Accident analysis discussion

[Kar_lover]

Hi All

 

My fren got into this minor accident. But as a matter of principle for discussion, would like to know your learned opinions.

 

Scenario:

My fren traveling on a single lane, 2 way road, i.e. single lane in each direction with solid line in the middle. He wanted to turn into a HDB estate on the RIGHT side, i.e. have to cut across the road which traffic is coming in the opposite direction. When he make his turn, a bike slams into him, hitting the back door. The bike was actually trying to over-take him. My fren did NOT put on his signal. The rest is not important, ny fren got down and help him etc etc, injury to motorcyclist was minimal.

 

Analysis:

Who is more in the wrong? The only thing my fren did wrong is that he forgot to turn on his signal. Actually he told me look in the mirror see no one so tot not necessary to turn on, the biker must have been in his blind spot.

 

To me the fault more on the biker (80%?) mainly cos: (1) the vehicle behind supposed to keep safe distance from vehicle in front which he obviously did not (2) it is very forseeable when a car in front of u slows down when approaching a turn that the reason he is slowing down is to make the turn (3) in trying to overtake my fren, biker was riding on the road that was coming in the opposite direction, i.e. riding against the flow of traffic - isn't dat worse than not turning on the signal? I m not sure but is it allowed to even overtake on a single lane road? I tot i remember cannot.

 

In this scenario, although biker did not actually hit the rear of the car (bumper) but is also considered hit my fren from behind right? Cos he was behind my fren. Also, my fren is not obliged to check for vehicles on his right cos it is a single lane and he is already at the edge of the lane turning right, correct? Its not like lane 2 filtering to lane 1 then of course must check for on coming vehicles.

 

Will insurance say due to my fren never on signal then is my fren fault? Can't be right? Cos thousands of ppl don't signal when they turn or change lane and if everytime that happens is grounds for an accident then i open car workshop liao.

 

Anyway my fren workshop say 50-50 but i tink very unfair. i also used to be a biker and defensive riding is No 1 priority.

 

 

 

 

[Puteh]

Sorry to say, your friend's in the wrong. Biker may not know your friend's intention to turn - worse still if your friend didnt stop before he made the turn. I have a number of near-misses with drivers who do not indicate his intention and just make a turn. Doesnt take a lot of effort to nudge the indicator switch.

 

 

[Darryn]

Lots of lessons to learn here...

 

1. ALWAYS signal, no matter what. "He tot not neccessary" does not fly. What do you think, I go drinking, get arrested for drunk driving, I told the officer "I tot not neccessary to take cab as my house nearby" ...can or not. Get caught speed, tell judge "tot not neccessary to stay to speed limit as my car has good brakes" can or not?

2. To the motorcyclist - dun overtake cuckoo drivers even if it looks like they are stopping.

 

On the whole I would put blame at either 60% or 70% driver, he is hte one that veered into the path of the motorbike.

[Kar_lover]

Sorry to say, your friend's in the wrong. Biker may not know your friend's intention to turn - worse still if your friend didnt stop before he made the turn. I have a number of near-misses with drivers who do not indicate his intention and just make a turn. Doesnt take a lot of effort to nudge the indicator switch.

 

Yes i know he didn't turn on the indicator but wat abt the biker keeping a safe distance? And riding against the flow of traffic? I guess u're a biker too. So the difference in ur case that u had a number of near-miss (but not an actual accident) is cos u kept sufficient safe distance to cope with the unexpected. If u're behind a car and the car is slowing down as he is approaching a junction, u dun anticipate he might be turning in?

 

In fact often when i am coming out of a carpark and intending to turn right to join the main road, if there is an on-coming car from the right, even if his signal is showing that he is turning into the carpark which i am coming out from (which means i can proceed to exit the carpark), i still wait until i make sure he is really turning in before i proceed. You should never trust the signal (or lack thereof) and/or the driver 100%.

 

 

[Kingkong]

My fren did NOT put on his signal.

 

So, do you agree this accident occurred due to your friend's negligence?

 

 

i also used to be a biker and defensive riding is No 1 priority.

 

Does this mean to a driver, defensive driving can be of lesser priority?

Do Basic Theory tell us all to not signal when we don't see vehicles behind?

[Kar_lover]

Lots of lessons to learn here...

 

1. ALWAYS signal, no matter what. "He tot not neccessary" does not fly. What do you think, I go drinking, get arrested for drunk driving, I told the officer "I tot not neccessary to take cab as my house nearby" ...can or not. Get caught speed, tell judge "tot not neccessary to stay to speed limit as my car has good brakes" can or not?

2. To the motorcyclist - dun overtake cuckoo drivers even if it looks like they are stopping.

 

On the whole I would put blame at either 60% or 70% driver, he is hte one that veered into the path of the motorbike.

 

I am not defending his failure to signal. But the biker is riding against the flow of traffic and riding too close to the vehicle in front (not maintaining safe distance).

 

 

[Kar_lover]

So, do you agree this accident occurred due to your friend's negligence?

 

 

 

 

Does this mean to a driver, defensive driving can be of lesser priority?

Do Basic Theory tell us all to not signal when we don't see vehicles behind?

 

I already said 80-20. I see lots of drivers not using their indicators every now and then. I dun tink anyone can say they 100% every single time got turn on signal.

 

Of course defensive driving applies to all (see my reply on when i coming out of carpark). But in THIS scenario, the biker contributed much to the accident by doing illegal overtaking. I said as a biker, defensive riding is No #1 priority cos they have more to lose in an accident as they are more exposed. Likewise when i am crossing the road at a zebra crossing as a pedestrian, even when the light changes to the green man, i still check to ensure on coming vehicles are have stopped or at least coming to a stop. i dun just simply cross because got green man. In the event the driver happen to be distracted, yes he is 100% in the wrong and may never drive again but i may never walk again. So its in my own interest to be extra careful.

 

At which point did i say Basic Theory say not to signal? U putting words in my mouth? Lets keep this discussion rational ok? Or are u trying to start a flame war? Dun make such ridiculous statements which only show ur lack of basic intelligence.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Kar_lover

[Kusje]

50-50 sounds rather fair. Don't forget that he also failed to check his blind spot.

[Darryn]

I am not defending his failure to signal. But the biker is riding against the flow of traffic and riding too close to the vehicle in front (not maintaining safe distance).

 

You are not defending, yet you have "defended" or argued against each of us that says your friend bears more than half the responsibility here. Please try to accept, biker riding against flow of traffic doesn't absolve your friend from his responsibilities to do the right thing, and signal.

 

Do note, that from another tack, from the fact that your friend never see motorcyclist, it is confirmed that he never "kept a proper lookout" which kinda tends to trump anything else...

[Kar_lover]

50-50 sounds rather fair. Don't forget that he also failed to check his blind spot.

 

When u're at the right-most side of the lane, turning right and the lane next to u is for on coming traffic, still need to check blind spot on the right?

 

[Puteh]

Yes i know he didn't turn on the indicator but wat abt the biker keeping a safe distance? And riding against the flow of traffic? I guess u're a biker too. So the difference in ur case that u had a number of near-miss (but not an actual accident) is cos u kept sufficient safe distance to cope with the unexpected. If u're behind a car and the car is slowing down as he is approaching a junction, u dun anticipate he might be turning in?

 

In fact often when i am coming out of a carpark and intending to turn right to join the main road, if there is an on-coming car from the right, even if his signal is showing that he is turning into the carpark which i am coming out from (which means i can proceed to exit the carpark), i still wait until i make sure he is really turning in before i proceed. You should never trust the signal (or lack thereof) and/or the driver 100%.

 

Oh, was the biker riding against the traffic? I thought you mentioned he was behind your friend.

 

I was a biker once, now driving. I also practise what you did about coming out of a carpark, and waiting to make sure he is really turning in before proceeding. Its called the 2 second delay and I use that at traffic junctions too. I believe its a good habit to follow. You are a safe driver, unfortunately your friend is not. But I believe he will learn from this. Good thing is nobody is killed.

[Kingkong]

But in THIS scenario, the biker contributed much to the accident by doing illegal overtaking.

 

So, in your statement, for those who breaks the traffic rule, your friend have the right to drive into his path, and escape responsibility?

[Kar_lover]

You are not defending, yet you have "defended" or argued against each of us that says your friend bears more than half the responsibility here. Please try to accept, biker riding against flow of traffic doesn't absolve your friend from his responsibilities to do the right thing, and signal.

 

Do note, that from another tack, from the fact that your friend never see motorcyclist, it is confirmed that he never "kept a proper lookout" which kinda tends to trump anything else...

 

So all of u are saying the biker is not at fault?? To tell u the truth, my fren is wrecked with guilt. He offered to pay for all the medical fees + half the bike's repairs but the biker want him to pay 100% for everything plus additional for lost time, inconvenience, etc.

 

Isn't keep a proper lookout refering to things in front of u (i.e. jaywalker running across the road)? Of course when changing lanes, must check for behind traffic and blind spot but as i said, he is at the rightmost of the lane already turning right, no one is supposed to be coming from behind him on his right anymore. The biker should overtake him on the left side rather then go to the oncoming lane.

[Kar_lover]

So, in your statement, for those who breaks the traffic rule, your friend have the right to drive into his path, and escape responsibility?

 

Obviously my fren did not see him. I didn't say he saw the biker but still made the turn anyway since biker in the wrong lane. Please la, logic a bit. So often when the traffic light turn green so we can go, but if the last car from the right break the red light, we also wait for them to clear first then only we move right? We dun move off and crash into him just because we're technically in the right as our traffic light already green.

 

 

[Kar_lover]

Oh, was the biker riding against the traffic? I thought you mentioned he was behind your friend.

 

I was a biker once, now driving. I also practise what you did about coming out of a carpark, and waiting to make sure he is really turning in before proceeding. Its called the 2 second delay and I use that at traffic junctions too. I believe its a good habit to follow. You are a safe driver, unfortunately your friend is not. But I believe he will learn from this. Good thing is nobody is killed.

 

He was coming from behind my fren and then try to overtake my fren by going to the lane that is on-coming traffic. Unfortunately my fren turn right also, hence collision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Desmondtwb]

So all of u are saying the biker is not at fault?? To tell u the truth, my fren is wrecked with guilt. He offered to pay for all the medical fees + half the bike's repairs but the biker want him to pay 100% for everything plus additional for lost time, inconvenience, etc.

 

Isn't keep a proper lookout refering to things in front of u (i.e. jaywalker running across the road)? Of course when changing lanes, must check for behind traffic and blind spot but as i said, he is at the rightmost of the lane already turning right, no one is supposed to be coming from behind him on his right anymore. The biker should overtake him on the left side rather then go to the oncoming lane.

 

The biker is at fault, so is your friend.

50-50 seems fair to me.

Biker pays for your friend's damage and your friend pay for the biker's damage.

[Darryn]

So all of u are saying the biker is not at fault?? To tell u the truth, my fren is wrecked with guilt. He offered to pay for all the medical fees + half the bike's repairs but the biker want him to pay 100% for everything plus additional for lost time, inconvenience, etc.

 

Isn't keep a proper lookout refering to things in front of u (i.e. jaywalker running across the road)? Of course when changing lanes, must check for behind traffic and blind spot but as i said, he is at the rightmost of the lane already turning right, no one is supposed to be coming from behind him on his right anymore. The biker should overtake him on the left side rather then go to the oncoming lane.

 

NO, biker has some fault to bear. I would say biker should be 30-40% of responsibility..

 

ANd now for english lesson.....its "wracked" with guilt......not "wrecked"

[Kingkong]

Obviously my fren did not see him. I didn't say he saw the biker but still made the turn anyway since biker in the wrong lane. Please la, logic a bit. So often when the traffic light turn green so we can go, but if the last car from the right break the red light, we also wait for them to clear first then only we move right? We dun move off and crash into him just because we're technically in the right as our traffic light already green.

 

That's what I'm trying to drive at :

 

Due to your friend's negligence (of not keeping proper lookout, and by that it mean all possible angles), an accident occurred.

Not signalling by itself may not be that bad. But in this instance, it is potentially the cause of this accident.

 

It could be the other party's faulty because he did something illegal, but that doesn't mean we can do something to cause an accident, can we?

 

To the authorities, I think its most likely 50-50, if points and fines are involved.

But to the insurance companies, it could be a totally different discussion.