Would you overtake here?

[Paul/]

Just found this reported evidence, which would invalidate my assumption:

"Earlier the trial heard that James Denham and his brother William were passengers in a car travelling immediately behind Mrs Griffith's Peugeot.
The jury was shown a video of an interview with James Denham, who was 16 at the time.
He said: "As we were coming downhill, the car in front of us indicated right.
"Dad saw this and braked, but the car behind us went to overtake. It made contact with the car in front, which was half in the road."

The overtaking driver might even have been aware of the manoeuvre but incorrectly assumed that the turning vehicle would be sufficiently clear of the road.

 

[markjay]

...
...Overtaking (162-169)
...167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example...
· when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled

...Turning Right
179
Well before you turn right you should
· use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
· give a right-turn signal...

For the convenience of those who are reading this in a hurry

 

[brucemillar]

Just found this reported evidence, which would invalidate my assumption:

"Earlier the trial heard that James Denham and his brother William were passengers in a car travelling immediately behind Mrs Griffith's Peugeot.
The jury was shown a video of an interview with James Denham, who was 16 at the time.
He said: "As we were coming downhill, the car in front of us indicated right.
"Dad saw this and braked, but the car behind us went to overtake. It made contact with the car in front, which was half in the road."

The overtaking driver might even have been aware of the manoeuvre but incorrectly assumed that the turning vehicle would be sufficiently clear of the road.

This is what I have said in every post ?????

 

[Paul/]

For the convenience of those who are reading this in a hurry

Thx Mark. I thought it best to quote more than is relevant to try and show I wasn't quoting selectively to promote any particular agenda. But for convenience, one more (on turning R) to add to your 2 key points:

180
... Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn.

 

[Paul/]

This is what I have said in every post ?????

Yes you have previously made some of those key points, but I might not be the only one who thought you were offering opinion rather than quoting fact.

 

[219]

These are your words. I would go further. It is irresponsible and reckless to overtake someone already indicating that they are going to turn right.

I just can't see where you're coming from. Our driving system would break down completely if every driver approaching a right turn-off had to slam on the anchors because some fool in a hurry decided he had priority and charged down the outside.

It comes down to what a lot of people have said so far. Some people take risks of this sort without even seeing the possible tragic consequences. What a price this family has paid just because one fool late for work didn't appreciate the basics of safe driving!!

I agree that it is wrong to overtake in such circumstances .

However , if someone chooses to do it , for whatever reason , it is still incumbent on the person turning right to take rear observation first : just because the overtake is inadvisable , foolish or even illegal does not absolve the person about to be overtaken of the responsibility of making sure their manoeuvre is safe before carrying it out .

Nor does the flashing of an indicator give a driver carte blanche to carry out a manoeuvre - they still must make sure it is safe and will not inconvenience another road user first . So many people seem to fail to understand this , particularly on motorways or other multi lane roads where they think putting on a signal gives them a right to pull out from one lane to another , regardless that it is already occupied or that they will cause another driver to brake .

In the incident being discussed , that the woman changed course when about to be overtaken demonstrates that she was either not fully aware of other road users , or , worse , that she still pulled out in front of the overtaker .

It also seemed uncertain as to exactly when she started signalling right - whether she gave sufficient advance warning , or just did it at the last moment .

I agree that the overtaker was well in the wrong ; my point is just that the woman was probably at least as culpable ( if not more ) , but not punished because of the tragic outcome which she will live with for the rest of her days .

 

[MD5]

I've only scanned through to page four, but I do wonder how often people check their rear view mirrors. I was on the Isle of Wight several years ago, on holiday in a two car convoy. In the middle of the countryside, we's been stuck behind a tractor for a couple of miles, when we finally straightened up onto a good downhill stretch of road, with no oncoming traffic. I took a view etc. and overtook, and checked my mirror as I pulled in the other side, to see the tractor turning right, into a field, in front of my friend, a serving police officer with plenty of driving experience. Fortunately no collision, but the tractor driver was completely oblivious to the road behind him. I also recently overtook a car on a two-laned slip road leading onto a dual carriageway. Having pulled out from behind her, I was almost alongside her rear when she pulled out without any idea I was accelerating quickly. Part of me was angry at her lack of attention, but another part made me consider how quick my E500 is at accelerating, and my moving from behind and gaining on her only took a couple of seconds. Fortunately, I was able to brake.

Another few feet forward of the rear car in either incident would have resulted in an unavoidable collision.

 

[Bellow]

He said: "As we were coming downhill, the car in front of us indicated right.
"Dad saw this and braked, but the car behind us went to overtake. It made contact with the car in front, which was half in the road."

So if Dad had been quick witted he could have hung a right hand indicator and edged (as in making it look like he was going to overtake) to the right and maybe just maybe Gryche would have had the extra time to react.
Of course there's no onus on Dad to do this - but I would have.

 

[markjay]

So if Dad had been quick witted he could have hung a right hand indicator and edged (as in making it look like he was going to overtake) to the right and maybe just maybe Gryche would have had the extra time to react.
Of course there's no onus on Dad to do this - but I would have.

No onus, and no medals for those who prevent accidents every day, we just don't get to hear about those that did not actually happen.

Well, we do, but only when one of the members here shares his experience.

 

[Mercy1]

I agree that it is wrong to overtake in such circumstances .

However , if someone chooses to do it , for whatever reason , it is still incumbent on the person turning right to take rear observation first : just because the overtake is inadvisable , foolish or even illegal does not absolve the person about to be overtaken of the responsibility of making sure their manoeuvre is safe before carrying it out .

I agree that the overtaker was well in the wrong ; my point is just that the woman was probably at least as culpable ( if not more ) , but not punished because of the tragic outcome which she will live with for the rest of her days .

Let's face reality, the argument begins and ends with your first sentence. Once we agree he was wrong in this situation - and we do - it follows that he shouldn't have done it and if he hadn't the tragic accident would never have happened. It really is as simple as that.

To then go on and say that in the face of an inadvisable, foolish and even illegal action, the woman is at least as culpable if not more, is a travesty and IMHO deeply offensive to the woman involved. Are you serious?

You are quoting textbook driving advice in a situation which in my view is highly inappropriate. Good driving practice is one thing, but being blamed for not doing everything exactly right in those milli-seconds that a hunk of metal is recklessly hurled at you from behind is entirely another.

Bit like being shot at and then criticised for not ducking quickly enough...

 

[John]

Overtaking (162-169)
167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For examplewhen a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled

Turning Right
Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn.

It seems there are two schools of thought on here.

I'm with those who don't believe the woman is blameless.

You need to take responsibility for your own actions (and lack of).

Assuming everyone else knows what you are doing without taking responsbility will invariably catch you out - as in this case.

He is more at fault but she is not blameless.

Bit like being shot at and then criticised for not ducking quickly enough...

More like being shot at and then criticised for not ducking quickly enough... whilst being at a shooting range where you should be wearing protective clothing and not wandering around aimlessly. No wonder you got shot...

 

[brucemillar]

Gents this is just plain distasteful.

Please stick to the facts as presented at the time by those who were there and repeated in court.

Where do we get to the fact that this lady was "wandering about"?

She was hit from behind by somebody who admitted his guilt and was seen by witnesses attempting an overtake on a bend at speed when the lady was indicating and already in the middle of the road.

All involved including the guilty party himself agreed the facts. Now we have a debate and comments accusing this woman of being to blame.

If you are behind most insurance companies will find you at fault if you hit the car in front.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[renault12ts]

Where's the bend...after the overtake would have been completed?

 

[s88]

I didn't know this.

One of things I like best about the E55K is that, once you commit to the overtake, the time exposed to danger is minimal.

I find one of the biggest issues is the people who overtake but dont go fast enough!!
ie barely one mph faster than the vehicle they are overtaking
generally low powered cars whose drivers have different ideas.

 

[markjay]

brucemillar, Mercy1, please consider this:

Do you believe that if you were driving the car that was hit... you would have done exactly what the lady driver did and would have ended-up in the lake as she did?

 

[John]

Where do we get to the fact that this lady was "wandering about"?

Lol, there was no shooting either if you look carefully.

That's what is known as an analogy.

 

[s88]

so at 40mph,what time would he have got to work?

At his desired speed what time would he have got to work?

A few minutes later I think.

 

[brucemillar]

brucemillar, Mercy1, please consider this:

Do you believe that if you were driving the car that was hit... you would have done exactly what the lady driver did and would have ended-up in the lake as she did?

How can anybody possibly answer that? It is speculation. What I do believe is that this guy drove into her and is the guilty party.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[V12]

No problem with people answering the original question. Hopefully threads like this help educate drivers and reduce future accidents.
Speculating on the actual case maybe not so productive?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MBClub UK

 

[Shude]

All involved including the guilty party himself agreed the facts. Now we have a debate and comments accusing this woman of being to blame.

If you are behind most insurance companies will find you at fault if you hit the car in front.

Yes that's how most car insurance fraud works but I think we all know that sometimes the person in front has arranged for the "accident" to happen. It also doesn't matter who has agreed to what, it's possible to feel guilty and confess to a crime that you have had no involvement in at all!

I think we all agree that the overtake was poorly judged but what is trying to be said here is that the lady who was hit or the following car could potentially have prevented the collision by looking in their mirrors and taking appropriate action. No party is 100% to blame here, the world is not black and white.