who would have been at fault? me or him?

Robbie G said:
If for example you had hit a cyclist riding in the dark that didn't have a high-vis jacket and flashing lights etc. then it would have been the cyclist's fault.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Neither of those are a legal requirement and even if they were completely unlit as long as they were just riding along the car driver would probably be found to be at fault. Cars do have headlights after all.
 
I'm struggling to see how people here think that this is the other guys fault.

Your taught from driving lessons: Mirror, signal, manouvre. Now I know this was a long time ago in my case but I'm sure thats still the case :D

His poor lights are irrelevant, you knew he was behind you, he started to overtake you before you started your move and so he had priority over you. And yes hes going to be going faster, he's accelerating to overtake as quick and safe as possible.

Its your job to make sure that your overtake was safe to do, which it wasnt (from what youve described). Just like changing lanes and overtaking on a motorway, you check your mirror, check your blindspots then indicate and make your move making sure its safe to do so all the while. You dont go pulling out in front of traffic!

If it was a biker behind you that was overtaking, and you pulled out on him, you could potentially be in a lot more trouble! Regardless of what would happen the the biker.

Remember those ads a while back? Now you see him... Now you see him....Now you see him...Now you dont....Crash!

The other drivers reactions afterwards may of been an over reaction, but lets face it, you could have wiped him out. His fast reactions managed to see you making your mistake and sounded his horn to alert you to something you should have been paying attention to.

Just my opinion :)

Sadly based on thousands of miles of driving, seeing lots of accidents on the roads and even assisting to drag a woman out of an upside down car. She was very lucky, to say she left her side of a dual carriageway doing 70 flipped her car on its roof, shot across the central reservation and flew in front of me on her roof and straight into a field, thankfully the car didnt roll it just skidded on its roof like a sledge. And thankfully she didnt collect any of us on the other side.

Mick
 
Shimmyhill said:
Overtaking is an 'at risk' action so it would be very much his word against yours. If there was an accident his lights may well have been damaged in the collision etc....
Click to expand...

It's not really relevant to this thread but some might be interested to know that it is possible to determine if a bulb was on when it was broken or not. Thus if it came down to it, the OP may have been able to prove that the car behind did not have a working light.
 
geuben said:
It's not really relevant to this thread but some might be interested to know that it is possible to determine if a bulb was on when it was broken or not. Thus if it came down to it, the OP may have been able to prove that the car behind did not have a working light.
Click to expand...

I believe it's possible at a forensic level - something to do with the hot filament marking the glass.

I can't, however, imagine any insurance claim going that far though.
 
iaind said:
I believe it's possible at a forensic level - something to do with the hot filament marking the glass.

I can't, however, imagine any insurance claim going that far though.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's how it was explained to me. IIRC the example I was told (by some visiting prof at uni who did it) was something like a stolen car (or maybe just joyriders) causing a bus crash on a mountain road due to it not having it's lights on. The driver obviously said he had his lights on (I guess to try and get it put down as an accident) but the prosecution called in the forensic experts (this prof) and proved that he didn't have the lights on. Taking the verdict up to Manslaughter (maybe, the details are a little vague).
 
iaind said:
I believe it's possible at a forensic level - something to do with the hot filament marking the glass.

I can't, however, imagine any insurance claim going that far though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't of said they would go through THAT much trouble to prove a light was out!
 
FlyingFish said:
.
Click to expand...

Yes but you would be talking of a fraction of a second difference between both cars pulling out. Especially if the car behind was following fairly closely.

I don't think you can say either driver is at fault, it's just one of those things.
 
I'd like to see both the car, and the driver that can not only check mirror, indicate and start a manouvre, then cover distance..etc... 'In a fraction of a second'. That just isnt real life. We are not F1 drivers here :p The only things capable of overtaking in split seconds from even speeds, are gonna be supercars and sports bikes.

As I said above, if the other driver had time to see the OP's error and warn him with his horn, then we are not talking about split second times here. Therefore the OP had time to check what was going off behind him. Cars dont just disappear from behind and reappear at the side of you in a blink of an eye.

Mick
 
Housey said:
One of them things, welcome to the world of motoring. Sometimes it goes wrong and trying to analyse it deeply is wasted energy.
Click to expand...

[TW]Fox;15445102 said:
You pulled out without knowing if it was completely clear. You only ever overtake if you are 100% sure - you should have seen even his dull lights, if the conditions were such that you couldnt then the overtake was a bad move :)

We've all done it, chalk it down to experience :)
Click to expand...

Agreed with both of these.

As has been mentioned, overtaking is something you do at your own risk, you didn't see him, regardless of the fact that his lights were dull it'd have been seen as your fault... but I guess you could argue the fact certainly if he didn't indicate etc... still, I find it hard to understand not seeing a car that has pulled out - if you know he was tehre and the van was slow you should expect such things.

However we all make mistakes, it's happened to me when on the bike, fortunately with the power I was able to get out of trouble. However a car is a much bigger thing to miss!

Hope you're not too shaken up. :)
 
But how many times have we had near misses due to cars with either no lights at all or bad ones? I can think of at least two this year in my case. When you are looking at a stream of headlights it is very hard to spot an unlit car and if he could get a good witness i'd say that the fault would be placed with the badly lit car at least partially.
 
The Edge said:
But how many times have we had near misses due to cars with either no lights at all or bad ones? I can think of at least two this year in my case. When you are looking at a stream of headlights it is very hard to spot an unlit car and if he could get a good witness i'd say that the fault would be placed with the badly lit car at least partially.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the OP still pulled out without being 100% confident it was safe to do so. I'm not saying the other driver was entirely blameless, not at all, but the OP is major contributing factor to the situation.

I must admit I have overtaken a line of traffic (3 or so cars) before when the drivers in front didn't have the power/confidence/need/want to overtake. If there's a nice bit of visibility and you know your car or bike's performance you can do such overtakes perfectly safely. :)
 
Did he indicate?

Secondly, if you were attempting an overtake, I would have pre-indicated to ensure the car behind knew my intentions. Not like some drivers who indicate as they move... bah.
 
Last edited:
bledd. said:
Did you tell him about his lights?
Click to expand...

Admittedly I'm not the most polite of drivers these days, my patience is worn.

That said my response to anyone approaching my car (if we got as far as exchanging words) would have been "Get your lights fixed you ****!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom