The law when indicating?

Idle chit-chat and banter. Let your hair down, but remember there are kids about!

Moderator: Gazza

Post Reply
Warrior
Joined: Tue 11 May, 2010 11:02
Posts: 382

  Z3 roadster 3.0i

The law when indicating?

Post by Warrior » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 02:55

A McDonalds burger joint has recently opened, the entrance to which sits about 50 yds from the junction with the main road.

On turning left the indicator does not always self cancel in time so those leaving Maccy D's think you are going to pull in to their car park and pull out in front of you!

Driving the wifes Tiguan the other night a young girl pulled out and I had to stand on the brakes avoiding a collision by a few millimetres. If I wasn't aware of the issue and was moving up the gears with a bit of a (legal) spurt on the outcome would have been different.

I've always thought that any blame for this type of accident would lie with the person pulling out onto the main road, the girl in this case, but a mate of mine - ex copper - says that's not the case, that she had good reason to believe I was turning.

Who's right?

mrscalex
Joined: Fri 13 Mar, 2015 09:14
Posts: 803

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by mrscalex » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 12:40

I have the identical issue with an Aldi.

I'm not sure what the law says or whether it's important. We're all looking to avoid accidents in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned the onus is on us to manually cancel. And if we are the ones pulling out the onus is on us to look for other signs/wait if we aren't 100% sure of someone's intentions.
ImageImage
1999 Z3 1.9 Boston Green (Dimitri) - My brother's car owned from new and restored by me
2001 Z3 2.2 Topaz Blue (Trudy) - My car rebuilt from a write-off
2002 Z3 2.2 Titan Silver (Okus) - Project car waiting for a new engine
2001 Z3 2.2 Topaz Blue (Debra) - Donor car/breaker
1998 Z3 1.9 Boston Green (Allsworth) - Donor car/breaker now gone to Z3 heaven
Always happy to try and help with spares :)

bertiejaffa
Joined: Fri 26 Jul, 2013 10:28
Posts: 1725

  M roadster S50
Location: Manchester

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by bertiejaffa » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 15:00

An indicator (or any other light) is merely an indication of intent or awareness of position. I was always taught that you never pull out on anyone who is indicating to turn before you (E.G. left into the road you are leaving) until they have actually turned as they could change their mind. I would suggest this is the same case here.

however, as you are driving a BMW it's also the law that no indication is required :D
Here come the girls.....
Image
My //M Refurb
My First Zed Journal

User avatar
Gazza
Site Admin
Joined: Tue 04 Oct, 2005 21:58
Posts: 9202

  M roadster S54
Location: East London/Essex

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by Gazza » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 16:51

bertiejaffa wrote:An indicator (or any other light) is merely an indication of intent or awareness of position. I was always taught that you never pull out on anyone who is indicating to turn before you (E.G. left into the road you are leaving) until they have actually turned as they could change their mind. I would suggest this is the same case here.

however, as you are driving a BMW it's also the law that no indication is required :D

I was taught similar to this, also if you don't see the signal go on, don't rely on it.
Gazza

"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car, oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car. Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you take the wall with you"

S54 M roadster Image, BMW Z1, BMW M3 CSL, Mustang Fastback

ImageImage

User avatar
motco
Joined: Tue 18 Aug, 2009 19:12
Posts: 643

  Z3 roadster 2.2i

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by motco » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 17:08

IMO you and the other driver are jointly and severally blameworthy. I would never rely on the self-cancelling mechanism unless it cancelled before I can do it. Likewise, the other driver is foolish to believe a signal that was not initiated within their view. 50:50 fault distribution. Sorry, but you did ask... :wink:

User avatar
Robert T
Site Admin
Joined: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 11:35
Posts: 10010

  Z3 roadster 1.9
Location: Cheshire

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by Robert T » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 18:41

I never pull out on anyone, even if they are indicating, unless they are visibly slowing to make the turn. There are too many numpties on the road that either don't indicate or are incapable of cancelling the indicator if it doesn't do so of its own accord. In your case I would manually cancel the indicator as soon as you have made the turn. I have a similar problem pulling out of my road end, which is about 50 yards from a junction. I ignore their indicators and wait until I am sure they are turning a second time before pulling out.

I have a worse problem with traffic lights at one junction here. At least twice a week some idiot runs the lights whilst I am waiting to turn right in the middle of the junction. I now refuse to move until I see the oncoming car is going to stop, as red lights seem to mean nothing to them. Honking ones horn an pointing at the lights variously seems to invoke blank stares or impolite hand gestures. Would love to set up a camera trap there - should think it would be rather profitable.

Cheers R.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Arctic Silver '99 Z3 1.9 & Black '59 Frogeye 1275cc
Image

Warrior
Joined: Tue 11 May, 2010 11:02
Posts: 382

  Z3 roadster 3.0i

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by Warrior » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 19:40

motco wrote:IMO you and the other driver are jointly and severally blameworthy. I would never rely on the self-cancelling mechanism unless it cancelled before I can do it. Likewise, the other driver is foolish to believe a signal that was not initiated within their view. 50:50 fault distribution. Sorry, but you did ask... :wink:
Apportioning blame is fine but I'm more interested in the legal/insurance view?

Some years ago I was undertaken by a lad on a scooter as I turned off a narrow one way road. He hit the side door and skidded a few feet to the kerb. The insurance company said at the time that it although I was indicating it would have no reflection on the outcome.

User avatar
pingu
Joined: Fri 30 Apr, 2004 17:01
Posts: 3337

  M roadster S50

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by pingu » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 20:23

Warrior wrote:
motco wrote:IMO you and the other driver are jointly and severally blameworthy. I would never rely on the self-cancelling mechanism unless it cancelled before I can do it. Likewise, the other driver is foolish to believe a signal that was not initiated within their view. 50:50 fault distribution. Sorry, but you did ask... :wink:
Apportioning blame is fine but I'm more interested in the legal/insurance view?

Some years ago I was undertaken by a lad on a scooter as I turned off a narrow one way road. He hit the side door and skidded a few feet to the kerb. The insurance company said at the time that it although I was indicating it would have no reflection on the outcome.
My first-hand insurance experience is that you are 1/3 to blame and she is 2/3 to blame. You both lose your no-claims as if you were 100% to blame.

About 20 years ago, I pulled out on someone who was indicating left, started to turn, changed their mind and drove into me as I pulled out. I guess it looked different from where they were sat :wink: . I was deemed to be 2/3 to blame, which surprised me, as I would have said I was 100% to blame.
Pingu

User avatar
c_w
Joined: Thu 19 Aug, 2004 17:50
Posts: 4032

  M roadster S50

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by c_w » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 22:08

In future just don't indicate until you have passed McDonalds?

therealdb1
Joined: Tue 25 Jun, 2013 22:47
Posts: 247

  Z3 roadster 2.0

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by therealdb1 » Mon 02 Jan, 2017 23:22

I do not think it is a legal matter since insurance companies write their own "legislation" to maximise their profit.
So I have to agree with motco and pingu in that your respective insurance companies will probably agree you were both to blame and you shall both lose part of your NCB.
For an extra couple of quid a year I think it is worthwhile adding some protection to your NCB since you only need to collide with one of those numpties for it to cost you a lot more!

Warrior
Joined: Tue 11 May, 2010 11:02
Posts: 382

  Z3 roadster 3.0i

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by Warrior » Tue 03 Jan, 2017 02:15

c_w wrote:In future just don't indicate until you have passed McDonalds?
Think you've got the wrong idea of the road layout?;)
The 'indication' is necessary as you left turn off at the 40mph limit main road junction traffic lights. Obviously you wouldn't be taking the corner at that sort of speed but McD's entrance/exit is on you quickly. Looking at the road layout on Google maps what I would have said was a tight 90 degree turn actually has quite a sweep on it. I'll do a normal speed test run and report back!

Agree with most of what's been said - yes I could have manually cancelled and am not 100% sure that i didn't. Like most men i'm a fantastic driver and never make mistakes :D so obviously don't agree that somebody pulling out in front of me was my fault :dunce:

Warrior
Joined: Tue 11 May, 2010 11:02
Posts: 382

  Z3 roadster 3.0i

Re: The law when indicating?

Post by Warrior » Tue 03 Jan, 2017 02:27

pingu wrote:
Warrior wrote:
motco wrote:IMO you and the other driver are jointly and severally blameworthy. I would never rely on the self-cancelling mechanism unless it cancelled before I can do it. Likewise, the other driver is foolish to believe a signal that was not initiated within their view. 50:50 fault distribution. Sorry, but you did ask... :wink:
Apportioning blame is fine but I'm more interested in the legal/insurance view?

Some years ago I was undertaken by a lad on a scooter as I turned off a narrow one way road. He hit the side door and skidded a few feet to the kerb. The insurance company said at the time that it although I was indicating it would have no reflection on the outcome.
My first-hand insurance experience is that you are 1/3 to blame and she is 2/3 to blame. You both lose your no-claims as if you were 100% to blame.

About 20 years ago, I pulled out on someone who was indicating left, started to turn, changed their mind and drove into me as I pulled out. I guess it looked different from where they were sat :wink: . I was deemed to be 2/3 to blame, which surprised me, as I would have said I was 100% to blame.
I didn't make it clear that the insurance company apportioned 100% of the blame on the scooter rider even before any evidence was submitted. The lad was apologetic and admitted it was his fault although his father called the next day to deny as much. I had two pedestrian witnesses prepared to give statements and unbeknown to me at the time the car behind was being driven by the wife's cousins boyfriend who'd assumed it was so cut and dry it was a couple of days before he made contact to see how things were.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests