it is not always all the BMW's fault
 

This post it not about who was in the right and who was in the wrong.
Its more about reading the situation and reacting to what can be seen.

Today I was a passenger in a mini bus. We were in the right hand lane which is a filter lane for turning right. We were approaching a road on our right.

In front but in the left lane was a BMW, very close to the white lane between lanes. He started indicating right. We keep closing on him

what happens now depends on the mini bus driver and yes the mini bus driver.
Does he drive with tunnel vision only seeing what is in his lane.
Does he drive with a "this is my lane and your not getting in front of me" approach.
Does he see what I see? Does he react in the way I would?

Bmw does a U turn, mini bus driver slams on the brakes, passengers "slam" forward, many curse the BMW but not me.

I point out the warning signals, BMW indicating right, driver hesitant and min buss still intends to pass. The warning signals were there in plain view, me I would have slowed down. the U turn would still have caught me out, I expected a right turn but there would not have been the slamming on of the brakes.

Read the situation, do not ignore what you see.
Observation, anticipation and reaction. Anticipation and reaction were certainly missed.

I upset everyone for pointing out the warning signs were there in plain view, min bus driver more angry with me then the BMW.


In the event of a crash, I suspect the BMW would have been blamed but it was not all his fault! Too many people would have blamed him, I was just one voice

macafee2

Yes the mini bus driver should have been more observant, but then if you want to U Turn then the right hand filter lane is the place to be, not turning from the next lane in?



6 for one 1/2 dozen for the other!

I do not believe this incident even happened! The BMW was indicating??? Now come on! :p:

Seriously, if there had been contact, the BMW caused the collision 100%, its driver changed lanes into a space that was not safe to enter. Its driver could have been more observant, patient, adjusted their speed, or drove on to the next exit and avoided any collision.

How long was the indicator on for, could it be thought the BMW driver had not cancelled the indicator after an earlier lane change where the auto cancel did not engage? This question does not absolve blame, but could change the impression of attitude of the mini bus driver towards the BMW driver.

The minibus driver could have avoided collision by relaxing the accelerator and investigated if the BMW was wanting to enter the lane.

Both drivers could have avoided it as easily as each other, therefore blame in my mind is 50/50. Personally I am always nervous when entering a car's blind spot as I pass (my definition - the point where I no longer see a driver in their mirror). I would generally squeeze the throttle a little more of hold back if there is an exit to the right approaching, and pass after.

In saying that, if the BMW driver entered the lane and did a U turn whilst in the lane in front of the minibus driver, after being let in, in front of him. Then as the BMW would have likely had to brake harder to commence a U turn, then the minibus driver runs into the back of the BMW, that then would almost certainly have been the minibus driver's fault for not reacting, nor allowing enough space to stop.

All of the above suggest events that did not happen. There was no collision, the BMW did not correctly get into the lane in front of the mini bus driver (by invitation or by forcing their way). The BMW did however cross in front of the path of the minibus however, whilst an indicator is just that. The mini bus driver had total right of way, and it is the responsibility of the BMW driver to change lanes safely. So therefore the BMW is to blame.

This is the problem with driving nowadays, people are always in a rush and have a feeling of entitlement. There is no preparation nor consideration of others on the road.

I have a mantra, if you make me brake unnecessarily (ie there is no queues ahead but you brake anyway etc) then you are at fault. I drive with a distance ahead of me I believe to be safe for me to brake in an emergency, and if you pull into that space, I have to brake or slow - you are at fault. You drive into it because you missed your exit, I have to brake - your fault. You leave it too late to pull into the exit, and suddenly slam on the brake (ie unnecessarily - in this case they had 3 and the 4 miles to get into the correct motorway) - then you are to blame.

The indicator had not been left on, I noted it start flashing. BMW was not let in, it was until in commenced its U turn, in the left lane. It was not going fast but then we were not either, even at 20'ish mph slamming the brakes on creates some force. As I said, the post was not about who was to blame but about reading the situation and making sure one reacts defensively. This was about a clear signal being given and no defensive action being taken until the situation became dangerous.

macafee2

I agree about defensive driving, but from your opening comment 'it was not all his fault'. If there was a collision, and providing the minibus driver did not accelerate, it would be all the car driver's fault. I do see where you are coming from, and to a certain extent agree, the minibus driver could have (not should have) been more courteous, however, the car driver (I want to avoid an anti BMW bias), had no business whatsoever even trying to get across whilst it was not safe to do so (causing another vehicle to brake sharply proves this fact), never mind going for the U turn from what was in effect across 2 lanes. Being courteous by the way is not defensive driving, in this instance it would have been offensive, as the minibus driver would have been taking control of the situation.

We all make mistakes, and we should accommodate for them (as I believe the minibus driver could have), however by the reading the initial post, the car driver also made no attempt to rectify this themselves, instead it seems from your narrative, they assumed they had the entitlement to move in because they indicated. It is this entitlement some people believe in, that causes so many issues on the road. Offensive and defensive driving gives consideration to others, entitled driving does not.

Two bits of advice from my late Father when I started driving that have served me well over the years.

1. Be in the correct gear at the right time.
2. Treat every other road user as an idiot.

to add one from my grandfather, you are in control of a one tonne killing machine.

A motor cyclist in the late fifties didnt stop at a T junction as he was driving past in his van. The motorcyclist was killed on impact into the rear panel. The boy's parents didnt blame my grandfather, actually consoling him! He still felt guilt over it throughout his life.

That's terrible, your Grandfather must have suffered because of that, we all have to be as careful as possible when out on the roads and expect the unexpected.

I am not suggesting the mini bus driver should have let the BMW in, no no. I am saying the mini bus driver should have taken defensive action and in the event of a collision the BMW may not always be 100% to blame. Insurance wise and prosecution wise perhaps they are but some blame for perhaps driving without due care and attention must go to the mini bus driver. I saw what was happening and I was behind the mini bus driver, I would have reacted and slowed. I saw the indicator, I saw the turning, I put 1 and 1 together and would have backed off. I did not see the u turn coming, I thought he was going to turn right.

I agree with you, some people think that indicating gives them right of way or that other people should concede right of way and as you say, it does not

When there is a RTC, Road Traffic Collision, I don't think the police call them accidents, there is often 1 person that is deemed to be responsible.
Whilst this may often be the case I was trying to say that in the event of an accident, a collision, that in this case it could have easily been avoided if the mini bus driver had reacted to what was happening instead of continuing.

When I was in my teens a police motorcycle office and I had words.
I was a distance ahead of him travelling along Du Cane Road, a car coming the other way wanted to turn across my path, to his right. I slowed to let him turn. The police office road on past. I caught him up and we had words... I'm like that :) His view was if I had right of way I should keep going. I replied that I'll remember that when I'm in the grave yard.

By me slowing I made sure the car did not turn into my path or me.
Now I let people turn because I'm courteous and would like others to let me turn. I can watch a whole stream of vehicles pass and not allow someone to turn in front of them

macafee2

The minibus driver did take defensive action by applying the brakes. In the event of a collision, in this instance, the car WOULD be 100% at fault. There is no other way to see it. The law and highway code are black and white on this. Being courteous is not part of law. Being aware is. The minibus driver demonstrated this by applying the brakes to try to avoid a collision (whether his actions did this or not is irrelevant). He may even have been gently slowing suspecting the car may do what it did?

The car had a choice, in fact a number of them. At 20mph, the car could have accelerated slightly. If there was no room to do this, that only damns the car even more, as they were not reading the road! I am guessing too, that there were vehicles behind the minibus, which could be why the minibus driver did not slow. The minibus driver may have lost sight of the vehicle behind and therefore been concerned of a rear end collision . If there were no vehicles behind the minibus, the car could have slowed to slot in behind, again damning the car driver further.

Both drivers had an opportunity, both failed to use it, but the car driver forced a decision on the minibus (to slam on the brakes) by using their sense of entitlement. The minibus driver had right of way, the car driver should have respected that and acted accordingly. But as is all too common on the roads nowadays, we have people who have to be in front (occasionally I am guilty of that too, and kick myself after). I find it funny on some youtube videos of collisions, where the (in my view) guilty driver says, did you not see my indicator? errrm did you not see my 40ft fully laden container lorry????

Your situation as I read it, you placed the motorcycle cop in a potentially dangerous position. When letting traffic through, whilst it would not be your fault, you could should have been aware of the vehicles behind you in the other lane. The car driver passing in front of you, may not have seen the cop, coming up in the other lane. Here, you are forcing another vehicle to make a decision on what I imagine to be a straight continuous road, where stopping/slowing would be an unusual action? :shrug: The car driver was already stopped, so them waiting a few more seconds is not hindering anyone else, and everyone knows then what each other is thinking. In a clear road behind you, it would be fine, courteous and a nice thing to do. But in a road where there were vehicles behind it would be potentially dangerous. At 10 seconds in, THIS video shows what I mean.

If I am in a single lane of traffic, and i see I will have to slow, I will happily let people out if they are waiting. However, if there is another lane to my side, I will still do it, but only if I make eye contact with the driver crossing. This way I can alert them of vehicles coming in the other lane. But if the traffic is moving, even if I am the only person on the road, I will not let them cross, as they can wait a few seconds until I pass, and they wont have to wonder if I am slowing to let them cross, or just adjusting my pace.

We are now no longer relying on rights of way, on the road, and now second guessing others (sometimes biased by their choice of vehicles too :o).

(and yes you are correct, calling a collision an accident implies blame, which the police are not there to do, they gather the evidence for a court to decide that)