Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who is in the wrong here? Re two car drivers.

116 replies

Chocolatereindeerr · 02/12/2022 19:26

Please tell me who is in the wrong here.. I understand it’s probably both but what would happen if it went to insurance?

I was passenger in car A.

car A- fails to stop behind a parked vehicle and give way to oncoming vehicle but would of made it round in enough time if the oncoming car went appropriate speed.

car B- on coming. Notices car A has not given way and puts his foot down and aggressively speeds up towards car A.

the result of this was both cars clipping wing mirrors but could have been worse.

car A pulls over as wing mirror was pushed in and 30 seconds later Car B has turned round and parked behind car A.

Car B driver gets out his car and aggressively starts shouting that Car A driver has knocked his wing mirror off. car A driver apologies and mentions that car B driver was coming fast and that he should of slowed down. Car B driver agrees to putting his foot down but said that it’s his right of way, he wasn’t stopping.

who is in the wrong?

OP posts:
DownNative · 02/12/2022 20:53

Wednesdayonline · 02/12/2022 19:41

The highway code doesn't actually say you have to give way if there's an obstruction ie a parked car on your side of the road. It's whoever commits first, so if car A was already passing the obstacle and car B carried on coming, then car B is in the wrong especially if they carried on speeding up when they had a chance to stop and wait.

Really?

Highway Code Rule 162 and 163:

  1. Overtaking (162 to 169)

162

Before overtaking you should make sure:

the road is sufficiently clear ahead

road users are not beginning to overtake you

there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

• give way to oncoming vehicles BEFORE passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road

Car A didn't ensure the road ahead was sufficiently clear. Didn't leave a suitable gap in front. Didn't allow plenty of room. Clearly thought they could cut back in front of Car B. Didn't give way to the oncoming Car B beforehand.

username8888 · 02/12/2022 21:02

Car a. Should have stopped. End of. Being a dick doesn't put you in the wrong in this situation

username8888 · 02/12/2022 21:04

potchy · 02/12/2022 19:38

Car A was wrong in terms of the Highway Code because B had right of way.

Insurance wise A would be held liable.

What a contradictory post

Loics · 02/12/2022 21:04

Car A will be found to be at fault.

DownNative · 02/12/2022 21:07

NalaNana · 02/12/2022 20:44

@DownNative surely there's something in the Highway Code about not speeding up to drive into other vehicles, and if there isn't, there really should be! Two wrongs don't make a right, I can't see that being anything other than a knock on.

Obviously if driver B hadn't sped up to ensure that driver A didn't have enough time, and was surprised by their overtaking without time to stop their own vehicle, then I would be siding with driver B.

Yes, sure.

But if you're going to overtake a vehicle or other obstructions on YOUR side of the road, onus is on you to ensure the road ahead is sufficiently clear......i.e., 1m clearance space to pass obstructions safely AND more space to ensure you can pull in without cutting in.

Driver A failed by every possible measure in Highway Code Rule 162 and 163! Therefore, fault is more with A than B.

Lesson for A - don't be so impatient to overtake, leave considerably more room than you think you need and give way in future.

username8888 · 02/12/2022 21:09

If you are overtaking a long line of parked vehicles with no gap to pull in and you start the manoeuvre before there is a sighting of an oncoming car then they should give way to you.

I think this is what people are trying to use as an excuse for car a. However car a's actions do not fit this scenario.

CaptainThe95thRifles · 02/12/2022 21:12

It's theoretically possible that car B was half a kilometer away when A pulled out around the obstruction, and that B floored it so that A didn't have time to pull back in. The concept of a "suitable gap" does rely on the other driver behaving in accordance with the speed limit.

B would be in the wrong in those (admittedly unlikely) circumstances, but it would be a devil to prove it without dashcam / other video footage or independent witnesses.

NalaNana · 02/12/2022 21:16

@DownNative from the OP driver A would have had suitable room to complete the manoeuvre had driver B not sped up.

You can only make that judgement in the moment based on what you can see ahead of you.

It's not the case that simply seeing an oncoming vehicle means you can't overtake parked cars, in most cities parked cars litter the sides of the roads and no one would be able to go anywhere.

A reasonable driver wouldn't expect an oncoming vehicle to speed up to such an extent that the manoeuvre can no longer be completed and result in a car accident!

Frabbits · 02/12/2022 21:17

I mean, yeah it's not great to not give way to an oncoming car in this situation, but what driver b should do is allow car A to finish the maneouver.

Speeding up and causing an accident in response to a mistake or at worst a lapse in judgement is far more of a dick move IMO.

cleanfreak12345 · 02/12/2022 21:22

Both drivers sound like bad drivers

One driving too fast, speeding up when there's a potential hazard, the other not giving way when there's an obstacle on their side of the road

You are meant to give way if there's an obstacle on your side of the road. What normally happens is that whoever gets there first goes through lol

amicissimma · 02/12/2022 21:26

Car A is in the wrong. You are not allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road when someone is coming just because you decide they could be going too fast.

Indeed, sometimes when I'm in Car B's position and see a Car A waiting, I might speed up a little so that A doesn't have to wait so long. Not to be aggressive but as a courtesy to A. Specially if I know there is other traffic coming up behind me and if I get a move on A will be able to nip through after me, but if I take my time A will have to wait for C, D, E and F behind me. I wouldn't be impressed if A decided s/he didn't like my speed and barged through in my path, wacking my mirror.

WatchoRulo · 02/12/2022 21:38

Does anyone else take these "the other driver sped up" stories with a pinch of salt?
1.It's very hard to estimate the speed of a car coming the other way.
2.I have been accused of it when I didn't - but also didn't immediately stand on the brakes due to the action of another driver - which made it apparent that their judgement (in pulling out straight in front of me when the road was clear behind) was flawed.

NalaNana · 02/12/2022 21:41

@WatchoRulo I am sometimes skeptical when I hear it but the OP was the passenger in the car and I don't think anyone on here can claim to have a more accurate version of events. According to the OP the driver also admitted to putting his foot down!

PopGoesTheProsecco · 02/12/2022 21:42

Legally car A.

piedbeauty · 02/12/2022 22:07

Hmm. Car B was being an impatient, aggressive twat.

If car A had time to pass the parked car after correctly judging the current speed of car B, then they were in the right. There was only a problem Becca's car B was a dick.

If car A had started their manoeuvre, they are allowed to finish it, and Car B should have waited.

piedbeauty · 02/12/2022 22:12

Becca's = because

Underscore21 · 02/12/2022 22:30

Car A is legally supposed to give way if the obstruction is on their side of the road, however, I think Car B should also have taken pre-emotive action. So it might not be clear cut and unlikely to be 100% Car A's fault insurance-wise.

SD1978 · 02/12/2022 22:45

Car A regardless of car B's attitude. They pulled out into oncoming traffic.

Original poster
Chocolatereindeerr · 02/12/2022 22:51

Thank you all for your replies. It was only one parked car obstruction, not a line of parked cars and the driver of car B definitely sped up which he admitted to ‘putting his foot down’ he also said ‘ I thought I’d made that until I heard the wing mirrors clip.’ It was lucky that the accident wasn’t worse than it was.

OP posts:
fannyfartlet · 02/12/2022 22:54

Car A is clearly at fault irrespective of car B's speed.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 02/12/2022 22:55

I don't think A is necessarily blameless, but B is definitely at fault. You can't just plough on, even if you should have priority, and ignore any visible obstacles. If a child had wandered into the road, or an elderly person was taking a while to cross, do people really think that B could just deliberately smash into them "because it was my right of way"?

I also don't see how B could realistically accuse A of 'knocking his mirror off'. The two mirrors hit each other at exactly the same time - it's not like, say, a fist punching a face, where one is clearly a passive target and the other actively moving in order to meet it violently.

DownNative · 02/12/2022 22:55

NalaNana · 02/12/2022 21:16

@DownNative from the OP driver A would have had suitable room to complete the manoeuvre had driver B not sped up.

You can only make that judgement in the moment based on what you can see ahead of you.

It's not the case that simply seeing an oncoming vehicle means you can't overtake parked cars, in most cities parked cars litter the sides of the roads and no one would be able to go anywhere.

A reasonable driver wouldn't expect an oncoming vehicle to speed up to such an extent that the manoeuvre can no longer be completed and result in a car accident!

No, the OP didn't say Car A would have had suitable room. Just said they believe A would have had enough time to do so.

Yet the passenger has a WORSE view of the road ahead than Driver A! And we're supposed to take OPs word for it when they would NOT have been able to see if B was approaching when A pulled out?!

At any rate, A had a list of fails as previously outlined, so it falls more on them.

It's not just seeing an approaching vehicle, is it? It's ensuring there is clearance ahead to proceed! This includes a gap ahead if there's a line of parked cars, for example. Your argument falls flat in that case.

A reasonable driver knows and expects there will be others on the road ignoring the Highway Code and gives themselves:

  1. extra space around their car
  2. patience
  3. doesn't rush

No, Car A was in the wrong as per Highway Code Rule 162-63.

Tomatopasta · 02/12/2022 23:14

Don’t understand why some drivers become so aggressive and angry on the roads. We have all places to be, I don’t see why you would unnecessarily speed up if you see a car overtaking and coming into your side of the road, ESPECIALLY if there’s enough time for them to do it. Just wait and let them pass, jeez.

Sometimes in this situation (and depending on traffic!) I usually wait until it’s clear but obviously that’s not always possible. It can be difficult to predict speed, and I think we are all guilty of sometimes getting it wrong, and thinking we can get around in enough time and we don’t.

Its difficult to say without actual footage! I can easily see how both cars would be at fault though.

DownNative · 02/12/2022 23:17

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 02/12/2022 22:55

I don't think A is necessarily blameless, but B is definitely at fault. You can't just plough on, even if you should have priority, and ignore any visible obstacles. If a child had wandered into the road, or an elderly person was taking a while to cross, do people really think that B could just deliberately smash into them "because it was my right of way"?

I also don't see how B could realistically accuse A of 'knocking his mirror off'. The two mirrors hit each other at exactly the same time - it's not like, say, a fist punching a face, where one is clearly a passive target and the other actively moving in order to meet it violently.

Your scenario of a child in the road is not a like for like comparison!

In the case of a pedestrian, Highway Code Rule 7 states:

D If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.

Meaning give way to approaching traffic in favour of giving yourself more space to safely proceed.

Same principle for vehicles. See Rule 162-63 above. Give way, suitable gap AND time.

And nobody is saying any driver can plough on at someone! Strawman Argument. Fact is, as the passenger in Car A the OP was not in a good position to see if road ahead was clear enough to proceed or to judge speed of oncoming Car B.

NalaNana · 02/12/2022 23:17

@DownNative OP may have had a worse view than the driver of car A, but that is still a hell of a lot of a better view than you or I had, which is zero. Speculating about what you think may have happened, when someone is available to give a first hand account, is not a strong argument in any case.

If a reasonable driver expects others to not follow the Highway Code (which I agree with hence hazard perception being part of the theory test) isn't that even more of a reason why driver B should have waited for driver A to complete the manoeuvre they were committed to instead of driving into them?

You can't reasonably believe that driver B didn't at least contribute to this accident, regardless of whether it is their fault in full or part.

Swipe left for the next trending thread