Best of luck then... let us know how you get on with the insurers...

 

"it probably means you'd do the same thing in the same situation"

That's one of the reasons I'm so interested in this thread. I have performed similar overtakes before and will again. I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong (nor do I believe from the information presented so far that Av was doing anything wrong) and will be very interested in the outcome for Av.

"Driving a quick car does not give you license to drive like an idiot with complete disregard for other road users. If anything, it should make you drive more responsibly"

You're quite right. However, as someone who regularly drives roads where safe overtaking opportunities can be few and far between, I often make the decision to overtake more than 1 vehicle based on as many of the prevailing factors as I can determine.

If there's a line of slow moving traffic with no safe gaps between vehicles (indeed, often not even a safe braking distance!) showing not the slightest inclination of overtaking (based on having observed their driving for a while) and a stretch of junction-free clearly visible road presents itself, I'll overtake as many as is (IMHO) safe. That's what driving's all about is it not - judgement of the circumstances based on observation and experience?

 

Commisserations on your accident. I also have had such a numpty do the same and not in the scooby. Hope you've got protected no claims on your insurance.

 

How true!
How do you know he didn't? What about the stuff Av would have been taught before passing his test, about driving safely, and anticipating the actions of other road users? Why wasn't Av considering the possibility that one of the other cars might pull out? At end of day they're both to blame.

Er, so? Are we back to this bull about the relative abilities of the cars again?

The argument is that it's fundamentally unsafe for Av to attempt to overtake five cars plus a caravan in one hit, irrespective of the "ability" of his car (or the other guy's). The other guy was just trying to overtake a single car and the caravan, which, by the sound of things, had signalled for him to pass. Perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

 

"other guy was just trying to overtake a single car and the caravan, which, by the sound of things, had signalled for him to pass."

If we're referring to the Highway Code, where is the signal for passing? Any signal from the caravan does not excuse the overtaker from checking for both oncoming and following/passing traffic.

 

The thing that pi$$es me off is, if he cant see a bloody car in his mirrors god help any bikers who overtake him!

 

greasemonkey: Are you the guy that pulled out in front of him?

 

LOL @ Dan B :-)

 

Claim form should hopefully have arrived today, so will go in tomorrow. If I know the outcome before I leave for Honeymoon, I'll post it up.

No witnesses, the other cars just drove on !! The Caravan stopped, well was stopping anyway, but didn't see the events preceding the crunch. It's my word against theirs, if they repeat what they said at the roadside it'll be them, if they've thought it through and don't fancy losing their no claims I think it'll be split for sure.

What would the practical difference, in terms of my next insurance renewal be between say 25% my fault and 50% or 100% ? Presumably I lose all of my no claims either way, but if it's decided to be largely their fault it shouldn't bump my basic insurance cost up too much ?

 

Gotta admit I had 'some' similar opinions to greasemonkey but didn't want to voice them because I'm trying to become less inflamatory

Sorry to hear bout your incident though.

You can try to do a large queue of cars in one go but to try and dodge the blame when it goes Pete Tong is asking a bit too much.
You gotta weigh up the dangers and people pulling out is one of them.

[Edited by juan - 7/8/2003 5:36:33 PM]

 

Fair enough, as I've said above, I'll be pretty surprised to not pick up some of the blame, but I'll feel a little hard done by if it's judged to be more than 50% my fault, but whatever. I'm not planning on making a fuss if it does, worse things happen and it's just not worth the time and stress, the whole thing will have been more than enough hassle by the time I get my car back.

Really I was just wanting to get a converstaion going and see if I could get a handle on how the reasoning was likely to go in terms of aportioning the blame, and that's what I've got. It's just quite interesting to me to consider the possible opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of how an accident like this could happen,(i.e overtake within speed limit on straight dual carriage way - presumably overtaken cars fault, through to pulling out and driving into the back of a car that was already in the middle of an overtake themselves - overtaking cars fault) and how the lines might be drawn in terms of what would decide where the blame lay.

 

Difficult one, Av.... it's the sort of decision Scooby drivers have the opportunity to make more often than most! Haven't seen - but may have missed, as it's a long thread - any comment from you about a) sounding your horn and/or b) putting your lights on, both of which would have been actions to ameliorate what was an inherently risky manoeuvre. If I'm going to do for more than one in one go I hit the lights as I pull out (so the change in illumination draws attention); and I re-decide on each successive vehicle as the Scooby's got the power and the control to do that when spooled up.

I'm sorry to hear the tale of woe..... and I'm afraid that you're by no means 100% in the clear

Phil

 

Yup, that's what they said when we pulled in, so no, I don't think they were using their mirrors at all. Of course, what they write on their claim form... anybody's guess. They were driving a 206, probably a 1.2 or 1.4, but I don't think there is any real relevance in that to be honest. The string of cars was going pretty slowly (30 maybe) behind the caravan, and then once I had pulled out and started to pass, the caravan slowed more and indicated left then pulled up at the side of the road. The 206 slowed a little when the caravan did and then when the caravan indicated left, it indicated right and just came straight out, so he wasn't going more than 30, possibly less at that point, hence the surprising speed difference, and the problem.

I accept the fact that I made a poor judgement call in taking the whole lot in one go, but they were all too close together to have gaps to pull into, and going slowly enough that it looked like a simple nip past them. Right enough I should have anticipated someone pulling out I guess, but there are no junctions on this stretch of road, and it wasn't a case of having a go at a long string of traffic that was already doing 60. There we go, I suspect it'll come out at least somewhat split liability and I'll take a hit on it, but no point getting stressed about that.

Spoke to the body shop, total bill for my car is £2342, incorporating £1200 of parts:

Bonnet
Grille
Bonnet landing panel
1 head light and side light
Radiator
Bumper skin
Bumper hangers and "a few other wee bits and pieces in there"

Straight forward cosmetic stuff though and mostly bolt on bits, so it should all look perfect again afterwards.

So, worst comes to worst the £350 excess looks a bargain, and even if I lose all my no claims, it'll still not be too bad compared to paying for all the work.


[Edited by AvalancheS8 - 7/8/2003 1:50:24 PM]

 

Er, he almost certainly wasn't. As mentioned earlier, nowhere will you find a section in the Highway Code on "Overtaking a line of vehicles". Nowhere does the HC contain a passage that says "When you're overtaking, you can drive however the hell you like and other road users have a duty to avoid you".

Doing the entire queue doesn't directly contravene the Road Traffic Act, but it does give grounds for prosecution for either driving without due care and attention, or possibly even dangerous driving

If the other party got the details of one of the drivers at the back of the queue, who then makes a statement along the lines of "Some idiot in a sports car went screaming past us, and then we heard a bang", Avalanche could be in the sh*t, both with the insurance, and possibly with the Feds.

You're right, to a point, as the other guy could probably have done better. However, see Puff's comment further up about reasonable expectation. Could he have reasonably expected a car to suddenly be going 30-50mph faster than the queue? Frankly it may well be that he did use his mirrors, at the moment before Avalanche pulled out.

Trouble was that, by his own admission, Av knew the road, and was preparing to overtake when he rounded the previous corner. Thus, he'd probably already changed down and had the car on boost, and was just waiting to see that the lane was clear before he booted it.

Lol! Guilty, your worship. If he was "unable to stop" in the space available, he was driving too fast for the conditions at hand, period. Have you not read any of rest of the thread? Did the points about observation, anticipation and safety not register at all?

As has been said a little while back, it's intensely annoying to find people trying to make excuses for someone else's bad driving, as it probably means you'd do the same thing in the same situation, which means double the potential for injury and death on our roads, and double the potential for the rest of us to get tarred with someone else's brush.

Driving a quick car does not give you license to drive like an idiot with complete disregard for other road users. If anything, it should make you drive more responsibly, as "normal" drivers/cyclists/pedestrians simply aren't aware of your car's capabilities, and, ultimately, when accidents do happen, they're likely to be bigger, and faster.

This would probably not have happened if Av had been driving some cooking family saloon, as he probably wouldn't have tried to bite off more than he could chew in the first place, wouldn't have closed down the other car as quick (leaving it space to pull out and overtake the van itself), and, even if he did end up on collision course, would have had much more time to get rid of much less speed.

Try visualising what happened in a Police! Camera! Action! style helicopter shot, and tell us again that Avalanche doesn't bear any of the blame...


[Edited by greasemonkey - 7/8/2003 4:11:38 PM]