Whose fault would it have been?

[Dr Jekyll]

I pulled past a Nissan in the lane 2 of the M40 when I was in lane 3. The road ahead was clear so I started to pull back to lane 1, as I reached lane 2 I got a glimpse in my near side wing mirror of a red peugeot coming up the inside of the Nissan. I stayed in lane 2 to let the Peugeot past then pulled into lane 1.

But if I hadn't noticed the Peugeot, how would the fault have been split?

Morally it would have been primarily my fault. I really should have been aware of the Peugeot coming up before I completed the overtake, I suspect my attention was split between watching what was coming up lane 3 behind me and ensuring I didn't cut in front of the Nissan. But as far as courts and insurance companies are concerned how significant would the fact that the Peugeot was undertaking be?
After all, I don't think the Peugeot was doing anything specifically illegal.

[barker22]

I would imagine as the peugeot never switched lanes it may be your fault if an incident was to occur. As you were the one intending to maneouvre.

[7mike]

........waits for some smart arse to come along and say they're not called wing mirrors

As the AD section tends to be quiet over the weekend I'll get my tuppence worth in now. This highlights the dangers of the 'I'll teach 'em a lesson brigade (I'll presume the Peugeot driver was a bit narked at an MLM). I prefer to get paid to conduct driver training, the rest of the time I look after myself. Well done for checking your N/S mirror before the manoeuvre OP and I'll leave the legal quibbling to the internet experts who'll be along in the morning.

[davepoth]

Depends on what the Peugeot was doing, and how fast the Micra as going in L2 - if the Micra was doing 45 and the Pug was doing 70 in L1 and had been for miles, it's a lot less cut and dried. As you say, the check in the mirror avoided any potential issue, so well done.

[deltashad]

The Peugeot was driving illegally, undertaking in the wrong lane. He was probably in your blind spot.

If I was undertaking a MLM or outside lane driver and I was either hit by the MLM or a person like yourself I would fully expect the heavy hand of the law to give me a good ticking off. I would also expect my insurance company to be liable for damages.

Saying that I feel undertaking is sometimes justified under certain circumstances in certain countries.

[shambolic]

deltashad said:

The Peugeot was driving illegally, undertaking in the wrong lane. He was probably in your blind spot.

If I was undertaking a MLM or outside lane driver and I was either hit by the MLM or a person like yourself I would fully expect the heavy hand of the law to give me a good ticking off. I would also expect my insurance company to be liable for damages.

Saying that I feel undertaking is sometimes justified under certain circumstances in certain countries.

Wrong!!
There is no problem with staying in your lane and passing a motorist on your right whatsoever if you are just staying in that lane.
The erse ole in the middle lane is the problem.

[kaf]

deltashad said:

The Peugeot was driving illegally, undertaking in the wrong lane.

Not read much on here have you?

[7mike]

Well, glad to admit when I'm wrong; they're here already.

A (genuine) question for the OP, or anyone else for that matter. Why are we so interested in apportioning blame?

[deltashad]

kaf said:

Not read much on here have you?

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought the law required you to pass a vehicle on the outside (right side). What if you are travelling faster than 70mph? Is it still legal then to pass on the left?
What if that car you are passing decides to pull into the left hand lane and hits you?
Last question and sorry for being a pain, does this apply on dual carriageways with cars in the outside lane?

But, when is it not considered illegal/legal, say you've moved to the inside lane after overtaking, and the car infront has not moved in for the last five miles, you have seen it and caught it, when is it legal to pass it. If it wasn't insight when you last pulled into the left, or if it was insight but 500yards away.

This is confusing.

[BertBert]

Not too bothered about fault meself, but I use a LH shoulder check as well as LH mirror in this circumstance to make sure there's noone stuck in my nearside blindspot.

Bert

[WhoseGeneration]

deltashad said:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought the law required you to pass a vehicle on the outside (right side). What if you are travelling faster than 70mph? Is it still legal then to pass on the left?
What if that car you are passing decides to pull into the left hand lane and hits you?
Last question and sorry for being a pain, does this apply on dual carriageways with cars in the outside lane?

But, when is it not considered illegal/legal, say you've moved to the inside lane after overtaking, and the car infront has not moved in for the last five miles, you have seen it and caught it, when is it legal to pass it. If it wasn't insight when you last pulled into the left, or if it was insight but 500yards away.

This is confusing.

Problem is the law can only be enforced by those charged by Government to do so.
Which is why the advice, from an AD view, is, don't commit to any manoeuvre unless safe to do so.

[Dr Jekyll]

7mike said:

Why are we so interested in apportioning blame?

Simply curiosity.

[davepoth]

deltashad said:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought the law required you to pass a vehicle on the outside (right side). What if you are travelling faster than 70mph? Is it still legal then to pass on the left?
What if that car you are passing decides to pull into the left hand lane and hits you?
Last question and sorry for being a pain, does this apply on dual carriageways with cars in the outside lane?

But, when is it not considered illegal/legal, say you've moved to the inside lane after overtaking, and the car infront has not moved in for the last five miles, you have seen it and caught it, when is it legal to pass it. If it wasn't insight when you last pulled into the left, or if it was insight but 500yards away.

This is confusing.

The Highway Code said:

268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

That's the section that legalises undertaking MLMs in certain situations. You aren't allowed to move inside to undertake, and you aren't allowed to speed. It's still a bit iffy if the MLM decides to pull left without looking though.

[ScoobyChris]

BertBert said:

Not too bothered about fault meself, but I use a LH shoulder check as well as LH mirror in this circumstance to make sure there's noone stuck in my nearside blindspot.

Agree with this - all too easy to miss something in mirrors and the shoulder check gives a much better view prior to committing.

Chris

[kaf]

deltashad said:

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought the law required you to pass a vehicle on the outside (right side).

You are wrong, it is not and never has been illegal.

It may well be unsafe, but that is another question altogether and depends on circumstances.

Going against advice in the H/C is not necessarily illegal, though it might be used to support a prosecution for careless driving.

[mrmr96]

7mike said:

Well, glad to admit when I'm wrong; they're here already.

A (genuine) question for the OP, or anyone else for that matter. Why are we so interested in apportioning blame?

...to establish who's in the wrong and therefore what the rules are. (i.e. who did something they shouldn't, and what should they have done instead. possible that both or all 3 are to blame. apportioning blame is important to preventing a problem in future, by setting rules and expectations of behaviour, which, if adhered to by all, would prevent a problem. do you see?)

[7mike]

mrmr96 said:

...to establish who's in the wrong and therefore what the rules are. (i.e. who did something they shouldn't, and what should they have done instead. possible that both or all 3 are to blame. apportioning blame is important to preventing a problem in future, by setting rules and expectations of behaviour, which, if adhered to by all, would prevent a problem. do you see?)

Yes thanks; I see a pointless exercise

[R0G]

Dr Jekyll said:

I pulled past a Nissan in the lane 2 of the M40 when I was in lane 3. The road ahead was clear so I started to pull back to lane 1, as I reached lane 2 I got a glimpse in my near side wing mirror of a red peugeot coming up the inside of the Nissan. I stayed in lane 2 to let the Peugeot past then pulled into lane 1.

But if I hadn't noticed the Peugeot, how would the fault have been split?

100% you - unsafe lane change

Different if you were already crossing from lane 2 to 1 and numpty had then decided to race up besides you

[mrmr96]

7mike said:

mrmr96 said:

...to establish who's in the wrong and therefore what the rules are. (i.e. who did something they shouldn't, and what should they have done instead. possible that both or all 3 are to blame. apportioning blame is important to preventing a problem in future, by setting rules and expectations of behaviour, which, if adhered to by all, would prevent a problem. do you see?)

Yes thanks; I see a pointless exercise

Thread exits are located Here, Here and Here.

[7mike]

mrmr96 said:

Thread exits are located Here, Here and Here.

Fair point, I'll leave the experts to it.