Collision - what would you do ?

[br0ke]

Walking away from an ATM today I saw a collision and the protagonists then pulled up beside me so I saw most and heard both both side.

Traffic lights 70m away from me in 2 lanes of an each way road. Parked cars where I am.
Car in middle lane pulls away sharpish when lights go green,
Car in nearside lane moves off and inidcates and 2nd black car in middle lane flashes to let it out.
Van behind car in nearside lane accelerates into space vacated by above car, indicates and moves out into where black car in outside lane is.

Van right rear bumper hits 2nd black car nearside bumper.

So I saw all this and thought I would listen into the very heated discussion that transpired.

Van driver told the driver of the car that hit him that he was in front and was indicating so black car should have let him out.
The black car driver said that for him to avoid hitting him, he would have to brake sharply and possibly be hit from behind. He had flashed the driver in front of the van out and lifted off to give him room. Hitting the back of the van that had changed lanes violently was not his fault.

I have sympathies with the driver of the black car because he did let the 1st car out, he was in the correct lane and the van just moved over, but was indicating. However, he should have seen what was happening and could have braked to allow the van out.

At this part of town, most people follow the "Merge in Turn" rule.
The van driver was definately at fault but

If you were in the black car, would you have hit the van?

 

[219]

To answer the first question - I would have avoided the collision by braking if possible .

However , had I been in the black car , I would not have invited the first car to move in front of me since it was his choice to be in the other lane .

The van driver is entirely at fault since he had no right to change lane when the other lane was already occupied - signalling makes no difference ; it confers no authority whatsoever to carry out any intended action .

If either of these drivers had wished to be in the right hand lane , they should have queued there in the first place , or waited until the lane was vacant before changing .

 

[grober]

Van driver's fault pure and simple -- technically he performed an "undertaking " manoeuvre. Every driver would normally avoid a collision but the driver of the black car may simply not have anticipated being overtaken on the left. WHY the urgency to occupy the outside lane by the van, was the inner lane blocked by parked vehicles further down the road or what?

United Kingdom - The Highway Code discourages undertaking on motorways with some exceptions (rule 268): "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". Undertaking is permitted in congested conditions when frequent lane changing is not recommended. On other roads, the Code advises drivers "should only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right" (rule 163). Rule 163 uses advisory wording and "will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted", but may be used in evidence to establishing liability in any court proceedings. On all roads, undertaking is permitted if the vehicles in the lane to the right are queueing and slow moving. Undertaking in an aggressive or reckless manner could be considered Careless Driving or more seriously Dangerous Driving, both of which are legally enforceable offences.

 

[renault12ts]

Unfortunately the van driver is not alone in his misconception that the use of signals means other drivers MUST give way.

 

[lxi]

Unfortunately the van driver is not alone in his misconception that the use of signals means other drivers MUST give way.

Indeed not alone - ask any Volvo driver (where the indicators function to let other road user know what it's just done)

 

[Deleted member 65149]

If either of these drivers had wished to be in the right hand lane , they should have queued there in the first place.

Not necessarily as simple as that. It may have been that someone was parked in the left lane after the traffic lights, but unseen to those in the left lane until they were close because of the other traffic. Or it may have been a road that went from two lanes to one (sounds like this was the case from the OP's description) but many of the drivers were unfamiliar with the area and had been unable to pull over into the RH lane because people wouldn't let them in whilst approaching the lights.

BUT, those wanting to change lane should still indicate and then only move over after ensuring that it's safe to do so.

The white van driver was just being a white van driver - a total rear end (and that's what he got!). Even though the black car driver possibly could have braked sufficiently to avoid the collision, I hope the incident didn't cost him anything.

 

[st4]

One should always try and avoid a collision where possible for their own safety and the safety of others.

One dab of the brakes or a damaged car, I pick the brakes

 

[br0ke]

I use this road every day and there is always parked cars. Sometimes someone is turning right at the lights, so the left lane does get used. It is generally accepted to merge in turn, obviously with the outside lane having priority.

In 20+ years, I have never seen this incident before where a car lets another in front only for the one beside him shoot forward into that space and then move over. Baffling.

It was only a young fella driving the white van and he was living up to the reputation. There was no discussion over blame, as it was patently obvious. His question to the black car driver was 'Why didn't you brake'. The response was that he had let the car in front of the van out, the van forced his way out and he would have to have braked heavily to avoid hitting the van. The chance of being hit from behind too high to risk so the van got hit as that was never going to hurt anyone. He said he was off the power anyway so was slowing down whereas the van was accelerating towards parked cars.

Oh the naivety of youth.

 

[Rob77]

Slightly stange poll since nobody in their right mind would choose to hit the van and everybody would try to brake to avoid a collision. However, in the circumstances you describe, it might not be possible to avoid hitting it so, for what it's worth, I ticked hit the van

 

[ajs37]

One should always try and avoid a collision where possible for their own safety and the safety of others.

One dab of the brakes or a damaged car, I pick the brakes

agreed - avoid damage and hassle - first priority!

 

[BigRog]

Flash lights

When someone "Flashes their lights" all it means is "Look my lights work" and nothing else

 

[andysplasher]

When someone "Flashes their lights" all it means is "Look my lights work" and nothing else

I was always told that it meant "I am here" nothing more, nothing less. The other driver should make a decision which is rooted in safety before moving their vehicle anywhere. It's possible to influence other drivers with your own vehicle position, but ultimately the other driver has full control of their vehicle, and your own driving plan should take into account that they might not have a driving plan, they might not be thinking about their driving on the same level as you.....