You are right of course:

So maybe it is not so clear cut after all. I'd be interested to see how an insurance claim was settled in such a scenario.

 

I'm guilty of only looking right on way too many an occasion and so could easily be Mr. Turner.

But, in my defence, as soon as I start to move I am already looking up the road and so believe I could compensate for Mr Overtaker.

It's an interesting thread and coincides with a thought discussion I had with myself only this morning on my drive to a meeting whereupon I realised that I had got myself into such a bad habit of maintaining momentum at the sacrifice of safety.

As I biker, you are very aware of the hazards posed by junctions and yet, despite this, I do have the bad habit of Mr Turner.

So, thanks for making me realise how I can improve my driving immediately which was pretty f-cking obvious really but sometimes the obvious is too obvious.

 

The reason behind the question is that I saw such a crash the other week.
The front of Mr Turners cars was sliced clean off, and Mr Overtakers front right quarter was crushed.

At first glance an almost stationary car had been smashed into by a fast mover ... and the fast mover was on the wrong side of the road.
Mr Turner was quite angry that Mr Overtaker had crashed into him.

At first glance it was easy to blame Mr Overtaker for being on the wrong side of the road and hitting a slow moving car.
Generally speaking if A crashes into B you blame A.

It took a moment or two to think it back through and blame Mr Turner fur pulling out in front of Mr Overtaker.

Just thought it was an interesting question for a car forum.

 

It happened to a mate of mine years ago - Mr Turner.

I cannot remember the blame, but I believe it was down to Mr Overtaker in the end. Probably on the grounds that Mr Fast is always in the wrong and Mr Dozytard is usually in the right.

 

Re Rob's last post.

What doesn't make sense is it's different if it was a non-overtaking situation, as happened to another mate; driver made eye contact & pulled straight out into NSF wing.

That's when you always get the utterly lame "you were going too fast!"

"well I might have stopped though it was my right of way if you had a sign 'suicidal c unt' up but you didn't."

 

What you suggest is that anyone 1mph over the limit automatically becomes a kind of outlaw, and is therefore to blame for any scenario.

Mr Turner should be looking.

 

Overtaking isn't illegal although, from my personal experiences, it might as well be - certainly the majority of the public see it that way.

I would certainly feel sympathy for Mr Turner - I am certainly very guilty for doing what he does, as are the vast majority on here I have no doubt.

Still, unless he was contravening a solid white or other such faux pas (speeding would be difficult to prove anyway, unless he was ludicrously over the limit), it has to be Mr Turner to blame.

 

Unless there is very exceptional circumstances they are both to blame (common sense says so, but that has nothing to do with what the law would be).

 

That's why it would be interesting to see an insurance settlement - to see whether blame was apportioned 100% one way or another, or somewhere in between.

Certainly I can recall (but not in terms of specific detail) motorcycle accidents where the motorcyclist on the face of it was blameless but the insurance settlement was 50/50.

 

More to do with pragmatism / reduction of expenses on the parts of the insurer. They don't like court cases