Why Lifesavers are a good idea - In a car

jejv

Llyn Clywedog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19416055
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -31722538/

Location:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=% ... 3,,0,-5.31

The driver of the people carrier appears to have intended to stop in an unofficial lay-by on the reservoir side of the road, just before the dam, turning right across the path of the overtaking vehicle.

The Mondeo driver doesn't quite smell of roses.

But I'd like to understand a bit better exactly why he was convicted - a necessary factor in the collision seems to be failure of observation by the driver of the people carrier: no-one seems to allege excessive speed. The vehicles are approaching a bend (the dam), but the bend doesn't seem to interfere with visibility.

Not quite the classic A9 accident, where driver gets fed up behind a long line of traffic, overtakes with no plan for where to pull back in, and causes a head-on collision, forces oncoming traffic off the road, or collides with traffic being overtaken.

Trial seems to have been at Caernafon Crown Court. Is it straightforward to find transcripts ?

mybreakfastconsisted

Mrs Griffith's driving was described as "exemplary"- she did nothing wrong. Dyche on the other hand had a long criminal record including driving offences.

bompington

jejv wrote:

...turning right across the path of the overtaking vehicle

It is wrong, in all circumstances, to overtake a turning vehicle. If you can't see whether a vehicle is turning right or not, you are in the wrong to overtake it.

Is there any circumstance in which an overtaking vehicle is not in the wrong? I doubt it, because the overriding principle is always that you only overtake when it is safe to do so

UndercoverElephant

Hmmm, he was doing a two-for one overtake as he was late for work, and got surprised when the second car he was overtaking was indicating to pull into a lay-by on the right. I would suggest that overtaking more than one car at a time is always dodgy, especially if you're not really looking at what's going on ahead.

waddlie

jejv wrote:

Llyn Clywedog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19416055
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -31722538/

Location:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=% ... 3,,0,-5.31

The driver of the people carrier appears to have intended to stop in an unofficial lay-by on the reservoir side of the road, just before the dam, turning right across the path of the overtaking vehicle.

The Mondeo driver doesn't quite smell of roses.

But I'd like to understand a bit better exactly why he was convicted - a necessary factor in the collision seems to be failure of observation by the driver of the people carrier: no-one seems to allege excessive speed. The vehicles are approaching a bend (the dam), but the bend doesn't seem to interfere with visibility.

Not quite the classic A9 accident, where driver gets fed up behind a long line of traffic, overtakes with no plan for where to pull back in, and causes a head-on collision, forces oncoming traffic off the road, or collides with traffic being overtaken.

Trial seems to have been at Caernafon Crown Court. Is it straightforward to find transcripts ?

You are aware, I assume, that both vehicles involved were travelling in the same direction? Your apparent leniency towards the driver is... surprising.

roger_merriman

Over taking one car at that point has it's risks, overtaking two is rash.

It is somewhere people do stop, to look. as a local Dyche would of known that very well. I know that just from passing though over the years.....

estampida

they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......

so a group of slowing cars, say 2 or 3 cars, is not a challenge it is a que......

at no point in being taught to drive are you told to put the foot down and overtake 3 cars at a time....

and during the case other drivers had witnessed his standard of driving and made statements against the little scum bag

mudcow007

i crashed into a turning vehicle years ago,

basically...the car in front was driving slow (30ish) on a national speed limit road, i get fed up indicate an start to over take as i get alongside him he decides to try a u-turn = smashy smashy

it was a 50 - 50 split of fault

peat

That's scary. I would identify that section of road as a prime overtaking spot. Good visibility, downhill allowing quicker acceleration etc.

Really unfortunate. What were the guys other driving offences? I don't necessarily think that they should be taken into account in this circumstance. Was the lady/had she been indicating and slowing? Or was it a 'Oh, THERE'S a lay-by, quick!' Indicate/brake/turn in unison?

waddlie

estampida wrote:

they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......

No it doesn't.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

davis

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I would suggest that overtaking more than one car at a time is always dodgy...

roger merriman wrote:

Over taking one car at that point has it's risks, overtaking two is rash.

I quite often overtake more than one car. Obviously not whenever I can/want to, it's always considered, and [in my opinion] safe. I'm simply saying I've overtaken 2 (or very occasionally 3) cars in one go. Quite often this is the result of a planned manoeuvre such as thinking "They're both going fairly slowly, trailing car's road positioning suggests they don't know the road so probably won't overtake. Hold well back to give enough space for acceleration... wait till this straight bit I know is coming up.... now accelerate, re-assess both cars... still safe? Go." Obviously that's contrived.

Is the general consensus that I'm a loon? Should I rethink my attitude to overtaking?

The Rookie

estampida wrote:

they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......

Jees, you do realise of course that incitement is a serious criminal offence......usually results in jail time even if the incited offence is minro like speeding.

I do hope you don't actually drive with such a vast and extensive knowledge of the RTA and RTOA!

waddlie

The links provided by the OP are news stories posted about the driver's attempted defense before the trial was complete.

The full story is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19421724

He was convicted of Death By Careless, found not guilty of Death By Dangerous.

wgwarburton

bompington wrote:

jejv wrote:

...turning right across the path of the overtaking vehicle

...Is there any circumstance in which an overtaking vehicle is not in the wrong? I doubt it, because the overriding principle is always that you only overtake when it is safe to do so

Interesting and pertinant to me- I pulled up behind a Landy last night that was following a combine downhill at under 20mph... I waited for an oncoming car to pass and the Landy driver didn't indicate to overtake the combine (there wasn't much room before an upcoming junction, so that seemed wise to me). I, however, decided that there was plenty of road width for me to pass without crossing the centre line and that I would be well past both of them before the junction so pulled out to overtake... As I drew level with the Landy's driver door he pulled out to pass the combine, presumably completely unaware of my presence, less than two metres from his shoulder and moving past...

Fortunately, I saw him coming and moved over (demonstrating that there was indeed adequate room for three of us to be line-abreast!!) and braked to get out of his way... not being inclined to argue over road-space with a couple of tonnes of laden Landy...
He finally saw me; at first braking and pulling back in, then swinging back out and past the combine as he reached the T-junction ahead (could have got quite spectacular if someone had turned left out of the T-junction without checking for idiots)... and I followed him past once the combine & I cleared it.

I guess I was in the wrong, as it clearly wasn't safe to overtake... I'm not sure how the overtaker is supposed to know that the vehicle in front isn't going to do something daft, though...

Cheers,
W.

gtvlusso

Waddlie wrote:

estampida wrote:

they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......

No it doesn't.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

Agreed, no in HWY code, When I did my motorbike test back in 1988 ish, I was told by the instructor, ex Police officer, that when you overtake do it as quickly as possible - no reasonable officer would nick you for speeding on an overtake as long as you came back down to the limit once safely passed.

However, I agree with the OP that, the people carrier driver appears to have a great percentage of the blame...wonder if there was some other factor considered in the ruling? It appears to be a complete lack of observation for moving traffic on the main road - I would assume that everyone looks both ways not just on the carriageway that they wish to use on a fast road?!

reformedfatty

Doesn't soudn like anything unusual for the welsh roads to be honest. I've had my share of interesting moments, people deciding to overtake a queue of traffic as im already alongside them in the middle of my own overtake, people accelerating to prevent overtakers from pulling back in, people swerving to prevent others overtaking, people overtaking on nothing more than blind faith or 'well, nothing usually comes the other way here'... driver education is sufficiently poor that these circumstances will continue to occur.

roger_merriman

davis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I would suggest that overtaking more than one car at a time is always dodgy...

roger merriman wrote:

Over taking one car at that point has it's risks, overtaking two is rash.

I quite often overtake more than one car. Obviously not whenever I can/want to, it's always considered, and [in my opinion] safe. I'm simply saying I've overtaken 2 (or very occasionally 3) cars in one go. Quite often this is the result of a planned manoeuvre such as thinking "They're both going fairly slowly, trailing car's road positioning suggests they don't know the road so probably won't overtake. Hold well back to give enough space for acceleration... wait till this straight bit I know is coming up.... now accelerate, re-assess both cars... still safe? Go." Obviously that's contrived.

Is the general consensus that I'm a loon? Should I rethink my attitude to overtaking?

if your overtaking with no where to go? then loon yes. and people do forget that a car might pull into a layby or turn into a field and so on.

this said clearly sometimes its safe enough to do so, I struggle to think of times when it would be safe at Llyn Clywedog though!

Greg T

http://www.smartdriving.co.uk/Driving/D ... aking.html

Good article.

Overtaking shouldn't be rushed into - it should be planned - fast does not equal good.

waddlie

gtvlusso wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

estampida wrote:

they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......

No it doesn't.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

Agreed, no in HWY code, When I did my motorbike test back in 1988 ish, I was told by the instructor, ex Police officer, that when you overtake do it as quickly as possible - no reasonable officer would nick you for speeding on an overtake as long as you came back down to the limit once safely passed.

However, I agree with the OP that, the people carrier driver appears to have a great percentage of the blame...wonder if there was some other factor considered in the ruling? It appears to be a complete lack of observation for moving traffic on the main road - I would assume that everyone looks both ways not just on the carriageway that they wish to use on a fast road?!

Re your instructor - a few mph, fine. ACPO guidlines give you a buffer over the speed limit anyway. But i) a significant number of police officers aren't reasonable and ii) if you blast past something at 100mph they'll do you for it regardless of whether you slowed down after the overtake.

Re the OP and your second paragraph... have people on this forum started smoking crack? If you were turning right into a minor road and someone overtook the car behind you and rear-ended you can you imagine yourself stepping out of the wreckage and apologising to the overtaking vehicle for not waiting for them to pass? Don't be ridiculous.

gtvlusso

One of my friends was knocked of his motorbike whilst overtaking;

He was overtaking a line of traffic at a fair speed, national speedlimit zone and he was clocking at least 80+ mph and accelerating on a 600cc race rep motorbike. A car decided to pull out and overtake without checking his mirror - result was that the car pulled out and hit my friend and knocked him off causing massive injuries.

At the court case; The driver, being prosecute for driving without due care and attention, who effectively caused the accident claimed that he was not given fair warning of the motorbike overtaking......which is f*cking incredible, considering he clearly did not look before he made the move to overtake....due care and attention?!

The result was that it was decided to be a 50/50 knock for knock - car driver had a damaged car. My friend took near 2 years to get the use of his legs back.

Not even an apology from the driver. My friend wound up losing his job.

So, I am not surprised if the court made a poor decision.

davis

roger merriman wrote:

if you're overtaking with nowhere to go? then loon yes. and people do forget that a car might pull into a layby or turn into a field and so on.

Hmm. I do it where I know there are no turn offs or lay-bys, and where the road ahead of the overtakee is clear.

PS. FTFY (Sorry, apostrophical pedant. I left your earlier one alone, but that one got to me .

waddlie

That case is worlds apart from this one. Your friend was breaking the speed limit, which the court may have considered was a contributory factor. The prosecution wouldn't have been decided "50/50", either the driver was found guilty or he wasn't. The "50/50" aspect was an insurance/liability issue and would not have been made by the court hearing the driving charge.

gtvlusso

Waddlie wrote:

Re your instructor - a few mph, fine. ACPO guidlines give you a buffer over the speed limit anyway. But i) a significant number of police officers aren't reasonable and ii) if you blast past something at 100mph they'll do you for it regardless of whether you slowed down after the overtake.

Re the OP and your second paragraph... have people on this forum started smoking crack? If you were turning right into a minor road and someone overtook the car behind you and rear-ended you can you imagine yourself stepping out of the wreckage and apologising to the overtaking vehicle for not waiting for them to pass? Don't be ridiculous.

Yes, 100mph would be excessive IMHO too, depends on the officer and the day I guess. And I would trust the judgement of an ex traffic cop over yours - primarily because I don't know who you are.

Your a bit of an aggressive one aren't you.....easy on a forum eh ;-) Yes, I understand, the scenario I had in my head was not what appears to have happened - so, my mistake.

waddlie

davis wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

if you're overtaking with nowhere to go? then loon yes. and people do forget that a car might pull into a layby or turn into a field and so on.

Hmm. I do it where I know there are no turn offs or lay-bys, and where the road ahead of the overtakee is clear.

PS. FTFY (Sorry, apostrophical pedant. I left your earlier one alone, but that one got to me .

Indeed, the driver was on his way to to work from home. You would have expected him to know the road. Far from being an "unofficial layby", it is clearly marked by dotted white lines.

waddlie

gtvlusso wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

Re your instructor - a few mph, fine. ACPO guidlines give you a buffer over the speed limit anyway. But i) a significant number of police officers aren't reasonable and ii) if you blast past something at 100mph they'll do you for it regardless of whether you slowed down after the overtake.

Re the OP and your second paragraph... have people on this forum started smoking crack? If you were turning right into a minor road and someone overtook the car behind you and rear-ended you can you imagine yourself stepping out of the wreckage and apologising to the overtaking vehicle for not waiting for them to pass? Don't be ridiculous.

Yes, 100mph would be excessive IMHO too, depends on the officer and the day I guess. And I would trust the judgement of an ex traffic cop over yours - primarily because I don't know who you are.

Your a bit of an aggressive one aren't you.....easy on a forum eh ;-) Yes, I understand, the scenario I had in my head was not what appears to have happened - so, my mistake.

Have we not met at a Bristol meet-up? Sorry to hear I'm so unmemorable! Sorry for coming across aggressive, I'm just astonished that the poor woman lost four members of her family in an accident which was so clearly not her fault, with the accident-causer admitting fault at the scene and going to jail, and people on tinternet feel compelled to try and lay some blame at her door.

As for who I am, taught to drive (properly) by the police and the Highways Agency, have worked in insurance motor claims, for the police in prosecutions and now work alongside them in a road safety role. So IANAL and IANAC but I do know a bit...

gtvlusso

Waddlie wrote:

That case is worlds apart from this one. Your friend was breaking the speed limit, which the court may have considered was a contributory factor. The prosecution wouldn't have been decided "50/50", either the driver was found guilty or he wasn't. The "50/50" aspect was an insurance/liability issue and would not have been made by the court hearing the driving charge.

Yes, exactly - He was found not guilty - hence the 50/50 (should have clarified). I think it goes to show that courts don't always get it right, I believe that the Police were pushing for some higher charge like 'dangerous driving'....at the time - very long time ago. **The driver of the car turned out to be a lay preacher and one of the wealthiest and most connected business leaders in the area, not that this is relevant to the court.

My, you are a pedant....Not a typical Bristolian.

peat

Waddlie wrote:

As for who I am, taught to drive (properly) by the police and the Highways Agency, have worked in insurance motor claims, for the police in prosecutions and now work alongside them in a road safety role. So IANAL and IANAC but I do know a bit...

Which would explain why you are so keen to apportion 100% blame to one party. Less paperwork.

waddlie

Peat wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

As for who I am, taught to drive (properly) by the police and the Highways Agency, have worked in insurance motor claims, for the police in prosecutions and now work alongside them in a road safety role. So IANAL and IANAC but I do know a bit...

Which would explain why you are so keen to apportion 100% blame to one party. Less paperwork.

:shock:

rolf_f

Given how few people seem to indicate correctly or use their mirrors (eg the bus that pulled out on me this morning), I would be slightly alarmed that this case seems to give no responsibility on drivers to keep an eye on the traffic behind them.

Does it actually make any difference that it was two cars being overtaken rather than one? If I have cars behind me I'll be keeping a regular eye on them and I'll certainly follow the old mirror, signal, manouver routine that the driver of the people carrier seems to have failed to follow. What if he'd been overtaking one car and that had crossed lanes?

Still, there is much about these sorts of situations that don't tend to be apparent in the usual badly written pieces of journalism we should assume these are. Probably the scumbag is where he should be.

UndercoverElephant

Except the witnesses all say that the driver in front's driving was "exemplary", which, I would assume would mean that she was indicating at the very least. It would also imply that the overtaking vehicle hadn't overtaken in a manner that would be safe, either by giving himself enough time to see her indicators or giving the other cars time to see that he was overtaking.

jejv

roger merriman wrote:

Over taking one car at that point has it's risks, overtaking two is rash.

roger merriman wrote:

It is somewhere people do stop, to look. as a local Dyche would have known that very well. I know that just from passing though over the years.....

I think I have cycled along there, a very long time ago, but I don't really remember it. I think I'd be happy to stay at 40, with a five-plus second gap in front. Overtaking is overrated.

Not knowing the area, it might be easy to think that a vehicle turning right there was not reasonable - as there's nowhere obvious to go except the reservoir - the layby isn't signed, AFAICT.

Peat wrote:

Was the lady/had she been indicating and slowing? Or was it a 'Oh, THERE'S a lay-by, quick!' Indicate/brake/turn in unison?

Yes. I can't see a reference to that. Indicating, but not when.

Another factor in the collision was presumably the position of the second vehicle [the trailing vehicle overtaken, not involved in collision] - If the second vehicle wasn't planning an imminent overtake, then staying several seconds back would be safer. We don't know the separation, but a two-second-plus gap (~40 metres @40mph) seems unlikely given the attempted double overtake.