Prince Albert Road, London - Prius hit Police rider escorting Prince Harry

[219]

The way I see it is that , while traffic established on a main road has priority over traffic waiting to enter that road , a driver waiting to join that road can only give way to traffic he/she can see .

This is why it is extremely ill advised to overtake on the approach to junctions : since a waiting driver may judge that there is plenty of time and space to emerge safely ahead of a vehicle they can see coming , and cannot know there is someone behind , hidden from view , who is planning an overtake .

That overtake is clearly unsafe if both the overtaker and the vehicle waiting to emerge have no sight of each other and are going to come into conflict .

While both road users could have waited , the greater wrong , in my opinion , is in overtaking on the approach to / across a junction .

 

[Giantvanman]

Not to overtake across a junction : overtaking where unsafe to do so , and without a full view of the road ahead ( which includes side openings ) .

If the driver who emerged had fully crossed the centre line and straightened up before being hit then they were fully established on the main road , on their correct side , and had more right to be there than the overtaker .

I would put the police rider , and the overtaker in the other example fully in the wrong , for the simple reason that overtaking through any junction is never OK .

Highway Code
172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

165
You MUST NOT overtake:
if you have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
the nearest vehicle to a signal-controlled crossing facility, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians, equestrian traffic or cyclists to cross
if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction
Laws RTO 1995 Art 50, TSR reg 8, 25 & 25B, RTRO Art 59(4) & PCR reg 20

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



Therefor…………….

The difference between R167 is do not (i.e. should not) and R165 which is must not, demonstrates the legal standing. There is no 'must not overtake at a junction' in R165 you will notice.
R172 says give way and this applies to all traffic traffic on the main road regardless of which side of the carriageway.

Remember, with a broken white line, you can legally drive on either side of it as long as you do not come into conflict with other road users etc. Anyone emerging from a side road must give way to anything on the main road regardless of position.
Hence why an earlier poster's friend was prosecuted. More right and less right is for civil law (and insurance companies) but I think the poster said she was found 100% at fault by them too. JMO.

...

 

[Rory]

I think the Royal family are a valuable tourist attraction, but the wisdom of driving at very high speed through London just to get Harry (who can't exactly be the busiest person in the world) to an event stikes me as questionable, to say the least.

 

[prprandall51]

The way I see it is that , while traffic established on a main road has priority over traffic waiting to enter that road , a driver waiting to join that road can only give way to traffic he/she can see .

This is why it is extremely ill advised to overtake on the approach to junctions : since a waiting driver may judge that there is plenty of time and space to emerge safely ahead of a vehicle they can see coming , and cannot know there is someone behind , hidden from view , who is planning an overtake .

That overtake is clearly unsafe if both the overtaker and the vehicle waiting to emerge have no sight of each other and are going to come into conflict .

While both road users could have waited , the greater wrong , in my opinion , is in overtaking on the approach to / across a junction .

Perfectly put. I am not arguing with the letter of the law but it seems unjust that a driver is culpable for hitting a vehicle that he/she cannot see because the drive of that vehicle is performing a manoeuvre that any sane person would judge to be idiotic.

What beggars belief is that a highly trained motorbike rider would perform such a stupid stunt.

 

[renault12ts]

I think the Royal family are a valuable tourist attraction, but the wisdom of driving at very high speed through London just to get Harry (who can't exactly be the busiest person in the world) to an event stikes me as questionable, to say the least.

I think, in this case, that very high speed was not involved.

 

[Giantvanman]

I think the Royal family are a valuable tourist attraction, but the wisdom of driving at very high speed through London just to get Harry (who can't exactly be the busiest person in the world) to an event stikes me as questionable, to say the least.

I believe they move quickly because they are then more difficult to 'hit'…….moving target and all that.

 

[markjay]

The police bike would have had its blue lights on. Very difficult not to notice unless you are in a great hurry.

The Range Rover would have been nearby - in fact is stands to reason that the biker was in the opposite lane because he was riding alongside the RR - perhaps slightly in front or behind it? Did the Prius driver try to cut-in quickly before the RR? Or did he wait for it to pass and then drive off? Either way, the biker may have been obscured by the Range Rover.

If the biker was driving ahead to ensure that the next junction is free - standard procedure to ensure that the convoy is not delayed but travels at speed - then he would be on his own - but why would he be on the wrong side of he was not overtaking another vehicle at the time - or perhaps the biker was not on the wrong side but swerved to avoid the Prius?

Time will tell.

 

[renault12ts]

The police bike would have had its blue lights on. Very difficult not to notice unless you are in a great hurry.

The Range Rover would have been nearby - in fact is stands to reason that the biker was in the opposite lane because he was riding alongside the RR - perhaps slightly in front or behind it? Did the Prius driver try to cut-in quickly before the RR? Or did he wait for it to pass and then drive off? Either way, the biker may have been obscured by the Range Rover.

If the biker was driving ahead to ensure that the next junction is free - standard procedure to ensure that the convoy is not delayed but travels at speed - then he would be on his own - but why would he be on the wrong side of he was not overtaking another vehicle at the time - or perhaps the biker was not on the wrong side but swerved to avoid the Prius?

Time will tell.

The RR, which apparently did not stop at the scene, passed the incident 1 minute after the collision...so I doubt the RR had anything to do with the thinking of the Prius driver. At 30 mph the RR would have been half a mile away....at higher speeds the RR would have been even further away.

 

[st13phil]

Being in the right does not make the rider any less sore.

Absolutely right - and a maxim I use myself as a motorcyclist.

If the biker was driving ahead to ensure that the next junction is free - standard procedure to ensure that the convoy is not delayed but travels at speed - then he would be on his own - but why would he be on the wrong side of he was not overtaking another vehicle at the time - or perhaps the biker was not on the wrong side but swerved to avoid the Prius?

Time will tell.

Quite possible (as are a number of other scenarios). Time and a proper investigation will tell.

 

[MancMike]

If you come upon the scene of an accident, don't invite any of the walking wounded to sit in your car...

WTF is this about? Why does this place always need to get personal? I can't even work out what you're implying...

With the bike weighing in at 270kg and the car 1500~kg, and the car was only doing jogging speed at the time of impact. The G-force is all on the bike. I don't see how the driver could have been seriously injured. Unless not wearing a seatbelt...

Not sure why that means I shouldn't let someone sit in my car?!

 

[moonloops]

They take trains and planes with the populace at large, why not the tube?

Higher security risk - especially considering the amount of odd folks/nutters on the tube - and hey that's just the staff not the commuters

 

[renault12ts]

WTF is this about? Why does this place always need to get personal? I can't even work out what you're implying...

With the bike weighing in at 270kg and the car 1500~kg, and the car was only doing jogging speed at the time of impact. The G-force is all on the bike. I don't see how the driver could have been seriously injured. Unless not wearing a seatbelt...

Not sure why that means I shouldn't let someone sit in my car?!

Wise up...read what I wrote. I was not getting personal in the slightest. I was saying that it does not take much for the emergency services to take the roof off a car...even someone giving a seat in their car to an accident victim may find their roof being taken off.

I think you are the one who just got personal.

 

[Doodle]

WTF is this about? Why does this place always need to get personal? I can't even work out what you're implying...

Not sure why that means I shouldn't let someone sit in my car?!

I suspect it is referring to a case about 6 years ago, where an accident victim was invited to sit in the back of the police car until paramedics arrived, as they were worried she was going to collapse.

Shortly afterwards she reported pain in her neck/back, and they cut the roof off the patrol car to get her out on a spinal board.

 

[renault12ts]

I suspect it is referring to a case about 6 years ago, where an accident victim was invited to sit in the back of the police car until paramedics arrived, as they were worried she was going to collapse.

Shortly afterwards she reported pain in her neck/back, and they cut the roof off the patrol car to get her out on a spinal board.

Absolutely correct...in fact I posted a link to a similar case.

 

[219]

There was a reported case where a victim sat in the back of a new traffic car , then reported neck pain ; said traffic car then became a convertible - with the cost of a traffic car and all its associated equipment , I doubt the cops would have been best pleased !

 

[MancMike]

even someone giving a seat in their car to an accident victim may find their roof being taken off.

Then I misunderstood, and apologise. I'm having a bad day.

 

[E270 Owner]

There was a reported case where a victim sat in the back of a new traffic car , then reported neck pain ; said traffic car then became a convertible - with the cost of a traffic car and all its associated equipment , I doubt the cops would have been best pleased !

As a tax payer I'm not best pleased either !!!!

 

[renault12ts]

Then I misunderstood, and apologise. I'm having a bad day.

No problem.

 

[Dieselman]

The police bike would have had its blue lights on. Very difficult not to notice unless you are in a great hurry.

The Range Rover would have been nearby - in fact is stands to reason that the biker was in the opposite lane because he was riding alongside the RR - perhaps slightly in front or behind it? Did the Prius driver try to cut-in quickly before the RR? Or did he wait for it to pass and then drive off? Either way, the biker may have been obscured by the Range Rover.

If the biker was driving ahead to ensure that the next junction is free - standard procedure to ensure that the convoy is not delayed but travels at speed - then he would be on his own - but why would he be on the wrong side of he was not overtaking another vehicle at the time - or perhaps the biker was not on the wrong side but swerved to avoid the Prius?

Time will tell.

Did you actually tea the newspaper article you linked to?
All your queries were answered in it.

 

[219]

The link to the DM article in the opening post includes CCTV footage showing the Prius emerging a second or two after a large van passed the junction .

The Prius then crossed just ahead of a white car before being hit by the bike .

Said van and the car would most likely have hidden the bike from Prius driver's view , the Prius appeared to have fully crossed the road before the collision , making it appear that the bike was 'offside' , although the rider may have seen the Prius and been taking evasive action ?