Impossible to speculate since we don't even know precisely what the woman herself did. We know she indicated, but don't know whether that was in good time or last second. If it was in good time, then she was well within her rights to carry out that manoeuvre.
Either way, the car immediately behind had no problem...
But the inescapable fact is that the defendant then slammed into her rear - and it all probably happened in a flash. What she, or any of us, would have seen or done is impossible to say - or whether it would have made any difference.
The evidence, I believe, is that the defendant started his double overtake manoeuvre, then saw the right indicator, tried to cut back in and go on the inside but shunted her with disastrous consequences. Quite honestly, in those circumstances I don't know what anyone could have done better.
What I am sure of, and many including Pontoneer agree, is that the defendant shouldn't have gone for the double overtake in the first place.
What is amazing is that so many people on here have said they would have risked overtaking. Let's suppose they did. Would the outcome have been any different? Would they now be in the dock? Would it have been worth it? Could you justify playing with other people's lives just because you happen to be late?
I don't agree with the part I highlighted in bold above - the putting on of an indicator in no way confers any right or authority to follow through with the intended manoeuvre .
What might I have done differently ?
If someone started indicating right when I was already in mid overtake , my first option would be use of the horn . If they actually started pulling out then , depending on relative positions , if I was already alongside I would floor it to get past before they hit me ; if not yet alongside then I would brake hard in a straight line , but would
NOT attempt to go to their left , because that is where they are likely to try to go if they wake up .
I also would not say categorically that the overtake was not on - just that the defendant did not execute it correctly , and had the crash because he equally did not carry out the appropriate checks before proceeding . Had he fully assessed the situation before committing , he might have positioned his car out and seen the woman signalling right
before starting to accelerate past , or might have recognised that she was slowing to turn right if indeed she was
before he started to overtake .
If it turned out that he had a clear view past and was already in the act of overtaking
before she either started to signal or slow down then , it may be controversial , but I would maintain that he did nothing wrong and she would have been entirely in the wrong .
As has been stated , everything did happen very quickly , and witness statements can be skewed by emotion as well as distorted by different perspectives .
For all the boy saying " she started to indicate .... dad braked .... then he overtook " : the passenger in the following car is unlikely to know whether or not the overtaking car was already out and committed to the overtake
before that signal came on .
If the woman just blindly put on a signal and started moving over without even bothering to take any rear observation ( something which should be drilled into every driver - and this case highlights exactly why ) and a following driver was already out on a perfectly legitimate overtake , then she would be 100% at fault .
A police driver out on his final drive would be marked down for
NOT going for that overtake , if proper checks were carried out and it was 'on' .
