Accident in Slough - Do I have priority in mid-maneouvre?

[christopherwk]

Unfortunately, accidents do happen, and I've just had one yesterday. If anyone knows the area it's on the crossroads of the B416 Grays Park Road, with Church Lane and Farthing Green Lane near the villages of Stoke Poges and Wexham Street near Slough.



I was coming from Farthing Green Lane, to cross over the crossroads into Church Lane. As I was doing so, a car came shooting up (northbound) Grays Park Road (40mph limit), and collided into me, as I was making my way across. I did look both ways before proceeding and saw it was clear. However, I believe the car which collided into me was going too fast round the bend at the bottom (by Hampden close), that he could not see me as I making my manoeuvre. It was wet, there were 4 (young) occupants in their car (distraction, heavier load - longer stopping distance), hatched markings in the road, warning signs (bend, crossroads).

However the police officer at the scene informed me, even though he had right of way (because he was on the main road), it was still his fault, because I was in mid-manoeuvre, and was already in the middle of the road, and therefore I had right of way, in order for me to complete my manoeuvre (getting across into Church Lane). Can anyone confirm this? Is it in the Highway Code? Either that, because looking at the damage to my van, he could have been driving on the wrong side of the road (lost control of the car? aquaplaning?), and it'd be his fault in any case.

Thankfully nobody was injured, even though my van was knocked sideways from the colliding car, with such a force, that my glasses flew off my face, and satnav, and other things in the van went flying. Also I was also not carrying goods on board/making a delivery, and was making my way back to the office.

Many thanks.

[Gareth]

Broadly speaking, what the officer said makes sense, although I doubt there is anything in the Highway Code that directly speaks to this situation.

Just through reasoning, it would make sense that provided it was clear when you started the manoeuvre you would expect to be able to complete it, with the reasonable expectation that drivers of newly arriving vehicles would see your van crossing and respond accordingly, (that is, they should be travelling at a speed which allows them to stop within the distance they could see to be clear).

On which side of the Grays Park Road did the collision take place? If it was on, or predominately on, the Farthing Green Lane side, this would be evidence that the other driver lost control of the vehicle since it didn't attempt to, (and/or wasn't able to), stop within its own lane.

The main suggestion I have for how this accident may have been avoided was to open the windows slightly to listen for approaching traffic. But even this does not guarantee that you would hear an approaching vehicle.

A couple of side suggestions are to consider the order in which you look left and right - always make sure you end up looking in the direction of greatest potential risk - and if there is limited visibility, don't hang about while completing the manoeuvre.

[7db]

Can a mod / OP please shorten that URL to make the page viewable again? http://tinyurl.com/opjmp works for me.

I tend to agree that if you checked carefully that it was clear, and this vehicle appeared after you had committed to the manouevre and were mid-way out, then you are probably in the clear. You've two issues - are they going to be any ctriminal charges and who's paying?

If attending plod stated that you were not to the blame, then that will make it tricky for them to pursue a criminal charge (careless). Has the other party been charged? That will help with a civil trial.

Proving all this in a court from an insurance point of view could be tricky unless you are blessed with an independent witness. In all liklihood, insurers will try to settle with you taking some of the blame and cost.


From a driving point of view, as Gareth says, listening for clues helps, but otherwise it's a "peep and creep" manouevre. If can be stationary when the other chap hits you, there's no excuse for him, on the other hand, if you can drive out of the situation, then so much the better.

[TripleS]

I'm sorry to hear about this mishap Chris.

Maybe there are cases where 'peep and creep' is the best plan, but some others are best dealt with by carefully checking the way is clear, and then going immediately and completing your move as quickly as possible, before the situation changes against you.

In your case I get the impression the guy on the main road may have been travelling rather too fast.

I just hope you get it sorted out with minimum hassle.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[christopherwk]

As can be seen from the photo taken the day after (where the conditions are much drier) - facing south towards Grays Park Road, I was coming out from the left (of the picture - Farthing Green Lane), with the intention of going straight across into Church Lane (to the right of the picture).

The third party then collided into me, as I was making my way across, and as I was already in the middle of the road, moving across slowly while checking, he should have seen me, crossing the main road. In the background of the picture, the road bends to the right, (just after where that car is in the picture), and it appears the third party could have been going round that bend too fast (coming towards the crossroads), for him to be able to stop and see me as i was going across.

In this case what would happen next? Would the police and the CPS get involved, and why? I'd have thought it's now up to the insurance companies to deal with the matter?

[christopherwk]

Sorry, what's NFA?

[7db]

No Further Action.

[SammyTheSnake]

In terms of having priority, there's no such thing - priority can be given but not taken, IYSWIM. As someone crossing a main road you should give priority to others.

I think the concept of "way" and "priority" are different, and significantly so here.

People sometimes talk about "right of way" meaning "it's my bit of road, I get to use it and you have to stay out of it" while the laws and highway code talk about "priority", so what's the deal?

The rest is based on semantics, rather than a thorough knowlege of the relevant laws, so caveat lector...

The ideas "right of way" and "priority" are pretty much the same, but the word priority reminds us that it's not a *right* but something more like a reasonable expectation.

Essentially, "priority" means "the right to assume other parties will generally give way" (with the caveat that we have to remember that some percentage of other road users are dim/drunk/not paying attention/etc. and won't actually give way)

The word "priority" also rings true with the idea of being the first to stake some kind of claim to a bit of road. i.e. if you're already on a bit of road by the time a third party comes into view, you then have priority over them. The same would be the case if you were pulling out of a T junction onto the major road and somebody came around the corner and collided with the back of your vehicle, it makes no difference if you got to that bit of road by coming out of the junction, by pulling off, by just driving slowly, or by being deposited by a playful UFO, you were ahead of him on the road and should expect him to not drive into you. The fact that having pulled out of the junction, you were expecting to continue right across the major road and exit it at the far side, makes no difference that I can see, except it took an extra pinch of poor timing for him to actually hit you

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[Gareth]

In terms of having priority, there's no such thing - priority can be given but not taken, IYSWIM. As someone crossing a main road you should give priority to others.

The ideas "right of way" and "priority" are pretty much the same, but the word priority reminds us that it's not a *right* but something more like a reasonable expectation.

Essentially, "priority" means "the right to assume other parties will generally give way" (with the caveat that we have to remember that some percentage of other road users are dim/drunk/not paying attention/etc. and won't actually give way)

I'm not sure but I feel as if you are missing the essential point that StressedDave made, that is priority is not something that a driver can take, only something that a driver can give.

So in a potential conflict situation, where the road signs indicate priority order, the driver that sees the sign saying oncoming vehicles have priority, that driver should give priority. In the other direction, a driver sees the sign saying that oncoming vehicles should give way, then that driver should proceed providing it is clear to do so.

Sharing is based on giving not taking.

[Gareth]

The third party then collided into me, as I was making my way across, and as I was already in the middle of the road, moving across slowly while checking, he should have seen me, crossing the main road.

[My emphasis]

This part worries me - what justification did you have for crossing the junction slowly? Would this action have increased the risk of and therefore contributed to the accident?

As I wrote earlier, I believe it is best to complete manoeuvres like this with alacrity.

[SammyTheSnake]

I'm not sure but I feel as if you are missing the essential point that StressedDave made, that is priority is not something that a driver can take, only something that a driver can give.

So in a potential conflict situation, where the road signs indicate priority order, the driver that sees the sign saying oncoming vehicles have priority, that driver should give priority. In the other direction, a driver sees the sign saying that oncoming vehicles should give way, then that driver should proceed providing it is clear to do so.

Sharing is based on giving not taking.

I may indeed be missing something, but I *think* I get what you mean. I'm trying to go a step beyond that, though. I think "priority" defines who *ought* to be given the road, though safe and clear passage through the road is in reality in the gift of those around you, so when you say "priority can only be *given*" I think it's worth separating "way" from "priority" one is legally defined, the other is the reality on the road. i.e. I'd say rather "Priority is defined, other road users should give way when you have it".

Obviously, anyone who blindly assumes that having priority is an infalible safeguard against those who choose not to give way (or are unable to for whatever reason) can reasonably expect to have that assumption challenged in an unpleasant (read painful and expensive) way...

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[christopherwk]

Just through reasoning, it would make sense that provided it was clear when you started the manoeuvre you would expect to be able to complete it, with the reasonable expectation that drivers of newly arriving vehicles would see your van crossing and respond accordingly, (that is, they should be travelling at a speed which allows them to stop within the distance they could see to be clear).

At the time, due to the weather conditions and the bend at the crossroads, I felt it was safer, to move out slowly from the junction (rather than just, perhaps, darting across, if I could see if it was clear), with the expection as you said, that oncoming traffic would see me creeping out, and react accordingly.