Would you overtake here?

[markjay]

Depends what you mean by "tearing down". I suspect all RhysC63 meant was a driver travelling significantly faster than the one that is intending to change lanes - this is to be expected if the former driver is in one of the overtaking lanes.

The speed may not have been measurable in this case so the overtaking driver has the benefit of the doubt regarding his speed being the 60mph NSL.

But there's no doubt that the higher the speed the less time to react and avoid a collision (for both drivers), and the more severe the result.

However... the NSL does not mean that one can drive on any given stretch of road at 60mph. It is the maximum legal limit, but a driver must always drive at a speed which is appropriate for the condition of the road at the time (taking in account static road features as well as traffic, weather, visibility, wet surface etc).

So one could be driving at the NSL and at illegal speed at the same time if the speed is deemed inappropriate for the road conditions at the time.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

For me, indicating is an instinctive habit. I have been laughed at by mates who saw me indicating while taking a turn inside an empty supermarket car park..

I was taught not to let indicating be instinctive, but rather to think every time why I need to indicate. For instance I was told not to indicate if there were no other vehicles in sight. But instead I indicate every time that my signal MAY be of use to anyone else, including vehicles that may be just about to appear from a side turning and pedestrians. So it's only on a deserted flat road with all round visibility that I wouldn't indicate, but I still try not to let it become instinctive.

On the other hand, putting on my seatbelt is instinctive. I've even done it more than once getting my car out of the garage

 

[NISFAN]

I was taught not to let indicating be instinctive, but rather to think every time why I need to indicate. For instance I was told not to indicate if there were no other vehicles in sight. But instead I indicate every time that my signal MAY be of use to anyone else, including vehicles that may be just about to appear from a side turning and pedestrians. So it's only on a deserted flat road with all round visibility that I wouldn't indicate, but I still try not to let it become instinctive.

On the other hand, putting on my seatbelt is instinctive. I've even done it more than once getting my car out of the garage

This is the common theme when taking instruction from advanced driving outfits.

One once asked me why I was indicating as there were no other cars in sight.....

....I said, in case there was a motorbike in my blind spot that I haven't seen.....at least he will get a few seconds of time to react.

I explained that I had nearly been killed a number of times in my biking days by D'heads not looking and not indicating. He didn't say a word.

 

[markjay]

This is the common theme when taking instruction from advanced driving outfits.

One once asked me why I was indicating as there were no other cars in sight.....

....I said, in case there was a motorbike in my blind spot that I haven't seen.....at least he will get a few seconds of time to react.

I explained that I had nearly been killed a number of times in my biking days by D'heads not looking and not indicating. He didn't say a word.

I think you should indicate when there are no cars around for the same reason that you stop at a red traffic light when there's no other car in sight.

Safety is about creating good habits as much as anything else. One day it will save your life - or someone else's.

 

[V12]

Even drivers who fail to utilise their indicators usually position their car on the road with "body language" which sometimes show their intentions.
It does infuriate me, but I have recently been pointing it out to the other half as it usually gives you a couple more seconds to respond to what someone may do that isn't indicating.
Personally, i wouldn't think twice about overtaking there, given your original scenario. The actual scenario may have been very different though.

 

[219]

Starting with the original question , I would certainly consider an overtake there , but a lot would depend on the circumstances .

The fact that there were one , two or more cars to be overtaken would not neccessarily deter me .

One thing brought out in this case , it strikes me that many people seem to forget that , in an overtake situation , the vehicle doing the overtaking has priority , and it is the absolute responsibility of the 'overtakee' to be aware that they are being overtaken and to yield accordingly ; putting on a trafficator signal halfway through in no way alters this .

Having said the above , it is clearly unwise to overtake through junctions , past entrances where traffic in front might turn right , or where they already are indicating their intention to do so .

It is also the responsibility of the overtaking driver to make sure the other drivers are aware of him , to this end use of horn or headlamps is appropriate .

The police 'system of car control' , as taught in police advanced driving courses , and applied to every situation which can occur on the road , will take account of the responsibilities both as overtaker and as overtakee .

This incorporates multiple mirror checks ( to ensure you are not about to be overtaken before you make any change in position or speed ) , selection of the appropriate course , speed and gear to execute the manoeuvre , giving appropriate warning of your intentions to other road users ( and taking account of their reactions , or lack of reactions ) , whilst always having a contingency plan .

The below is the 'old' system which I learned in the 1970's ; I prefer it to the newer version and still use it .
From the perspective of the overtaker , the overtake might go as follows -

Closing on two slower vehicles , either see opportunity for an overtake , or hold back until one arises .

On deciding that overtake is 'on' -

Mirror checks ( to ensure you are not about to be overtaken yourself ) , select course which affords better view past vehicles in front ( at this point still not committed to overtake and can pull back in behind rear vehicle if eg front car is turning right or faster vehicle comes up behind ) .

Mirrors , signals & speed - further mirror checks for following traffic , signal if of benefit to another road user , select appropriate speed on approach to manoeuvre ( this usually takes account of slowing for a junction ; for an overtake it will normally at this stage mean keeping pace with the other vehicle )

Gear - select the most appropriate gear to negotiate the hazard ; for an overtake it will involve selecting the gear which offers the best acceleration over the anticipated speed range .

Mirrors & signals ( again ) check again for following traffic which may not have been there before , consider now giving a signal if one was not required earlier , or giving a supplementary signal to reinforce or emphasise one already given ( for example if turning right whilst also passing parked vehicles , a hand signal can be given to emphasise that you are indeed turning and not just passing ) .

Horn - consider whether any other road user is unaware of your presence and intentions : the horn or headlamp flash can be used here to draw their attention to you , but do look for a positive reaction before pressing on .

Acceleration - apply the correct degree of acceleration to clear the hazard .

From the other perspective , it ought to have gone as follows -

Intending to stop ahead in layby on the right .

Mirrors , select course ( check for following traffic , select course just left of the white centre line )

Mirrors , signals & speed ( check for following , or overtaking , traffic ) , give signal if it will benefit another road user ( right turn signal for following traffic ) , determine speed for manoeuvre ( in this case very slow for turn across the road ) and decelerate to arrive at that speed before the turn point , without braking excessively hard if close following traffic ( if you have left it to late and are at risk of being rear-ended , you should abort and overshoot the layby ) .

Gear - select appropriate gear for the turn ( may be a low gear if you have to move off from a standstill , or may still be your previous gear if you do not have to stop before turning and just braking to a halt in the layby )

Mirrors and signals ( again ) - as in previous scenario , but if at this stage you are being overtaken YOU MUST ABORT

Horn - unlikely to be used in this scenario , unless someone else occupying layby has not seen you

Acceleration - as appropriate to cross road , may just amount to lifting slightly off brakes then reapplying once in layby .

While that all sounds very long winded , in practice it only takes a few seconds and highly trained police drivers will become extremely competent and fluid in its execution . The civilian advanced driving organisations do teach the same system , but not usually to the same level of proficiency .

Although 'the system' is not taught to all drivers , the basic rules it is founded on do apply to all drivers and can be used against them when it all goes wrong .

I know that the unfortunate woman in the recent incident lost her family , and that my opinion may go against popular opinion as well as the court verdict - but I do feel that , no matter how ill-advised the overtake might have been , the main responsibility and fault for the incident was hers - simply because it is her responsibility to ensure that she is not being overtaken before changing course or commencing a turn ; also because , as I outlined above , overtaking traffic does have priority .

 

[Bellow]

Thank you Derek. You are the first to come close to recognising that the inattention of others plays a part in these type of accidents.

And the only one to go anyway toward providing me with an answer to the question I posed when I asked who here would have turned for the layby without first checking their mirror. Your words may help the mutes.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I know that the unfortunate woman in the recent incident lost her family , and that my opinion may go against popular opinion as well as the court verdict - but I do feel that , no matter how ill-advised the overtake might have been , the main responsibility and fault for the incident was hers - simply because it is her responsibility to ensure that she is not being overtaken before changing course or commencing a turn ; also because , as I outlined above , overtaking traffic does have priority .

I agree. More for it being her responsibility to protect herself, her passengers and other road users. The priorities are there for guidance, but I feel should still be taken into account in a court of law.

As for Derek's overtaking procedures, I also agree with one addition. In situations where I suspect the safe passing opportunities are limited, I hold back even more than usual and start accelerating early in readiness to overtake. If the opportunity fails, for any of the reasons outlined by Derek, I can still abort and stay behind the last vehicle (lightly braking if necessary). But if the way remains clear I'll be passing the rearmost vehicle at a greater speed, so that I'm on the wrong side of the road for the least possible time. Where necessary I'll keep accelerating until I have passed the vehicle(s) and pulled back onto the left.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Thank you Derek. You are the first to come close to recognising that the inattention of others plays a part in these type of accidents.

Not necessarily the first to recognise this, but the first to voice it clearly.

 

[Mercy1]

Having said the above , it is clearly unwise to overtake through junctions , past entrances where traffic in front might turn right , or where they already are indicating their intention to do so .

...but I do feel that , no matter how ill-advised the overtake might have been , the main responsibility and fault for the incident was hers - simply because it is her responsibility to ensure that she is not being overtaken before changing course or commencing a turn ; also because , as I outlined above , overtaking traffic does have priority .

Others may agree with you, but I strongly disagree. Even the defendant admitted at the scene: "I shouldn't have done it. It was my fault. I was rushing for work."

As I understand it, he overtook the first car, realised that the one in front was indicating right (which he obviously hadn't see when he attempted such an ill-conceived manouevre), so he cut in, shunted her in the rear pushing the car into the lake.

How on earth could any of that have been her fault???

As you say yourself, you don't overtake when the car in front is indicating an intention to turn right. It was.

This tragedy was caused by an idiot in a hurry, taking a risk, and driving recklessly into a situation he couldn't get out of...End of.

 

[GreetMe]

One thing brought out in this case , it strikes me that many people seem to forget that , in an overtake situation , the vehicle doing the overtaking has priority , and it is the absolute responsibility of the 'overtakee' to be aware that they are being overtaken and to yield accordingly ; putting on a trafficator signal halfway through in no way alters this .

I didn't know this.

I've always thought that the person doing the overtaking was the one who had to take responsibility for the manoeuvre.

When I'm overtaking I always assume that the people I'm passing could pull out at any moment and it's up to me to drive accordingly.

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

 

[markjay]

I think that we need to define 'fault', 'blame', and 'guilt' for the purpose of this discussion.

'Fault' is the apportioning of legal liability, 'blame' is the laymen's (or reasonable person's) view, and 'guilt' is a subjective feeling.

I think that the 'fault' here is with the overtaking driver, as the police, CPS, jury, judge, and the driver himself agreed.

The 'blame' is shared (not necessarily in equal measures) between the two drivers, as is the case in 90% of collisions. If you define 'blame' as a reasonable act that could have perverted the event, then you usually find that at least one of the two drivers may have acted legally but could have been more careful - it's all about reduction of risk.

Feelings of 'guilt' are inevitable in such situations. I doubt that any human being can undergo such an ordeal without asking themselves these questions: Why did I survive while others died? Did I check my mirrors well enough? Why did I stop at this particular lay-by? Could I have done something differently? and so on.

 

[John]

Even drivers who fail to utilise their indicators usually position their car on the road with "body language" which sometimes show their intentions.

It's true. I often find myself playing the 'intention game' and can normally predict what drivers are going to do.

 

[219]

Others may agree with you, but I strongly disagree. Even the defendant admitted at the scene: "I shouldn't have done it. It was my fault. I was rushing for work."

As I understand it, he overtook the first car, realised that the one in front was indicating right (which he obviously hadn't see when he attempted such an ill-conceived manouevre), so he cut in, shunted her in the rear pushing the car into the lake.

How on earth could any of that have been her fault???

As you say yourself, you don't overtake when the car in front is indicating an intention to turn right. It was.

This tragedy was caused by an idiot in a hurry, taking a risk, and driving recklessly into a situation he couldn't get out of...End of.

From what I have read , and I concede that I may not have all the facts , she had moved out to start crossing the road , and he struck her near side rear , sustaining damage to his offside front .

If that is the case , she should absolutely not have started to cross the road when another vehicle was in overtaking position . While it does sound as though his skills and observations were well below the standard required of a careful and competent driver ; if she pulled out in front of him , then she must bear a high proportion of the fault .

If she had not started to move out , without first checking it was safe , how did his offside come into contact with her near side ?

 

[Mercy1]

It is clearly unwise to overtake through junctions , past entrances where traffic in front might turn right , or where they already are indicating their intention to do so .
behind ).

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!!

 

[Bellow]

The assumption here is that she indicated well in advance and that her signal could be clearly interpreted. I have my doubts if this is so.

Re overtaking a vehicle indicating right. Overtaking at a junction isn't permitted. But what constitutes a 'junction'? Any private opening? A layby? What about - as in this case - a layby on the other side? Should she have found a turning place, turned, then came back to the layby from the more correct side?

 

[brucemillar]

From what I have read , and I concede that I may not have all the facts , she had moved out to start crossing the road , and he struck her near side rear , sustaining damage to his offside front .

If that is the case , she should absolutely not have started to cross the road when another vehicle was in overtaking position . While it does sound as though his skills and observations were well below the standard required of a careful and competent driver ; if she pulled out in front of him , then she must bear a high proportion of the fault .

If she had not started to move out , without first checking it was safe , how did his offside come into contact with her near side ?

As I said in my earlier post. She had indicated and was moving right across the middle of the road when when he realised he was going to hit her. At that point he attempted to go left striking her car on the NS rear with his OS front. She had nowhere to go and he was clearly unaware that she was in the middle of the road until he was committed to crashing into her.

He allowed himself no get out. He admitted he was going too fast and that it was his fault. That agrees with witness statements at the time who saw the collision. Why is it so difficult for people to accept that he was at fault?

Speed, lack of attention and control combined with an inability to understand the impact of his reckless actions are the cause. Something that he had not taken onboard judging by his previous record.

 

[Paul/]

Pontoneer's interesting 1st post prompted me to look up the Highway Code on direct.gov.uk- I've copied below all but the clearly irrelevant bits of the pages on Overtaking & Turning R.

On another point, I get the impression that those of us who think that there is something to debate here, are assuming that the overtaking vehicle commenced (and signalled?) it's manoeuvre before the lead vehicle- otherwise there is no debate? That assumption could be incorrect, though it's hard to imagine even taking account of the history of the convicted individual that they would be so suicidal as to proceed regardless, or that they didn't spot the manoeuvring signalling car...then again, guilt was admitted and the police seem to agree.

Overtaking (162-169)
162
Before overtaking you should make sure
· the road is sufficiently clear ahead
· road users are not beginning to overtake you
· there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake
163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
· not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
· use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
· move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
· only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre
166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
· a corner or bend
· a hump bridge
· the brow of a hill
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
· when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
· 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
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
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
· take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right
· leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible
180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. 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. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

 

[Bellow]

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that he was at fault?

There's no difficulty whatsoever. What is being debated is what if anything other parties could have done to avoid the outcome that prevailed. Observation being the main issue.

Once again the desire to blame everything on one individual and absolve all others of any responsibility for their own and others safety is prevalent here. A common MB Club trend.

 

[donubenz]

All sort of factors are operating here as in most incidents, my nephew, a fireman does not now use the term RTA (road traffic accident) as they are now go to RTI( incidents) as something/one is a cause.
If you look at the road on Google maps and follow the road from NW to SE the directions the cars were travelling there is a hill dropping down to a bend just before the pull in. It is not actually a layby but a bit of gravelled area barely wide enough for a car and maybe 3 in line. This is just about 80yards from the point when you have a clear site of the road as in the picture.
The guy was local and the unfortunate family, tourists staying at a caravan site nearby. I would guess, and nobody knows, save the people involved that the women driver who was enjoying the lake views decided to park in the layby quickly to allow her Mum to take photos as reported in the press. This may have been a last minute decision when she saw it after the bend. Her brake would go on and probably the following car too. Maybe the local knowing the road and knows this is one of the few overtaking opportunities available was looking at the road ahead to see if it was clear and then committed himself to overtake. About a quarter of mile further on past the water the road flattens and there are more chances to pass a slower car safely if all is clear.
You can also argue that as a local he would know this layby was here and people use it to view the lake so should be careful.
Also just around the wall on the left is another track leading to a car park and farm track so you would not be sure in the 200yards to it what may happen. This is invisible until you turn the bend so you would not know it was there and there are no sign posts anywhere on the road to say layby or farm track ahead apart from a small parking sign to the area on left just past the bridge wall 300yards on from the site of the crash.
I would not have overtaken, maybe because I was unfamiliar with the road but again it is circumstances, if you are late you take calculated risks and hopefully correct ones. Your level of risk is more altered by lots of factors as discussed on here. There but for the grace of god etc.
Don