Ouch .... and walk away!

Box Brownie said:
Looks like that a car thst age and equipped level excludes ABS. Perhaps it is my age but do they still teach cadence braking and its benefit where ABS is not fitted, afteral many novice drivers will be in older cars once they pass their test.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that BB.

I've checked the spec of a 2002 Ford Fiesta Finesse ( the vehicle being driven by the other driver) - Finesse is the bottom of the range and ABS was only introduced onto the Ghia (top of the range). That would explain why Marie asked, "Why is he not trying to avoid me?"
 
chuckles said:
...That would explain why Marie asked, "Why is he not trying to avoid me?"
Click to expand...

To be fair, the other driver had a tough choice: hit the car or try and avoid the car and possibly hit the bridge and end up in the culvert.
 
Last edited:
I know this is a tangent from the core element of the thread but it is about time skid control was an obligatory part of the teaching/test. I remain convinced that all too many accidents and near misses could be avoided by better vehicle control with improved defensive driving.

FWIW I am not being holier than thou as over the years I have seen poor habits creeping into my driving of which I try to recognise and avoid.

As a point of reference when I was biking more than driving I was tested by both the IAM and RoSPA......the testing examiner in the latter was a serving Class 1 Police Motorcyclist.
 
ZoneV said:
To be fair, the other driver had a tough choice: hit the car or try and avoid the car and possibly hit the bridge and end up in the culvert.
Click to expand...

Or the even easier choice 15 or 20 seconds before --- drive to the conditions!
 
chuckles said:
Or the even easier choice 15 or 20 seconds before --- drive to the conditions!
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Your wife pulled out on him though... maybe there was nothing he could do and nowhere he could go?
 
ZoneV said:
Hmmm. Your wife pulled out on him though... maybe there was nothing he could do and nowhere he could go?
Click to expand...

She pulled out onto an 'empty carriageway' - how long to wait for nothing to pass by? If he was approaching at a speed which rendered him 'invisible' because of being obscured by the trees then what is she supposed to do? Wait until daybreak?

Have you read all the thread?

He could've driven to the conditions and that is thrust of this thread.... the point of impact was at the crown of the road!

At which point was HE supposed to have acknowledged her headlights? There is also no way, at the speed he was going, that he could distinguish between a vehicle emerging onto the road and something travelling 'normally' along the carriageway. See the video clip!
 
I'm puzzled why you think he would have to acknowledge her headlights.

Anyway, there's no point discussing it here when we (you included) don't know all the facts so I think I'll leave it there.
 
chuckles said:
Her damage is in the first photo... rear of door.

These two shots show the damage to his car and the junction after the vehicles had been moved. It looks minor but, you have to bear in mind he braked heavily, I'm guessing around 50-60 metres with the wheels locked.

Also, you can see the pool of liquids from his car. There are two patches. The one close to the centre of the road is where he came to rest after he'd bounced back from the point of impact, the second is where the car stayed after it was pushed back by 'well-wishers'. I reckon the speed he was travelling prior to sighting the junction was the major factor in not being seen by my wife. Impact damage was reduced by his braking. I have another (rubbish) photo on my phone which shows debris from Marie's car at the crown of the road.... the debris doesn't show here because the Police had swept it away by this time.

It occurred at 18:15

DSC_7873a.jpg


DSC_7876a.jpg
Click to expand...

Does this picture show that your wife barely got into the road before being hit?

Surely that would mean that the car was pretty close before she pulled out, meaning it should have been visible.
 
ZoneV said:
I'm puzzled why you think he would have to acknowledge her headlights.
Click to expand...

Simple enough.... it would mean he was cognizant of what was around him. If it's incumbent upon the driver emerging onto the road to be aware then, so too, the driver on the main carriageway. I don't know about you but I drive trying to be aware of everything happening on road.

ZoneV said:
Anyway, there's no point discussing it here when we (you included) don't know all the facts so I think I'll leave it there
Click to expand...

Maybe not all, but I saw most of it in my mirrors. (And that includes the speed at which he went past me 150 metres from the incident)
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
Does this picture show that your wife barely got into the road before being hit?

Surely that would mean that the car was pretty close before she pulled out, meaning it should have been visible.
Click to expand...

No. These photos were taken about 1.25 hours after the event; when they'd been pushed off the road ... the Fiesta is actually here in someone's driveway (Box Brownie was wondering about the damage and possible angle of the impact. My wife's mini is on the other side of the road, again after being pushed out of the way. My impression, as I saw it, was the impact occurred at the crown of the road.
 
chuckles said:
Simple enough.... it would mean he was cognizant of what was around him. If it's incumbent upon the driver emerging onto the road to be aware then, so too, the driver on the main carriageway. I don't know about you but I drive trying to be aware of everything happening on road.
Click to expand...

With the best will in the world, it is impossible to drive so defensively that you can avoid hitting someone that pulls out right in front of you, whether he "acknowledged" your wife's headlights or not.


chuckles said:
Maybe not all, but I saw most of it in my mirrors. (And that includes the speed at which he went past me 150 metres from the incident)
Click to expand...

You don't know where he was when your wife pulled out in front of him, or how fast he was going at that moment, or when he braked, or whether he lost control. It's impossible to apportion blame (especially to the other driver) without knowing all of this.
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
No. These photos were taken about 1.25 hours after the event; when they'd been pushed off the road ... the Fiesta is actually here in someone's driveway (Box Brownie was wondering about the damage and possible angle of the impact. My wife's mini is on the other side of the road, again after being pushed out of the way. My impression, as I saw it, was the impact occurred at the crown of the road.
Click to expand...

To be fair regardless of his speed. Your wife should have seen his lights as they would have been shining in her general direction whilst hers for the most part would have been shining across the road until such time she started to turn.
 
nilagin said:
To be fair regardless of his speed. Your wife should have seen his lights as they would have been shining in her general direction whilst hers for the most part would have been shining across the road until such time she started to turn.
Click to expand...

To be fair.... he was obscured by a line of trees!

She was struck at the crown of the road - she pulled out when the road was clear - once committed it was an accident waiting to happen as he was on her in an instant - hence his speed (which I witnessed because I was further round the bend) is absolutely germane to the whole issue.
 
ZoneV said:
With the best will in the world, it is impossible to drive so defensively that you can avoid hitting someone that pulls out right in front of you, whether he "acknowledged" your wife's headlights or not.

You don't know where he was when your wife pulled out in front of him, or how fast he was going at that moment, or when he braked, or whether he lost control. It's impossible to apportion blame (especially to the other driver) without knowing all of this.
Click to expand...

<sigh> I guess you're pretty good at Black & White photography!
 
Glad your wife and the other driver are unhurt Barry.

I have read through this thread and I fully understand your stance that the other driver is somewhat to blame due to the speed he was travelling, some of the reports from yourself don't quite add up to the same conclusion, sorry.
You have not suggested that the other driver was speeding, just that he was going too fast for the conditions in your opinion. Would he have crashed if your wife hadn't pulled out?
Your main point seems to centre around the visibility at the junction coupled with the speed at which the other driver approached the bend. You also mentioned that you saw the accident in your mirrors while more than 150 metres away "but I saw most of it in my mirrors. (And that includes the speed at which he went past me 150 metres from the incident)". If you could see the accident at more than 150 metres away then surely your wife would have more than 150 metres visibility to the right at the junction and should have been able to see another car with it's headlights on. Looking at the images you took it would appear to be nearer 300 metres.
Looking at the images there does not seem to be to many street lights other than one in front of the junction, did the other driver have his main beam on, maybe not as he'd just past you and should have dipped his lights.

Anyhow, I hope it gets resolved ok, what's the worst that can happen? a few points and an increase in insurance next renewal, at least no one got hurt.
 
According to the IAM at 60mph you travel 27m/sec
http://www.iam-bristol.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=724&Itemid=137

So 150m would be 5 secs, plenty of time to react. Realistically if your wife pulled from a t junction, other driver saw her braked, slid into her on the crown of the road, then to pull out a road junction and reach the correct direction on the road is only what, 2 secs, possibly indicating she pulled out when he was 50-60m away?

That distance and time would be more realistic as to why the other driver slammed on the brakes and skidded (or not) and possibly why there were no or limited skid marks.

PaulF said:
Anyhow, I hope it gets resolved ok, what's the worst that can happen? a few points and an increase in insurance next renewal, at least no one got hurt.
Click to expand...
Looking at the damage on the mini and on the other car, and applying that logic, I'm sorry but I'd expect the wife to be charged with careless driving
 
If she made a stupid mistake and you let the other guy take the blame ie blame his speeding not her lack of observation/not pulling out briskly enough/pulling out too late then she'll get hit again. She has to make sure her driving is better to allow for what actually happens on that road. She was ok this time. So was he. It might have been a different story if she'd done something similar to a motorbike.

On a 60 limit road you have to expect traffic to be doing 60 whether you think that is wise or not. Then you only pull into large enough gaps. You have to be out of the way of the other carriageway well before another vehicle can get anywhere near you. If you have to still be able to clear that carriegeway before a car you haven't seen that is doing 60 can get to you.

I'd book her on an advanced driving course like Ride Drive where you are instructed by police instructors. You do not want it happening again.
 
Some very good points here and to the OP don't take them personal they are just observations based on limited information.

However a few things I am tending to agree with and that is looking at where the vehicle hit your wifes she was barely out of the junction on to the other carriageway, unless I think she probably looking at the angle of the impact she didn't get fully into the opposite lane quickly enough. maybe bridging the lanes for a few seconds. That would give the glancing blow rather than the T bone type accident.

Also don't be offended if people do say it was her fault as it probably was and without a dash cam which might have shed more info.
Also just imagine if like one or two have said it might have been a motorbike and she might have been looking at a causing death charge.

one other thing is she was following you and that might have clouded her judgment to wait a few seconds longer to let the junction settle and observe for traffic. Sometimes when we are following people we try to hard to keep up when at the end of the day we know where they are going generally. Or was she dependent on you for the directions?

TO ADD

I think your accident highlights the fact that isn't country roads that have high speed limits the highest for accident rates and always has been?
 
Last edited:
I nearly did this to someone the other day, following another car on my way home at night, he pulls off from the T junction, I approach it and look around for any signs of headlights approaching on the main road, pull out and am a shocked to see a car approaching right on me in the mirrors as I pulled out. No idea how I didn't see him, can only surmise that he was so close his headlights coincided with my own and I couldn't tell them apart. Either way, it was fortunate the car in front of me pulled out forcing the other guy to slow down enough so that he didn't hit me. Would have been totally my fault had a collision occurred which is quite a scary prospect as I consider myself as having very good awareness on the road.
 
chuckles said:
To be fair.... he was obscured by a line of trees!

She was struck at the crown of the road - she pulled out when the road was clear - once committed it was an accident waiting to happen as he was on her in an instant - hence his speed (which I witnessed because I was further round the bend) is absolutely germane to the whole issue.
Click to expand...
Even a car that can't be seen in daytime because of trees, can be seen at night because the light can be seen through the trees. If he really was travelling at high speed as you say, the level of damage is minimal, so he must have seen your wife long before she saw him, to have scrubbed off so much speed.
 
Firstly I'm really glad your wife wasn't injured and im glad a Mini can withstand this sort of incident a my wife drives one too.
I've read this thread through and whilst I admire your support for your wife I'm a little bemused at you trying to suggest its the other drivers fault, inexperienced or not. I take your point about the trees but at night surely the other drivers lights would have been visible? I can't really see how you can excuse your wife from pulling out in front of oncoming traffic causing someone else to crash. Be thankful no one was hurt, let the Insurance companies sort it out and take what ever punishment is imposed. Look at it from the other guys point of view - someone pulled out in front of him from a junction!
 
Again I agree that the main thing was no major injuries. The metal can be fixed or replaced.

The main hurt is yet to come when the insurance companies start haggling over division of costs - unless the police decide blame. Who ever is found to be at fault will affect both premiums even if it shouldn't.

I was hit by a coach on a sharp bend last year. Despite my seeing him and stopping and having independent witnesses to verify it, the insurance companies decided we were both equally to blame. I took pictures that clearly show the coach more than 50% on my side of the centre line. Seems I should have given way to him as he was the larger vehicle. No idea how I could have stopped prior to his hitting me but there we go.
 
How many times do we have to hear comments like "I'm allowed to do 60 here" or "But, I had the right of way". Best I experienced personally was overhead by me from a panel van driver who shunted into a line of cars (including me) on the M25. "But you were all stopped". Yes mate, it's the M25!
 
geriatrix said:
How many times do we have to hear comments like "I'm allowed to do 60 here" or "But, I had the right of way". Best I experienced personally was overhead by me from a panel van driver who shunted into a line of cars (including me) on the M25. "But you were all stopped". Yes mate, it's the M25!
Click to expand...

Leaving the girlfriend's house in the early hours one morning I made a particularly brisk exit from a 30 zone into NSL, naturally the only other car on the road and heading past me the opposite way was the traffic cops, so they turned round and came after me. I led them on a merry jaunt down some country lanes, left them way behind, stopped in the the next village and sat waiting for them on the bonnet, license in hand ready. First question was of course how fast was I going, to which I replied 60. They informed me that was an inappropriate speed for the road. I replied they were just jealous they couldn't keep up with my s***box Nova! Fortunately for me they saw the funny side. (Going way off topic but the second question was where I was going - home - whichis where? nowhere down this road - why come this way then? To see if you'd follow of course officer!)

Anyway, it is a valid remark - he is allowed to do 60, it may be wise not to on that particular stretch but anyone pulling out of that junction should be fully aware that they are joining a road where they should expect the possibility of fast traffic, just because you don't do 60 down and think no one else should doesn't mean anyone else will do so or agree.
 
the main street in the town centre where i live has a 30 limit but driving at 30 would almost certainly mow down numerous pedestrians at most times during the day but the cops could not touch me as i would be fully legal speed wise
 
Be interesting to hear from OP as to the ongoing state, hows the missus now, hows the insurance claim/repairs going, any news from the police?
 
boliston said:
the main street in the town centre where i live has a 30 limit but driving at 30 would almost certainly mow down numerous pedestrians at most times during the day but the cops could not touch me as i would be fully legal speed wise
Click to expand...

Yes they could.
You can be deemed to be driving recklessly / dangerously / without due care at ANY speed.
 
viv1969 said:
Yes they could.
You can be deemed to be driving recklessly / dangerously / without due care at ANY speed.
Click to expand...

There is guidance to this in the highway code but the OP is basically correct.
If he is proceeding at 30 in a 30 with a pavement separating himself from pedestrians its all good. Issues come along when that interface breaks down or when a car comes across a pedestrian mid way crossing a road then they have to yield. Also things such as turning into a junction if someone is in the road crossing or reversing the pedestrian has right of way.
 
Mr Bump said:
There is guidance to this in the highway code but the OP is basically correct.
If he is proceeding at 30 in a 30 with a pavement separating himself from pedestrians its all good. Issues come along when that interface breaks down or when a car comes across a pedestrian mid way crossing a road then they have to yield. Also things such as turning into a junction if someone is in the road crossing or reversing the pedestrian has right of way.
Click to expand...

I didn't give any examples of behavior.
Read it again.
The original post said the police can't touch him as long as he's doing under the speed limit.
That is incorrect, whether it itches your britches or not.
The bold section of your post is also incorrect.
You could be driving 28 in a 30 on a long straight road with no pedestrians in sight and STILL be deemed to be driving recklessly (etc.) due to other behavior factors.
 
Overexposed said:
I've read this thread through and whilst I admire your support for your wife I'm a little bemused at you trying to suggest its the other drivers fault, inexperienced or not. I take your point about the trees but at night surely the other drivers lights would have been visible? I can't really see how you can excuse your wife from pulling out in front of oncoming traffic causing someone else to crash. Be thankful no one was hurt, let the Insurance companies sort it out and take what ever punishment is imposed. Look at it from the other guys point of view - someone pulled out in front of him from a junction!
Click to expand...

Completely agree ^

May be the Fiasta driver's first reaction was not the most ideal, but your Mrs did pull out in front of someone causing an accident. The photos show the on-coming lights should be visible.

Take the punishment, like it or not. I really can't see how it's the other driver's fault in any shape or form.
 
Byker28i said:
Be interesting to hear from OP as to the ongoing state, hows the missus now, hows the insurance claim/repairs going, any news from the police?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see this too.

I predict insurance going in favour of the fiesta driver, and police saying they can't / won't prosecute either driver without more evidence other than the actual crash.

Wonder if the OP's stance would have been different if the positions of the cars had been reversed, and his wife had hit a car pulling out of that junction?
 
Byker28i said:
Be interesting to hear from OP as to the ongoing state, hows the missus now, hows the insurance claim/repairs going, any news from the police?
Click to expand...

Been working away so have not been able to respond much.
  • Wife is feeling better but is having flashbacks of the incident - thanks
  • Car at the garage for assessment - hire car delivered, but the truck broke down and they couldn't remove it from the transporter - hydraulic failure :( (I should point it this is from a Premier Mini Dealership) couldn't script it
  • Nothing at all from the Police - although they said they'd caution her at home Sunday - as I originally stated, so many procedures and protocols contravened i believe they're feeling a tad embarrassed.
 
Overexposed said:
someone pulled out in front of him from a junction
Click to expand...

Or, how about? - I came around the corner and suddenly this car was in front of me - I was so travelling fast I couldn't do anything but brake hard, skid on the wet road, carried straight on and hit it.

It wasn't a T-boning as she was struck obliquely at the crown of the road!
 
chuckles said:
Or, how about? - I came around the corner and suddenly this car was in front of me - I was so travelling fast I couldn't do anything but brake hard, skid on the wet road, carried straight on and hit it.

It wasn't a T-boning as she was struck obliquely at the crown of the road!
Click to expand...
Like I posted earlier, to cause what is relatively light damage, he managed to scrub off a lot of speed whilst skidding on a wet road. So the question has to be asked, how he managed to see you wife, who's lights would have been lighting up the opposite side of the road, and he managed to brake trying to avoid an accident, yet she failed to see him approaching when his lights would have been shining in her direction and pull out on him. Even if he was travelling at 70mph, she'd have had around 6 seconds after he would have first become visible from where you were at 200 metres away.
At 70mph in wet conditions he would have had to have seen your wife, it would have taken on average around 21 metres for him to react and then another 150 metres stopping distance. He'd have been braking before or on the bend and would have ended up in the trees or bushes on the opposite side of the road.
At 60 mph those figures would have been 18 metres and 110 metres respectively.
 
chuckles said:
Been working away so have not been able to respond much.
  • Wife is feeling better but is having flashbacks of the incident - thanks
  • Car at the garage for assessment - hire car delivered, but the truck broke down and they couldn't remove it from the transporter - hydraulic failure :( (I should point it this is from a Premier Mini Dealership) couldn't script it
  • Nothing at all from the Police - although they said they'd caution her at home Sunday - as I originally stated, so many procedures and protocols contravened i believe they're feeling a tad embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Cheers, hopefully your wife is ok. I was worried something physical might have emerged some time after the adrenalin etc had worn off. Flashbacks will fade.
 
Yes, thanks - she's been a lot better today - wasn't helped by the fact I've had to drive to Glasgow and be away for the 3 days :(
 
chuckles said:
She pulled out onto an 'empty carriageway' - how long to wait for nothing to pass by? If he was approaching at a speed which rendered him 'invisible' because of being obscured by the trees then what is she supposed to do? Wait until daybreak?

Err Im missing something here , the road quite obviously wasn't empty otherwise there wouldn''t have been an accident. How you can blame another driver when your wife pulled out in front of him is beyond me, your pictures prove that there is ample view from the junction to see an oncoming car with its lights on. If in any doubt you don't pull out so we can quite categorically say at the time of the incident the road wasn't 'empty. How can a car with its lights on be invisible as you saw him?

chuckles said:
Or, how about? - I came around the corner and suddenly this car was in front of me - I was so travelling fast I couldn't do anything but brake hard, skid on the wet road, carried straight on and hit it.

It wasn't a T-boning as she was struck obliquely at the crown of the road!
Click to expand...

Thats an incredibly crass view as you are basically saying your wife can pull out when she likes and its up to other road users to avoid her!!!I Your wife pulled out on him by misjudging his speed and caused the accident. If you are turning from an junction it is your responsibility to make sure the road is clear and ensure that your manoeuvre doesn't impede or cause other road users to slow down. If your Wife was turning right out of the junction then she would be turning an an angle so looking at the car's damage she was turning across him so its effectively a T-bone.

Like I said before just be grateful no one was hurt and let the insurance sort it out, but from the pictures you've supplied its quite obvious where the fault lies. If as you say Police protocol was breached then she may get away with it. I'm sure emotions were running high, I'm not a fan of young drivers but it seems as though you are trying to hang someone out to dry who had the misfortune too have your wife pull out in front of him, you can't accurately gauge someones speed when you are driving the other way as if you were doing 60 and he was doing 60 you had a closing speed of 120mph
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top