Blind Junctions

[TR4ffic]

The current thread re rear-end collisions has an interesting link to some case law/appeals, the one I found particularly interesting is the one regarding exiting from a blind junction

In Smith v Kempson [2011] EWHC 2680 (QB), Ms Smith was emerging gingerly from a side road into a main road. Her vision was greatly impaired by parked cars to her right, so she made sure that she was only inching forward until such time as she could clearly see the road to her right, which was the direction in which she was going. Unfortunately, she was unable to see a motorcyclist who was coming from her right and he hit her car as she emerged. There was no suggestion that the motorcyclist was speeding or driving recklessly.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, giving judgment in the appeal, stated that it would be only in very rare cases that no one would be to blame for an accident. As the motorcyclist had been found on the evidence to be blameless, the court had no choice but to uphold Judge Redgrave’s decision that Ms Smith was to blame for the accident. Most importantly, Mr Justice Tugendhat accepted the submission that it was open to a judge to conclude that a person had acted in breach of the relevant standard of care even if the judge was unable to say, or had not said, precisely what action or omission constituted the fault.

He had some words of (cold) comfort for Ms Smith: ‘I have some sympathy with the defendant in this case. She has been found to have acted in breach of a duty of care, but not been told precisely [what] she did or failed to do which gives rise to that finding. But that in itself is not a basis for allowing the appeal.’

Like the Judge, I also have some sympathy for Ms Smith but, if we were in her shoes (hopefully not high heels ) what would we do? I appreciate that this is difficult because we have no detail or context (but we’ll assume for this discussion that it’s urban, 30 or 40 limit) but I’m sure we’ve all been in the situation where we are trying to exit a junction with a blind view to the right. Do you inch out, lent forward over the wheel, craning your neck to the right? …until you can see it’s clear, someone stops to let you out, you’ve affectively blocked the nearside of the road or you ‘reach the point of no return’? Or do you turn left instead (least risk?) and find somewhere to turn around?

I’m also interested in the comments about the motorcyclist being found to be blameless. Irrespective of whether you are a rider or a driver, what could/should the motorcyclist have done to avoid the collision? If you are in his position, you are travelling along the road, cars parked on the left, there is a minor road/junction on the left (possibly signposted), there’s a gap in the parked cars and there is the bonnet of a car emerging, gingerly inching (Ms Smith’s reported words) into the road. You can see the front of the car but you can’t see the driver/driver’s window. The driver can’t see you, you must assume that the car will continue to pull out so do you stop? (You are already aware of the situation behind you). You could sound your horn but there is no guarantee that the driver will hear you. You could move to the right (offside if no oncoming traffic) but still no guarantee of success. Surely the high risk option is to carry on so, in this case, was the motorcyclist blameless?

Take it from your point of view as a driver or a rider – I have no wish for this to turn into a cage driver/biker thing..!

[fungus]

Regardless of whether the motorcyclist was riding within the speed limit or not, it could be argued that the motorcyclist failed to drive, although not recklessly, with due care and attention. His/her first course of action upon seeing the bonnet of the car emerging should surely be to sound the horn and reduce speed to a crawl until he/she was sure that the car driver had seen him/her. From the description of the accident it is hardly fair to apportion blame soley to the car driver, even though she had to give way to traffic on the priority road. Consideration must be given as to how far that she had to emerge before gaining sufficient view to continue.

One could also ask whether it was possible for either party to gain extra information from reflections on parked cars, windows etc.

The other option of turning left could also have had the same outcome if she was unable to turn keeping close to the kerb due to parked cars to her left.

[Horse]

I’m also interested in the comments about the motorcyclist being found to be blameless.


Her vision was greatly impaired by parked cars to her right,

. . . there’s a gap in the parked cars and there is the bonnet of a car emerging, gingerly inching (Ms Smith’s reported words) into the road.

You can see the front of the car but you can’t see the driver/driver’s window. The driver can’t see you, you must assume that the car will continue to pull out so do you stop?

Do we know whether there were any witnesses? I wonder why she couldn't see through the cars, at least to see movement. Also, if this was the end of the row (no mention of a 'gap' in a row of cars, that might have made the expectation of a car appearing less likely.

A bike's riding position often provides a better view 'over and though' than a car's, so it's a valid question to ask why he too couldn't have seen movement? However, the report answers that, it was a van.

We have her statement of 'inching'; if I'm emerging from my driveway, often with parked cars half on the pavement either side, I will go forward until the nose of the car should be just visible, then stop. I'll also have the appropriate indicator on.

Crash location, possible rider's view (riding on r.h. side of road due to parked vehicles)
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Gascoi ... 11.78&z=19


The report includes:
Mr Kempton provided a map or diagram of how he viewed the incident which occurred and he places himself on the motorbike on the right hand side of the road which everybody accepts he had no alternative to do because of parked cars on Oak Hill on that occasion. According to his evidence and his diagrams he was only 8 to 10 feet away from the defendant's vehicle when he saw it and immediately braked. That was not a controlled stop. The back wheels locked, as a consequence of which he was jettisoned off his bike and came to rest underneath the bumper of the Mercedes driven by Mrs Smith. The diagram at page 85 places Mrs Smith's vehicle well into the right hand lane, the lane in which the claimant was travelling on that occasion, and both Mr and Mrs Smith, and indeed Miss Lila Rowe, do not accept that the car was as far over the white middle lane as Mr Kempton indicated. Mrs Smith indicated that part of the passenger side of the front of the car had gone over the white line. Mr Smith gave more than one version of events and indicates that his recollection was not as clear as it could be.

[GJD]

Like the Judge, I also have some sympathy for Ms Smith but, if we were in her shoes (hopefully not high heels ) what would we do?

I expect I'd wind the window down and consider turning noises like radio and fans off so I might be able to hear what I can't see. I don't know whether she'd done that or not.

[Horse]

Like the Judge, I also have some sympathy for Ms Smith but, if we were in her shoes (hopefully not high heels ) what would we do?

I expect I'd wind the window down and consider turning noises like radio and fans off so I might be able to hear what I can't see. I don't know whether she'd done that or not.

Lights on full beam (even in daylight), hopefully a stray reflection might cause a "What?' reaction.

[revian]

Like the Judge, I also have some sympathy for Ms Smith but, if we were in her shoes (hopefully not high heels ) what would we do?

I expect I'd wind the window down and consider turning noises like radio and fans off so I might be able to hear what I can't see. I don't know whether she'd done that or not.

Lights on full beam (even in daylight), hopefully a stray reflection might cause a "What?' reaction.

Describes my emerging from home into the road... Parked cars close on both sides and opposite leaving a gap for a single vehicle up or down the road. There's a sharp downhill blind bend 50 yards away in one direction with vehicles often mindless of their lack of vision and going too fast.... The other way is straight...various parked cars on both sides.

Emerging always feels a risk. I could, as suggested, put the indicator on - which would help in one direction. I think hazard lights might be unlawful but they could give an extra visibility in both directions I suppose?

[fungus]

I think hazard lights might be unlawful but they could give an extra visibility in both directions I suppose?

Roadcraft suggests using hazard warning lights to help with visibility when reversing at night.

[revian]

I think hazard lights might be unlawful but they could give an extra visibility in both directions I suppose?

Roadcraft suggests using hazard warning lights to help with visibility when reversing at night.

Thanks Fungus... i'd missed that... It striikes me that sometimes (just for visibility) putting on the opposite indicator to the direction being chosen wcould be helpful... but I dont think Il'l do it - that's what made me think 'hazard lights'.

So maybe I'll try reversing out in the dark instead of driving forwards during the day

[michael769]

I would have held the drivers who parked the cars near the junction to at least partially to blame. The Highway Code is quite clear on the subject of parking near junctions.

All drivers will experience the loss of vision caused by parked cars so it is entirely foreseeable that a car parked so as to obscure the vision of drivers using the unction may cause a collision. I dislike the apparently widespread view that our responsibility for our vehicle somehow ends when we leave it at the side of the road.

[TR4ffic]

The other option of turning left could also have had the same outcome if she was unable to turn keeping close to the kerb due to parked cars to her left.

Making the left turn instead, IMO, has two potential benefits - one, if you are in the turn to the left and the car is at an angle to the main carriageway, at the point where you have a view to your right, there is less of your car prodruding out into the road, and, two, when you do pull out (assuming there is some margin for error) you are going with the flow of traffic coming from the right as opposed to it.

I'll keep the 'wind down windows' and 'headlights on' as options for next time I'm in such a situation. Mind you, how many drivers approaching from the right, on seeing reflected lights in cars/windows on their right, would be savvy enough to equate that to you emerging from the left.!?

[Ancient]

I would have held the drivers who parked the cars near the junction to at least partially to blame. The Highway Code is quite clear on the subject of parking near junctions.

All drivers will experience the loss of vision caused by parked cars so it is entirely foreseeable that a car parked so as to obscure the vision of drivers using the unction may cause a collision. I dislike the apparently widespread view that our responsibility for our vehicle somehow ends when we leave it at the side of the road.

+1 for every illegally parked car in the UK today!

[TR4ffic]

I dislike the apparently widespread view that our responsibility for our vehicle somehow ends when we leave it at the side of the road.

It amazes me how some people manage to park (abandon) their cars.

...and going for the 'easy option' park without thinking how they're going to get out. Like parallel parking in a line of parked cars on the wrong side of the road - they come to pull out and can't see what's coming in either direction..!

[Horse]

I dislike the apparently widespread view that our responsibility for our vehicle somehow ends when we leave it at the side of the road.

It amazes me how some people manage to park (abandon) their cars.

...and going for the 'easy option' park without thinking how they're going to get out. Like parallel parking in a line of parked cars on the wrong side of the road - they come to pull out and can't see what's coming in either direction..!

Not just parked; they stop and keep their headlamps on - even with dipped beams there is often a dazzling amount of light from the left 'kick up' right in the face of oncoming traffic . . .

[waremark]

I had a crash in similar circs on a memorable night about 35 years ago - memorable because it was my first ever date with Mrs Waremark and I ended up because of the crash spending the night on the floor of her flat. I was turning right out of an entrance, van parked on pavement to the right of the entrance creating zero vision to the right, and I collided with a car coming from the right. I claimed he was going far too fast. I don't remember now what steps I had taken to mitigate the risk of a dangerous situation. Today I would have indicator on, listening with open window, and edge out after long flash of lights. On that occasion we each paid our own repair costs without involving insurance or law.

[Zebedee]

Now that's a memorable first date!