Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who was in the wrong? (car accident related)

289 replies

QuestionableMouse · 19/01/2020 16:14

Out with my friend in her car today. She's a fairly new driver and has black box insurance.

We came to a blind bend with a car parked in our lane on double yellow lines. Friend moved over and drove around the car at probably 10 mph.

A car coming the other way clipped her car and has done quite a bit of damage to the front end. The car was doing 20mph roughly which is the speed limit.

My friend clipped the parked car and took the wing mirror off, doing some damage to the bumper too.

Both drivers are blaming my friend (she's the youngest/least experienced driver.)

I say the parked car driver is at fault because they were parked on double yellow lines and if they hadn't been there the accident would never have happened.

All been referred to the insurances of course, including pics of the parked car.

I'm feeling very stiff and achy and will probably miss work tomorrow (it's aggravated my already bad back) and poor friend is really upset and shaken.

OP posts:
amusedbush · 19/01/2020 22:05

I agree that the car causing the obstruction was entirely wrong to do so, but legally your friend is in the wrong. She should have sounded her horn to alert anyone coming the other way seeing as it was a blind bend and she had no visibility.

Yes, drivers should always be prepared for something out of the ordinary but the Audi driver would have no reason to expect a car to be on their side of the road as they rounded the bend.

MsJaneAusten · 19/01/2020 22:06

You're driving on your side of the road and rounding a corner when you hit someone who is travelling on the wrong side of the road.

Who would be at fault? The person who is doing the right thing, or the one driving straight into oncoming traffic on a blind bend?

Person coming round the blind bend should still be able to stop in time. Let’s pretend it’s not a car on the wrong side of the road. Maybe it’s a cyclist going the same way as the person on the blind bend, or a pedestrian. The driver still needs to be able to stop. Other driver couldn’t = other driver at fault.

MyNewBearTotoro · 19/01/2020 22:13

Person coming round the blind bend should still be able to stop in time. Let’s pretend it’s not a car on the wrong side of the road. Maybe it’s a cyclist going the same way as the person on the blind bend, or a pedestrian. The driver still needs to be able to stop. Other driver couldn’t = other driver at fault.

There are plenty of instances where cats have hot pedestrians and cyclists and were not found to be at fault. You can’t just immediately stop a car, even if you press the brake as soon as you see the hazard there is a stopping distance to be taken into account, the car won’t stop instantly and doing an emergency stop won’t always mean you stop before you hit the hazard.

It would be impossible for any driver to always drive in such a manner that they could always stop before hitting a hazard because sometimes hazards come from nowhere, such as when there is a blind bend or hill etc. If a pedestrian/ cyclist was in the middle of the road coming towards oncoming traffic at a blind bend and was hit by a car which couldn’t stop in time then it would be a tragedy but it is likely the driver wouldn’t be found to be at fault if there wasn’t time between seeing the hazard and pressing the brake to stop.

MsAdorabelleDearheartVonLipwig · 19/01/2020 22:14

My dh had a similar thing happen to him years ago. Broken down car on approach to hump back bridge. Car overtook it and hit my dh head on as he came over the brow of the bridge. The car that was overtaking tried to take the owner of the broken down car to court. We got called as witnesses. Before we had a chance to go in it got thrown out. I wondered if someone told the overtaking car driver that they were most likely at fault. Obviously broken down car was the cause and should have been rolled back away from the bridge.

MyNewBearTotoro · 19/01/2020 22:15

‘Cars have hit pedestrians, not cats have hot!

bakebeans · 19/01/2020 22:19

I used to work for an insurance company. Unfortunately it’s your friends fault. Regardless of why the car was there, it was blocking her path and was stationary and therefore the other car had the right of way. Your friend should have slowed down to let the oncoming car pass before overtaking the stationary car

FloreanFortescue · 19/01/2020 22:20

She's at fault 100%.

I was taught to "peep and creep" (Grin) which just means that you creep around an obstruction until you can see enough to go. Literally 1-2mph so leaving an oncoming vehicle with plenty of time to stop.

If you can't see, you can't go. I'd be spitting fire if I was was Q7 driver and the insurance decided on 50/50!!

Quitplayinggameswithmyart · 19/01/2020 22:20

Parked cars are never held liable

Comefromaway · 19/01/2020 22:21

Going by what I was told on a police speed awareness/road safety course you are allowed to carefully overtake a parked car even when there is no overtaking solid lines. So I would say the car coming in the other direction who clipped your friend was going too fast round a blind bend.

seltaeb · 19/01/2020 22:23

The fault lies with your friend who was partly on the wrong side of the road when she hit an oncoming vehicle, and also because she hit a stationery vehicle. Obviously the parked vehicle should not have been parked there but the responsibility for the accident lies with your friend.

needanewnamechange · 19/01/2020 22:25

Your friend sorry , you can be annoyed with the crap parking but she still hit a parked car so in the wrong. Take photos phone insurance and take it on the chin . Yes it's costly as a new driver but take it as experience .

MsJaneAusten · 19/01/2020 22:26

You can’t just immediately stop a car, even if you press the brake as soon as you see the hazard there is a stopping distance to be taken into account, the car won’t stop instantly and doing an emergency stop won’t always mean you stop before you hit the hazard.
Exactly! So you need to go slowly around blind bends.

Original poster
QuestionableMouse · 19/01/2020 22:31

She was doing 10mph. Other car was doing about 20.

OP posts:
Newkitchen123 · 19/01/2020 22:34

Friend at fault.
You can't just not see what's coming and go anyway.
You beep your horn
Other car was on correct side of the road. 20 mph round a bend seems reasonable to me

YappityYapYap · 19/01/2020 22:37

Who's really at fault? The parked car. Who will get the blame? Your friend. The insurers won't use their common sense that it would be physically impossible for a car to get passed a parked car on a blind bend and be able to see what else is coming. The only way would be to stay behind the parked car until it moved. You'd probably still be there now. Double yellows are there for a reason, because it's part of the road where over taking a parked car and going into the other lane is either going to cause an obstruction or is totally unsafe but people do it anyway because they're idiots

adaline · 19/01/2020 22:45

Person coming round the blind bend should still be able to stop in time.

So everyone should slow to 5mph for every single blind bend just in case there's something coming the other way? Hmm

MyNewBearTotoro · 19/01/2020 22:59

Exactly! So you need to go slowly around blind bends.

I agree but 20mph is hardly tearing around the bend and seems a reasonable speed to be going around a bend, especially if you are on your side of the road and have no reason to cross out of your lane or expect traffic to be oncoming in yours. It is unfortunate the obstruction was a car facing in the direction of traffic as it probably wasn’t obviously parked/ an obstruction to the Audi driver and thus he probably had no reason to think something could be crossing into his lane to get around it. Had it been a fallen tree or something else that wouldn’t usually be on the road he may have had reason to think something may be overtaking it and thus to slow but in normal circumstances 20mph around a bend is reasonable - even hitting a car/ pedestrian at that speed the outcome is likely to be okay for them. It’s not a fast/ dangerous speed.

HotPenguin · 19/01/2020 23:04

I agree with @malmi the oncoming car should have been going slowly enough to stop for a stationary vehicle in the road, for example there could have been a traffic jam just round the bend. However as your friend was going at 10 mph the oncoming driver would not be expected to drive so as to take account of that.

adaline · 19/01/2020 23:46

The oncoming car was already going at 20mph which was under the limit.

How slow do you think people should have to go?

busybarbara · 20/01/2020 00:16

So everyone should slow to 5mph for every single blind bend just in case there's something coming the other way?

If the bend is THAT blind, then yes! What if someone had broken down or anything else were in the road immediately after the bend? You can't go flying around blind bends for that very reason.

safariboot · 20/01/2020 02:48

Regarding the Audi's position, you should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. But you cannot be expected to stop in time to avoid a car driving straight at you!

As far as your friend goes, 10 mph was too fast really.

heartsonacake · 20/01/2020 03:34

Your friend was in the wrong here and will be found at fault.

She caused both accidents because she drove on the other side of the road when she couldn’t see and therefore shouldn’t have done so.

Berrymuch · 20/01/2020 06:40

20mph isn't exaclty 'flying' around a blind bend.

TartanMarbled · 20/01/2020 06:46

Rurally, if we come to dangerous spot like this (e.g. a narrow single road coming around a blind bend), we sound the horn - this is what your friend should have done here.

GuyFawkesDay · 20/01/2020 06:53

Insurance qualified person here: your friend has full liability. Sorry but even if it goes to court they will be held as at fault.