my side of the road coming towards me. He was slowly overtaking a line of horses travelling on his side of the road. Myself and the other car were travelling slow enough to brake and avoid the accident. But it did catch me by surprise.

So just hypothesising now. If we did touch, would it have been a 50:50 or otherwise?

I'm older and wiser now and will try to remember to look left before turning left. Sounds obvious I know, I just suppose I was complacent, becoming used to not having head-on traffic to avoid.

 

[mattc]

I think you are in the wrong (turning from minor to major road) however it's decades since I read a Highway Code so interested to know correct answer

 

[abecketts]

50:50 I would think

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Thought you weren't meant to overtake (at any speed) near a junction?

 

[Paul/]

I'm too lazy to look it up on the web version of the HW Code, but I'm pretty sure that regardless of whether the other car should have been where it was, the driver joining the main road is responsible for ensuring both ways are clear before joining.

On further consideration though, I don't know whether that has any bearing on the insurance liability split.

 

[whitenemesis]

From the Highway code

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.

 

[bob6600]

The other car may well have been speeding to overtake the horses which would go in your favour but the overtaking near a junction is more obvious and would be in your favour

 

[martyz]

Technically the other car was on the wrong side of the road,and approaching a junction,he would certainly be the one at fault,possibly a driving without due care and attention.

 

[renault12ts]

When exiting a junction (such as a t junction) look right and left. He may have been on your side of the road...but only because you entered the road without observing him. You would have been in the wrong.

Remember, in this case he was overtaking horses...but it could have been road works. So, the argument about overtaking close to a junction wouldn't hold much water. It's a potential life saver...and you have learnt a lesson the easy way.

There are so many reasons why another motorist could have been in that position...observe observe observe...then if safe pull away and observe again.

 

[jpwilliams]

Thought you weren't meant to overtake (at any speed) near a junction?

+1

Regards

 

[Piff]

Technically the other car was on the wrong side of the road,and approaching a junction,he would certainly be the one at fault,possibly a driving without due care and attention.

Agree with that, but equally joining a road from a T junction also requires driving with due care & attention and this means looking right & left.

I think insurance companies would look at 50:50

If there was an "accident" which resulted in serious injury/death I don't know which side Plod would come down on.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Remember, in this case he was overtaking horses...but it could have been road works. So, the argument about overtaking close to a junction wouldn't hold much water.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post, if there'd have been roadworks, there'd be signs up or some traffic management in place.

Whenever I've been witness to an RTA (about five or six), I bet at least half have been when someone has overtook near a junction and hit a car exiting a side road.

 

[Dieselman]

As Renault12ts says, you were in the wrong. You crossed a give way line.

 

[Paul/]

I suppose the bottom line is that it would be of little consolation to be blameless in the eyes of the law and insurers if one has a serious head-on that could have been avoided...though I can't myself claim 100% compliance with the correct, safe approach- I can think of certain circumstances when I should have re-checked the "wrong" side of the road and this story has reminded me to be more cautious. Perhaps a good example would be a pedestrian stepping out from the left on the main road, or half-way across from the right.

 

[brucemillar]

I can only speak from my recent experience.


Third party reversed out his drive onto a road into me.

Police and insurance took the view that he was in the wrong as he was joining a road and should have ensured it was safe/clear to do so.

No winners in my case. But thankfully just bent tin.

Good post here from the OP. I admire the honest question.

 

[jotter22]

And just goes to prove Horses are just as much of a pita as cyclists!

Tony.

 

[martin_a]

Vote for 50/50

whilst he is ont he wrong side of the road, your initial post says you looked right but not left. Given he is already there, you technically pull out in front of him as I am sure he would have priority otherwise.

again, no injury and that's as I see it.

anything more serious and it would be down to plod and lot more complicated.

 

[renault12ts]

The main point is the OP did not look left. He could have driven into the back of a queue of stationary traffic.

 

[Sp!ke]

There could have been a pedestrian crossing the road on the left instead of the oncoming car ... your liability for not looking where you were going.

If the car coming the other way was slowly and cautiously overtaking a line of horses then I think despite there being a junction this manoevre would be acceptable as long as it was done slowly with much caution.

When you boil it down to the bare facts, namely that you didn't look and pulled out from a side road into the path of another vehicle I'm surprised theres any debate at all on this. You should be looking where you were going, you didn't.

 

[wemorgan]

Thanks all for the replies. I'm thick skinned enough to take it all on board.

No harm was done, so it's been a lesson learnt