Driving without due care and Attention a possible ban?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nvingo

Distinguished Member
Yeah know its not good he walked away from the scene.
The lady was in the left lane which has priority.
From what he said initially he was past her from the traffic lights and was to cut in but then she accelerated unexpectedly it seems, but yeah as you say, my thoughts to left lane gets priority just not sure if it was to a late to hang back by then.
Basically a 30/40mph road, where 2 lanes filter in 1. He was on outside and accelerated keenly away to go past car on left, it seems as he went to go past lady in other car decided to accelerate also. Meaning they were then neck and neck as 2 lanes ran out.
He had initially thought he had hit a bollard or similar on right side and I think was looking to left to much at the lady not letting him in.
Unfortunately he left the scene with shopping as he is a carer for my Mum who had a massive stroke and is paralysed down one side, and my dad has always been quite anxious about leaving her alone, but knows now should not of left the scene.
I still disagree that there is any priority given to the left or right lanes, it's purely on who is ahead when the lanes merge (unless it's clear that a particular lane is ending).
If the driver in the right lane is ahead and the driver in the left lane then tries to pass, they are 'overtaking on the inside' or colloquially, undertaking. That is the action that led to the collision.

The driver did not 'leave the scene'; there are reasons why a driver doesn't have to remain - in this instance keeping the period of unattendance of a cared for person to a minimum, but reasons in other circumstances might include fear for safety - car-jacking, road rage.
But where the driver's legal failure comes is in failure to report within 24 hours. That is serious.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
I still disagree that there is any priority given to the left or right lanes, it's purely on who is ahead when the lanes merge (unless it's clear that a particular lane is ending).
If the driver in the right lane is ahead and the driver in the left lane then tries to pass, they are 'overtaking on the inside' or colloquially, undertaking. That is the action that led to the collision.

The driver did not 'leave the scene'; there are reasons why a driver doesn't have to remain - in this instance keeping the period of unattendance of a cared for person to a minimum, but reasons in other circumstances might include fear for safety - car-jacking, road rage.
But where the driver's legal failure comes is in failure to report within 24 hours. That is serious.
Yeah I understand, I think this is what happened initially, he was not madly zooming past he just was in right lane from lights and accelerated faster and was I guess going to pull over to left lane when she decided to as you say speed up and under take.
I am pretty sure Police attended his house on the day like, and he would of reported it if not.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
Thanks for comments and opinions on this, its always good to get a wider view on things.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
I still disagree that there is any priority given to the left or right lanes, it's purely on who is ahead when the lanes merge (unless it's clear that a particular lane is ending).
If the driver in the right lane is ahead and the driver in the left lane then tries to pass, they are 'overtaking on the inside' or colloquially, undertaking. That is the action that led to the collision.
It's common sense that if the car in the right hand lane is ahead then all it takes is deceleration to let that car merge safely. It's good driving and reading the road as to what is ahead of you. If you are belligerent and force the car to stay out there then that driver is a complete a'hole.

Some roads that merge often have an arrow, usually in the right hand lane a few hundred metres before the road does actually merge. Because we drive on the left than priority is usually (although not always) given to the vehicle in the left land. Onus is on the vehicle in the right hand lane to blend safetly. The onus on the driver in the left land is to let cars merge in turn. Unfortunately far too many drivers want to own that 10 metres of road and woe betide those who try to steal it.

I noticed yesterday in fact that on the one entering our village that there was bits of car been swept into the gutter where two cars had merged their body work.

Police will charge people in these circumstances with driving without due care because that is exactly what it is. Collisions like that are always caused by the weakest component of a car. The nut behind the wheel.

With the OP's father it was he who caused a collision be trying to own that 10 metres of road when he should have been looking at the road ahead and made a safe decision to slow and blend. That's where the driving without due care comes in. His defence is that the other driver accelerated to own that valuable 10 metres, but he has to prove it. As soon as he hit the on coming car that defence is null and void as it was his action in staying to the right when the road was running out.

As for 'undertaking' it is actually not illegal. It is the manner of undertaking that is called into question. In slow moving traffic or heavy traffic controlled by lanes, which at the time it was, then another car going faster, providing the speed limit is adhered to, in the left hand lane is not classed as 'undertaking'. That is clearly covered in the Highway Code.
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
Meaning they were then neck and neck as 2 lanes ran out.
From what he said initially he was past her from the traffic lights and was to cut in but then she accelerated unexpectedly it seems
It's common sense that if the car in the right hand lane is ahead then all it takes is deceleration to let that car merge safely. It's good driving and reading the road as to what is ahead of you. If you are belligerent and force the car to stay out there then that driver is a complete a'hole.
I accept that both drivers were being belligerent but the lady could see OP's father ahead and accelerated up to level with him - according to OP's description.
His defence is that the other driver accelerated to own that valuable 10 metres, but he has to prove it.
Reliable unbiased eyewitness to the buildup probably not available unless traffic police sourced dashcam or CCTV; most anyone could have done was turned their heads upon hearing the car sliding on its roof.
As for 'undertaking' it is actually not illegal. It is the manner of undertaking that is called into question. In slow moving traffic or heavy traffic controlled by lanes, which at the time it was, then another car going faster, providing the speed limit is adhered to, in the left hand lane is not classed as 'undertaking'.
My understanding has always been, if the lanes diverge, traffic in the left lane can move faster than traffic to their right; it's not called 'overtaking' or 'undertaking' because they're effectively already on different roads though there may be subsequent opportunity to switch lanes; and when both/all lanes are queued traffic can proceed at the speed of the queue in the lane they're in even if it differs to the speed of traffic in other lanes.

As in this instance we have at best incomplete information about the traffic conditions, whether there were traffic lights, the width of the road before and after the merge, and the positions of the two cars in any queues, any opinion expressed is speculation.
 

lee1980

Well-known Member
I do hate these 2-1 lanes or Merge in turn etc. There are a few by us, on the whole most play nicely but have seen cars/vans going logger heads until last minute one will relent.
Let see what happens in May now, quite a wait until for us until court date.
 

noiseboy72

Distinguished Member
The whole point is moot anyway. The driver is not being prosecuted for not giving way or driving aggressively, but for causing a collision with an oncoming vehicle by crossing onto the oncoming lane - and it seems, not being aware that it had even happened. They should have been aware of the length of the merge lane and made a decision long before that point as to whether they were going to be able to complete the overtake safely.

Anyone who has been in even a low speed collision will know that the noise and shock from the impact is hard to ignore. I struggle to understand how anyone could mistake a severe vehicle to vehicle collision with a bump against a plastic bollard.

Just be grateful no one was killed or seriously injured or you could be talking prison time, let alone a ban...
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
They should have been aware of the length of the merge lane and made a decision long before that point as to whether they were going to be able to complete the overtake safely.
They were and could, had the parameters not been changed by the driver being overtaken (that point is clear in the Highway Code).
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
 

cottonpickers

Active Member
My understanding is

there is a precedent set for the ‘merging lane’ issue where the driver in the position of your father was deemed to be at fault by deliberately accelerating.

separately overtaking and hitting an oncoming vehicle is a serious fault

leaving the scene is a third fault

If he were my father I would hope he wasn’t overly penalised but looking from the outside a ban may be appropriate
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
But you don't know that. It is unclear what happened in the lead up to the single lane merge.
As I said earlier:
Reliable unbiased eyewitness to the buildup probably not available unless traffic police sourced dashcam or CCTV; most anyone could have done was turned their heads upon hearing the car sliding on its roof.
As in this instance we have at best incomplete information about the traffic conditions, whether there were traffic lights, the width of the road before and after the merge, and the positions of the two cars in any queues, any opinion expressed is speculation.
We can only go by what the OP said:
He was on outside and accelerated keenly away to go past car on left, it seems as he went to go past lady in other car decided to accelerate also. Meaning they were then neck and neck as 2 lanes ran out.
I mean, it looks like a case of, lady driver presumes she can get away faster than OAP, whilst OAP presumes he can get away faster than lady driver.
 
Last edited:

noiseboy72

Distinguished Member
So the scenario is that you pull away from the lights, but after glancing to your left, you realise the car on the inside (continuous) lane is accelerating at a similar speed to you. You have 2 choices. Accelerate more or brake.

Question: What does your car do more quickly, brake or accelerate? What therefore is in 99% of cases, the safest and most obvious course of action?

The car on the inside is unlikely to have increased acceleration by any degree once both were moving. Even something small and light with a powerful engine cannot increase acceleration very much, so it's much more likely that a relatively constant acceleration curve was being followed by both cars.

Just because the car in the merge lane is slightly ahead does not mean that the car on the inside needs to brake to let it in. Rule 133 applies:

1617205470593.png
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
there is a precedent set for the ‘merging lane’ issue where the driver in the position of your father was deemed to be at fault by deliberately accelerating.
you realise the car on the inside (continuous) lane
Just because the car in the merge lane is slightly ahead does not mean that the car on the inside needs to brake
Until OP identifies the subject section of road, we can't be certain that the inside lane automatically equals the continuous lane and that the outside lane automatically becomes the merge, or discontinued, lane.

The trouble is that most people will have the biased view that drivers in the right-hand lane (by being there) are automatically at fault, so they would rather queue in the left lane than use both lanes to shorten the queue, then claim innocence should any collision occur (not caused by, but as a result of, their belligerence).

Slowing down may be more pertinent than being right.
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Complete supposition on my part but I wonder if the Court will consider these as two separate offences.

Case 1 an RTC, the OP was on the wrong side of the road and struck an oncoming vehicle.
Case 2 2 vehicles neither of which wanted to accede priority.

The Father is presumed guilty of Case 1. How case 2 goes may well affect the severity of the charge in Case 1.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and on seeing the woman wasn't going to let him in he should have backed off. But it's also possible that he may have run out of options by then.
 

noiseboy72

Distinguished Member
He's already pleaded guilty to the charge of driving without due care.

It sounds like the court appearance is for sentencing only.
 

depot

Well-known Member
@lee1980 Although your dad has pleaded guilty, it might be worth talking to a solicitor who does traffic cases, to see if it’s worth having one with your dad at his court case, to explain any mitigating circumstances, and yourself and your dad, have my deepest sympathies, I looked after my dad for a bit over a year, and no one can understand the pressure, strain and worry it entails until you’ve been though it, I have to admit I probably wasn’t to far away from a breakdown myself,

And it’s easy for me to say, but even the loss of his licence isn’t the end, a good local taxi firm can make all the difference in getting around,
 

Thug

Moderator
Could you post a google maps screen grab of the road/area?

I personally don't think he will get a ban.
We are happy (Not really the right word i guess) that he was driving without due care and attention. He was looking to his left instead of the road ahead and clearly crosses the white line into oncoming traffic causing a collision.
Now the collision could have easily just been wing damage, but unfortunately through sheer bad luck it wasn't. This wont mean much as no party was hurt.
There is also the other offences of leaving the scene of a collision, not reporting a collision and failing to exchange details. None of these will result in a ban.
You could also look at the ethical side of 'driving off and not checking on the welfare of those who were involved' (how would you feel if someone flipped your dads car and drove off?).

The courts could be adjourned for sentencing, which i suspect could be a fine and driving awareness course, which he would be an ideal candidate for (passed his test many years ago, skills slipped, complacent, etc). They could also get adjourned due to not having time to deal with it on the day of the hearing and covid.

I know he has a lot on his mind, but that it more of a reason NOT to be driving as your mind HAS TO BE on your driving and not life's pressures.

This is an elderly guy, who uses the car to look after a family member, who has had a damage only collision. He has shown remorse and pleaded guilty at his first opportunity.
I still think a driver awareness course will be the correct 'punishment' for him.
And a possible fine for the other offences.
 
Last edited:

nvingo

Distinguished Member
Good to see the informed input.
 

oneman

Active Member
I'm not an expert but a quick Google indicated the vast majority of people aren't banned. However expect a hefty fine, 6 to 9 points and a jump in insurance.

Reality is if he is that distracted then he needs to consider if he should be driving.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
Reality is if he is that distracted then he needs to consider if he should be driving.
Now are you making that assumption because of his age? I don't consider 70 years of age as being too old to drive and should hang up his driving keys. A driver's awareness course may be all he needs to firm up on his skills. I was almost side swiped by a young woman on a roundabout today because she thought she could straight line it.
 

oneman

Active Member
Now are you making that assumption because of his age? I don't consider 70 years of age as being too old to drive and should hang up his driving keys. A driver's awareness course may be all he needs to firm up on his skills. I was almost side swiped by a young woman on a roundabout today because she thought she could straight line it.
Wow, jumping to conclusion much, did I touch a raw nerve ?

I was referring to the worry of leaving a vulnerable person home alone causing a distraction. Its been mentioned several times by other people.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
I was referring to the worry of leaving a vulnerable person home alone causing a distraction. Its been mentioned several times by other people.
When you get behind the wheel of a car your attention should be 100% on your driving yet I think it's fair to say that almost everyone has driven on the roads without giving it 100%. Not everyone can drive in stressful situations and give 100%. That covers all age brackets from an OAP wanting to get home to a sick wife to a young man turning round to chastise waring children in the back. Those couple of seconds of inattention can lead to collisions.

Some people can pass a driving test but will never make for a good safe driver as long as they have a hole in their bottom. As my wife often says they are not bad drivers because they are old(ish) they've been bad drivers all their life. I realise that I'll be 70 in less than two months and I've made a concession to that fact. I've bought a Volvo, driving gloves and flat cap. Old man's car if ever there was one.

Not hit a nerve, just pointing out that old people don't have a monopoly on poor driving, it's right through the age range. I doubt that there are many 70 year olds driving after taking some Columbian marching powder though.

I use to be an advanced driver now I'm just advanced in years. :(
 

dmpzsn

Well-known Member
When you get behind the wheel of a car your attention should be 100% on your driving yet I think it's fair to say that almost everyone has driven on the roads without giving it 100%. Not everyone can drive in stressful situations and give 100%. That covers all age brackets from an OAP wanting to get home to a sick wife to a young man turning round to chastise waring children in the back. Those couple of seconds of inattention can lead to collisions.

Some people can pass a driving test but will never make for a good safe driver as long as they have a hole in their bottom. As my wife often says they are not bad drivers because they are old(ish) they've been bad drivers all their life. I realise that I'll be 70 in less than two months and I've made a concession to that fact. I've bought a Volvo, driving gloves and flat cap. Old man's car if ever there was one.

Not hit a nerve, just pointing out that old people don't have a monopoly on poor driving, it's right through the age range. I doubt that there are many 70 year olds driving after taking some Columbian marching powder though.

I use to be an advanced driver now I'm just advanced in years. :(
I will be 71 this year and I've just been contacted by my examiner to let me know he'll be conducting my Diploma Advanced Driving 3 yearly re-test when we can later this year. Not every driver over the age of 65 is either old or can't concentrate enought to drive safely. Don't forget there are poor drivers of all ages on the roads today.

I'm also a disabled driver who drives a manual car for usually around 20k miles a year.
 

oneman

Active Member
I guess some people feel the need to defend themselves against something that wasn't even said ?

As for driving while distracted, emotional, etc. I think I can safely say we have all done it occasionally. It's a problem if it happens continuously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Austrian Audio launches Hi-X65 headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Roku expands streaming content with Roku Originals
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 12th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Bluesound unveils new generation of Node and Powernode audio players
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom