Car crash - Who is to blame for this then?

[Gerrard]

Given the conditions you described (ie, no oncoming traffic), surely he would have had full beam on? With no blind corners I would have thought that would have given him much more time to react. Of course, having the car overloaded would have caused the car to take a lot longer to brake. Anyway, as said before, if the insurance company hears about the 7 people, they will probably disown him; any excuse to get out of paying up.

Moot point, but is it actually legal requirement for a warning triangle to be carried, or only a suggestion? A triangle 100 metres away would certainly give anyone oncoming a better chance to stop, assuming of course there was time to set it up.

[torched_geek]

He broke the law..
He's outside of the law..
To be honest, I don't think idiots like this should be on the road.

[JPreston]

You are not allowed to park on a road above 30 miles....

Yes you are, I know lots of roads up to NSL where cars are always parked. Also if you car was involved in an accident, say you drove it into a tree and are slumped unconscious above a pool of petrol, do you really think the law regards you as having illegally parked? Or that it's safe to use your hazards in such a situation?

Are you telling me Preston that you drive around at no higher than 30 miles an hour at night? If someone is standing in the middle of the road in the dark and your going 60 you have a high chance of not spotting them till its too late...

...then you are driving too fast then aren't you? I drive along a lot of narrow country roads, the kind that have passing areas because two cars cannot pass along most of their length. In theory the speed limit is 60mph, and of course I drive as fast as the conditions allow. But where there is no pavement pedestrians have to use the road don't they? And cyclists? Fallen tree branches? Cows? Blind corners? The driver always has to ensure he can safely stop in the distance he can see to be clear, given the road conditions.

I'd like to hear your friend report how he was innocently driving with an illegal number of passengers when he had to swerve to avoid a pedestrian who magically appeared out of nowhere before driving into a stationery camouflaged vehicle, but it's not his fault because....erm....actually I'm glad he's off the road for a while, makes the world safer for the rest of us

[Kumagoro]

Yes you are, I know lots of roads up to NSL where cars are always parked.

Monkey see monkey do aye, perhaps you being off the road would make the world safer too hehehehe

223: All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph.

Law RVLR reg 24

don't have parking lights, then use side lights

The road is wide has good visibility as far as I'm concerned and isn't some back road. He says he was going only 45 mph, as he was carrying that many people, or so he says.

The bloke standing in the road is an Idiot (especially if he turned his lights off) you can't be held responsible for other people idiocy. If he was carrying a triangle to put in the road then OK but that's not the case as far as I know.

By your reasoning you can never go above 30 just in case there is a brick lying in the road, as you should see it and were not driving at the correct speed considering the conditions.

[pak000]

The point is he drove into a stationary vehicle. Regardless of whether it had lights on or not, it would have been visible on a straight road and he should have been able to stop in time - if he couldn't, he was driving too fast.

The guy standing in the road waving suggests one of two things - 1) a drunk 2) a problem ahead. Regardless I would have slowed down a touch and paid more attention just in case it wasn't option 1.

If he had been driving with his max load of people i would say he was probably in the wrong, but could argue it if he was persistant. With an overloaded car, not a chance.

[kalniel]

By your reasoning you can never go above 30 just in case there is a brick lying in the road, as you should see it and were not driving at the correct speed considering the conditions.

That wasn't the reasoning - the reasoning was that you should never drive faster than you're observation allows you to react. That's why you slow down more on left hand corners with walls/hedges than right, because you have less observation distance to react in.

[Kumagoro]

Say you were driving behind someone at the recommended distance of 2-3 seconds and then you hit a brick which appears from under the car infront it bursts your tire you veer off the road and run down some old dear. Should you be sent down for Manslaughter?

You cannot be prepared for all eventualities, there are no absolute safe driving speeds.

Ignoring that he was carrying more people than hes allowed.
I Don't see how he can be held 100% responsible for the crash the person who is standing in the road (which you are not supposed to do) and not having his lights on, which is breaking the law, must have some responsibility.

[JPreston]

Monkey see monkey do aye, perhaps you being off the road would make the world safer too hehehehe

223: All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph.

....

OK I concede to someone who will take the time to google up the Highway Code

But surely you notice that this says "when parked" not "after having been involved in an accident"

...By your reasoning you can never go above 30 just in case there is a brick lying in the road...

Not at all, and stop pulling '30mph' out of the air because it is an entirely arbitrary number that I did not refer to. I'm saying that drivers should travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions, eg when approaching a blind corner in heavy rain even 30mph is too fast. My car is really good though, because fortunately it is equipped with pedals that allow me to vary its speed. It is quite new I suppose.

Even on a road that does not usually have pedestrians or stationery vehicles on it, driving so fast that you have to swerve to avoid pedestrians and then crash into a stationery car means you were not driving at 'appropriate speed'. If the road really is wide and with good visibility TBH this just makes his driving even more negligent.

Anyway, if you friend is trying to say he is not at fault, who is? I'd say being able to avoid a stationery obstruction in the road is beneath the minimum requirement for legal driving. Tell him good luck with the police and insurance companies

[JPreston]

...
I Don't see how he can be held 100% responsible for the crash the person who is standing in the road (which you are not supposed to do) and not having his lights on, which is breaking the law, must have some responsibility.

Because he was driving the only vehicle that was moving, because there is nothing illegal about pedestrians walking along roads (even where careless drivers might not be anticipating them), and because he crashed into the scene of an earlier accident so noone had to display lights?

[Kumagoro]

Mr wavy arms mans car was not involved in the accident therefore he is parked, there's no reason why he should not have his lights off.

I didn't pick 30 Mph out of the air, consider that parked cars don't need to have lights on, on roads at or below 30 Mph.
To me this implies that you should be able to see things at 30 regardless of lights.

[kalniel]

Say you were driving behind someone at the recommended distance of 2-3 seconds and then you hit a brick which appears from under the car infront it bursts your tire you veer off the road and run down some old dear. Should you be sent down for Manslaughter?

2-3 seconds distance should be plenty of time to avoid an object in the road. That's the point - it's giving observation distance, whether that's from the car or a hedge blocking your view.

[Kumagoro]

I notice that you use the word should and not would.

[kalniel]

Of course - I can't cover all possible scenarios from excessive tread wear, poor breaks, tiredness, or heaven forbid - carrying more people in the car than it's designed for

[Kumagoro]

Some how you seem to have forgotten anything which is beyond your own control.

[kalniel]

No that's what the observation distance is for. Were it otherwise you could just travel 1 foot behind the car infront.

[DR]

Kumagoro are you sure this is a work friend and not you? You seem to be trying to argue in his favour over a lot of points..