dabossman:

I had a similar experience with some guys who turned out to be drunk. They were speeding down the slow lane while I was on the fast lane. Suddenly a danfo stopped at the bus stop to drop passengers, blocking their path. Without any thought, without indicating, the driver just swung the nose of his car in front of me. I slammed the brakes and even tried swinging away from him, but couldn't because of the concrete culvert on my left. Next thing I hit him on his left fender just before the driver's door (for you to know that we were almost parallel when he switched lanes.

This is pretty much the same as Op.... and your mindset is the same.... your lane is clear and whatever is happening in the other lanes is not your business. If you were a defensive driver...most likely the accident could've been avoided. How?... you noticed the car speeding in the slow lane.... noticed the Danfo suddenly stopped to drop off a passenger. As soon as the Danfo braked...before it came to a stop... you should have anticipated the speeding car may take evasive action... which was to come towards your lane. At that point you had two options..... to speed up or brake. He didn't signal so I guess all was well until he was about to cut you off... only then you braked. Your words. Unlike Op... your hitting his front fender would make you not at fault...according to the damage....not according to your statement! If you had hit from front door towards the back of the car... you would share the blame...according to the damage. Hit back..like op..you take all the blame. Observe and anticipate to avoid accidents. Even if unavoidable...the damage can indicate the other person was at fault.

The problem with Lagos driver is Ego... give that 2sec distance and one guy would rush in between in a manner as if to say "guy comet for road if you no dey go make person go jor" so wot do I do... create another 2sec distance... after all its better late than never...

DelTel:


"pls let's understand statements before jumping to conclusions.

The Facts (or statements) before us are different from what your stories are.

The only one who jumped to a conclusion here, Oga, is you. My story was meant to point out the fact that the 2nd set of people to arrive at the scene of an accident always misjudge because they weren't there when it occurred. They are the ones to quote laws not minding the prevailing circumstances.
Please take a large slice of you own advice. Don't jump to conclusions without first understanding a submission.

Thank you

Originalsly:
This is pretty much the same as Op.... and your mindset is the same.... your lane is clear and whatever is happening in the other lanes is not your business. If you were a defensive driver...most likely the accident could've been avoided. How?... you noticed the car speeding in the slow lane.... noticed the Danfo suddenly stopped to drop off a passenger. As soon as the Danfo braked...before it came to a stop... you should have anticipated the speeding car may take evasive action... which was to come towards your lane. At that point you had two options..... to speed up or brake. He didn't signal so I guess all was well until he was about to cut you off... only then you braked. Your words. Unlike Op... your hitting his front fender would make you not at fault...according to the damage....not according to your statement! If you had hit from front door towards the back of the car... you would share the blame...according to the damage. Hit back..like op..you take all the blame. Observe and anticipate to avoid accidents. Even if unavoidable...the damage can indicate the other person was at fault.

It's always very easy to give this kind of advice until it happens to you. Defensive driver kwa? Issokay. Pray you don't meet what is beyond your control. I hope you know that every car has a rate at which it decelerates and it is the dependent on many factors including the type of road surface, speed at which you are moving and even your tyres. As much as it is said that you should assume you are the only sane one on the road, it is not so easy to avoid a vehicle that is coming straight at you, or suddenly broadsides you.

In sane societies, this farce of a defense that people make would never hold water. Not when you're probably captured on CCTV. But alas, in Nigeria, anything goes.

dabossman:


It's always very easy to give this kind of advice until it happens to you. Defensive driver kwa? Issokay. Pray you don't meet what is beyond your control. I hope you know that every car has a rate at which it decelerates and it is the dependent on many factors including the type of road surface, speed at which you are moving and even your tyres. As much as it is said that you should assume you are the only sane one on the road, it is not so easy to avoid a vehicle that is coming straight at you, or suddenly broadsides you.

In sane societies, this farce of a defense that people make would never hold water. Not when you're probably captured on CCTV. But alas, in Nigeria, anything goes.

Sane countries is where defensive driving rules. I'm not saying defensive driving prevents accidents altogether... but it reduces them a whole lot...especially rear end collisions.

Originalsly:
Yes... I read the story... and understood it very well. The OP would be at fault. Why? He saw the taxi suddenly pulling out into the path of the Honda. A defensive driver at that instance would anticipate the Honda would take evasive action and move over to the fast lane....which the lady did. At the same instant Op...if he were a defensive driver... should have anticipated the Honda would swerve into his lane..the fast lane. His options.... either brake to avoid the Honda...or change lane. From his story... he still believes the Honda had no business in his clear fast lane. When the Honda got in the lane is when he applied the brakes... that was too late... and driving too fast on the wet road did not help. To smash the car flush from the back shows little was done in time to avoid the accident or he was over speeding. The back of the Honda should never have been hit.The lady avoided the taxi...same situation...the taxi suddenly pulling into her lane... couldn't he then avoid her in his lane?

Which lane do you expect him to run to? The road divider? Or Bush?

mfm04622:

Which lane do you expect him to run to? The road divider? Or Bush?

The answers are in what you quoted.... I can't explain it any simpler nor make you read and understand.

Originalsly:
The answers are in what you quoted.... I can't explain it any simpler nor make you read and understand.

You claimed he could have avoided her as she avoided the taxi and I just asked how he could have done that! You children of nowadays just insult anybody because of anonymity afforded by Internet? How could he have avoided her? Moved from the last lane to the divider? Or move to the lane she ran away from?
Do you even drive? Defensive driving my foot. Theory is of course very easy.

If you are driving, you need to go back to DRIVING SCHOOL! To know who has priority in every situation. For example, at roundabouts, the car on the left have priority. At the junction, the car on the bigger Road has priority. The car going straight also has priority. The car on a lane already has priority and any car that want to change lane has to defer to the car already on the lane. If you don't and the car hit you from behind , you are at fault, Mr. Namesabipass . Or you are one of those who think the driver already on the lane has to give you way because you signaled you want to change lane?

mfm04622:


You claimed he could have avoided her as she avoided the taxi and I just asked how he could have done that! You children of nowadays just insult anybody because of anonymity afforded by Internet? How could he have avoided her? Moved from the last lane to the divider? Or move to the lane she ran away from?
Do you even drive? Defensive driving my foot. Theory is of course very easy.

If you are driving, you need to go back to DRIVING SCHOOL! To know who has priority in every situation. For example, at roundabouts, the car on the left have priority. At the junction, the car on the bigger Road has priority. The car going straight also has priority. The car on a lane already has priority and any car that want to change lane has to defer to the car already on the lane. If you don't and the car hit you from behind , you are at fault, Mr. Namesabipass . Or you are one of those who think the driver already on the lane has to give you way because you signaled you want to change lane?

If you are speeding in the fast lane... a tanker is speeding equally in the slow lane but is 12 car lengths ahead of you.... the driver loses control and the tanker starts skidding across the highway towards your lane... what would you do? Teach me... I can't afford driving school but want to learn.

Originalsly:
If you are speeding in the fast lane... a tanker is speeding equally in the slow lane but is 12 car lengths ahead of you.... the driver loses control and the tanker starts skidding across the highway towards your lane... what would you do? Teach me... I can't afford driving school but want to learn.

In 12 car lengths, I should be able to stop my car before hitting the tanker. Did the OP had 12 car lengths to react? Or do you mean the OP had enough time to react but didn't?

mfm04622:


In 12 car lengths, I should be able to stop my car before hitting the tanker. Did the OP had 12 car lengths to react? Or do you mean the OP had enough time to react but didn't?

Gbam!...he had enough time to react but didn't.

Originalsly:
If you are speeding in the fast lane... a tanker is speeding equally in the slow lane but is 12 car lengths ahead of you.... the driver loses control and the tanker starts skidding across the highway towards your lane... what would you do? Teach me... I can't afford driving school but want to learn.

If while moving to another lane, a car already on the lane need to do ANYTHING (dodge, slow down, move to another lane, hit the brake) for you to safely move into the lane, you are at fault. It is the responsibility of the person moving to ensure he was move safely before doing so.

mfm04622:


If while moving to another lane, a car already on the lane need to do ANYTHING (dodge, slow down, move to another lane, hit the brake) for you to safely move into the lane, you are at fault. It is the responsibility of the person moving to ensure he was move safely before doing so.

This applies for normal driving. Not when you are driving defensively. Here you take preemtive steps and assume all drivers are potential maniacs.

Think of it as when you are driving an phantom or G wagon and don't want any bodies wahala on the road.

That's the concept.

mfm04622:


Die we read the OP's story at all? The OP hit someone that just changed Lane WITHOUT warning! So we should become mind readers while driving to know when people will change lane without warning?

When you are approaching a car from behind you are supposed to horn, to warn them of your approach, most especially when they are likely to cross your path.

fyneboi79:
drivers have become too lazy to be Watchful and most don't use the rear view mirrow

1000% right

dabossman:


Bro, people just use that nonsense excuse to get away with bad driving. You want to switch lanes from slow lane (right) to fast lane (left) and you don't indicate/trafficate and ensure that there are no oncoming vehicles, you just switch lanes. What is that? What happened to giving way to traffic on your left?

I had a similar experience with some guys who turned out to be drunk. They were speeding down the slow lane while I was on the fast lane. Suddenly a danfo stopped at the bus stop to drop passengers, blocking their path. Without any thought, without indicating, the driver just swung the nose of his car in front of me. I slammed the brakes and even tried swinging away from him, but couldn't because of the concrete culvert on my left. Next thing I hit him on his left fender just before the driver's door (for you to know that we were almost parallel when he switched lanes.

Next thing I hear, I hit him from behind, I'm guilty. I went ballistic. You are approaching a parked car, you didn't slow down, indicate, check your mirror for oncoming traffic, you just swung your car onto the next lane. Hell no. After much drama, and intervention by bystanders, we both left the scene to individually go and attend to our damages. The guy and his friends were reeking of alcohol.

Before you switch lanes from right to a faster left lane, you must be sure the coast is clear.

The best response so far.

Iolo:


This applies for normal driving. Not when you are driving defensively. Here you take preemtive steps and assume all drivers are potential maniacs.

Think of it as when you are driving an phantom or G wagon and don't want any bodies wahala on the road.

That's the concept.

I can see that this thread is still alive. The mistake people who are talking about defensive driving here are making is that you are proclaiming someone guilty for not being careful enough while excusing someone who has been reckless and who has broken standard traffic/driving rules. In a country where you have CCTV everywhere and forensic evidence can be used by insurance companies to determine the guilt party, this "you hit me from behind" argument can never stand. Who broke basic traffic/road rules will be the first consideration. You switch lanes without indicating, without checking your mirror, overtaking on the right randomly, then you blame the next man for not being careful/defensive to accommodate your recklessness. Why can't you also bee defensive in your own driving ? Or are we saying if a driver jumps a red light and hits another vehicle, the other driver will be guilty because he wasn't applying defensive driving techniques?

mfm04622:


If while moving to another lane, a car already on the lane need to do ANYTHING (dodge, slow down, move to another lane, hit the brake) for you to safely move into the lane, you are at fault. It is the responsibility of the person moving to ensure he was move safely before doing so.

Originalsly:
Sane countries is where defensive driving rules. I'm not saying defensive driving prevents accidents altogether... but it reduces them a whole lot...especially rear end collisions.

Gbengageorge:



1000% right

Nigeria Highway Code[/b]

VIII. OVERTAKING RULES
[b]Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe for you and other road users.

Before you start to overtake make sure that the road is clear ahead and behind. Look out properly.

Use your mirrors and glance behind you to see the blind spots. You must signal before you start to move out.

Be particularly careful at dusty and in misty environment or bad weather when it is more difficult tojudge speed and distance.

REMEMBER: the LOOK-SIGNAL-LOOK again and MOVE routine ("LSLM".

Clear View

On fast roads, vehicles may be coming up behind much more quickly than you think.

Make sure that the lane you will be going into is clear for a good distance behind and in front of you.

Cutting in

Once you have started to overtake, move past the vehicle you are overtaking as quickly as possible. and leave it plenty of room.

Then move back to the right side of the road as soon as you can, but without cutting in.

Do not accelerate against the rear of the vehicle in front, or out to the left at the last moment. ​The vehicle in front of you may have cause to slow down abruptly. Always move out from a safe distance.

On the right

Overtake only on the left except:
When the driver in front has signalled that he intends to turn left and you can overtake him on the right. Watch out in case the driver in front abruptly changes his mind or has wrongly left his signal on.
When you want to turn to the right at a junction and have signalled to do so.
When traffic is moving slowly in queues and vehicles in the left lane are moving slower than you are.
In a one-way street as vehicles may pass on either side.
​On Being Overtaken
​Do not accelerate when you are overtaken Slow down if necessary to help and let the overtaking vehicle pass.
​Parked Vehicles
On an ordinary two-lane road, give way to vehicles coming towards you before you overtake parked vehicles or other obstructions on your right side of the road.

Sometimes, two vehicles are nearly double parked (an illegal act in itself), or other impediments such as road work, potholes, or mounds of garbage obstruct both sides of the road.

Drivers approaching such obstacles are usually unable to determine which of them should give way to the other.

The general rule is that the vehicle further from the stationary object should slow down or stop to allow the nearer vehicle to go first.

Common sense however should compel both drivers to show adequate caution and consideration for each other. to avoid collision.

Never compete for speed supremacy with other motorists; do not gamble with your life and life of others in traffic; it is sure to end in a crash.

Do Not Overtake

Do not overtake at or when coming to:
A pedestrian crossing, a bus station, a road junction, a corner or bend, a narrow bridge and where the road narrows.
A level crossing; the crest of a hill, when to do so would force another vehicle to swerve or brake suddenly.
If you would have to cross double solid white lines.
If the solid line of the centre lines is nearer you.
When you see a 'NO OVERTAKING' sign

dabossman:

In a country where you have CCTV everywhere and forensic evidence can be used by insurance companies to determine the guilt party, this "you hit me from behind" argument can never stand.

Breaking News..... It is in these very countries that "you hit me from behind. ..you are at fault". If you are stopped at a red light.... a Toyota behind you... a second car...Honda.... brakes failed.... smashed into the back of the Toyota. ...which smashed into the back of your car... which driver is responsible for the damage to your car?

Originalsly:
Breaking News..... It is in these very countries that "you hit me from behind. ..you are at fault". If you are stopped at a red light.... a Toyota behind you... a second car...Honda.... brakes failed.... smashed into the back of the Toyota. ...which smashed into the back of your car... which driver is responsible for the damage to your car?

Someone behind me is different from someone who cut in front of me suddenly without signaling. Don't mix things up. If we are traveling on the same lane it is expected that a reasonable distance should be between us, at least observe the 3 seconds rule. But there is no excuse for a car who veers off its lane into mine giving me less than 2 seconds to react. There is a difference between tailgating and cut in from lane to lane. Two totally different scenarios bro.

Originalsly:
Breaking News..... It is in these very countries that "you hit me from behind. ..you are at fault". If you are stopped at a red light.... a Toyota behind you... a second car...Honda.... brakes failed.... smashed into the back of the Toyota. ...which smashed into the back of your car... which driver is responsible for the damage to your car?

We’ve all heard about the hazards of distracted driving. But a new study, by the Society of Automotive Engineers, says improper use of turn signals causes twice as many accidents.

The study found that 48 percent of the time, drivers either neglected to use their turn signal when changing lanes or failed to turn the signal off. And it found 25 percent of drivers did not use their turn signals when making a turn.

Trooper Nate Reid, with the Colorado State Patrol says, “We’re distracted so much that we’re not paying attention to even using a turn signal that is as little as two to three inches from where our hands rest on the steering wheel.”

He says it’s a lack of concentration and not paying attention to the task at hand.

The study found that turn signal issues cause 2 million accidents a year across the country. Reid says it’s also illegal to have your turn signal on when you are not making a turn.

He says turn signal violations will cost you at least a $70 ticket.

http://kdvr.com/2012/05/01/study-improper-use-of-turn-signals-a-real-danger/


Now read the OP's account and read mine. Did they both not involve people switching lanes suddenly without signaling? Every road accident is judged on the facts of the case, not some street law that is assumed to be one size fits all.

Originalsly:
Breaking News..... It is in these very countries that "you hit me from behind. ..you are at fault". If you are stopped at a red light.... a Toyota behind you... a second car...Honda.... brakes failed.... smashed into the back of the Toyota. ...which smashed into the back of your car... which driver is responsible for the damage to your car?

Finally, look at this video and tell me it was the guy at the back that is guilty./


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvYIlj3T_AU/

laivwire:
//

Let's educate ourselves so we don't cause unnecessary accidents. The onus to be defensive is on every driver. You can't choose to be reckless and then blame the other driver for not being defensive enough


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifb_pQbyCRE

dabossman:


Finally, look at this video and tell me it was the guy at the back that is guilty./


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvYIlj3T_AU/

The video shows an illegal lane change.... driver not following the steps to be taken before changing lanes. The Highway Code does not address Defensive Driving..... it tells you what you are supposed to do... what is expected of you by other motorists. Defensive Driving addresses you as a driver taking actions to avoid an accident with other drivers who are not following the rules. As in the video... the guy changed lane without signalling. ... what did the other driver do?... slowed down and pulled to the left to avoid an accident. That's defensive driving. If he had kept his speed and remained in his lane crashing into the back of the car that cut him off... he would also be at fault because he had time to avoid an accident. You almost always have time to avoid crashing into the back of another vehicle...I guess except under icy broad conditions.Defensive driving. ...like someone said earlier... when you consider every driver on the road is a maniac except you.... and they are trying to get into an accident with you and you are trying to avoid that from happening.

Good arguments all round.
We should also bear in mind that a dead man is NEVER right. We should therefore ALWAYS apply defensive driving technique.
"Better give your path to a dog than be bitten by him in contesting for the right"

Originalsly:
The video shows an illegal lane change.... driver not following the steps to be taken before changing lanes. The Highway Code does not address Defensive Driving..... it tells you what you are supposed to do... what is expected of you by other motorists. Defensive Driving addresses you as a driver taking actions to avoid an accident with other drivers who are not following the rules. As in the video... the guy changed lane without signalling. ... what did the other driver do?... slowed down and pulled to the left to avoid an accident. That's defensive driving. If he had kept his speed and remained in his lane crashing into the back of the car that cut him off... he would also be at fault because he had time to avoid an accident. You almost always have time to avoid crashing into the back of another vehicle...I guess except under icy broad conditions.Defensive driving. ...like someone said earlier... when you consider every driver on the road is a maniac except you.... and they are trying to get into an accident with you and you are trying to avoid that from happening.

Did you watch the video till the end? Was the guy's car not damaged even after slowing down and pulling to the left? Which you have admitted is defensive driving. Yet there was still contact. So, the question is; is he the guilty party? Now imaging there was no space on his left because there's a concrete barrier there. What would have happened?

No one is saying you shouldn't practice defensive driving, but the OP's question is who is at fault? You can't declare a driver who is evidently reckless and has broken basic driving rules innocent and say the other man is guilty because he wasn't defensive enough. That is a travesty of justice. Defensive driving will limit your chances of being in an accident; it won't eliminate it.

ekoboy:
Good arguments all round.
We should also bear in mind that a dead man is NEVER right. We should therefore ALWAYS apply defensive driving technique.
"Better give your path to a dog than be bitten by him in contesting for the right"

sometimes you may not see the dog coming. In driving there is something called your blind side.

Originalsly:
The video shows an illegal lane change.... driver not following the steps to be taken before changing lanes. The Highway Code does not address Defensive Driving..... it tells you what you are supposed to do... what is expected of you by other motorists. Defensive Driving addresses you as a driver taking actions to avoid an accident with other drivers who are not following the rules. As in the video... the guy changed lane without signalling. ... what did the other driver do?... slowed down and pulled to the left to avoid an accident. That's defensive driving. If he had kept his speed and remained in his lane crashing into the back of the car that cut him off... he would also be at fault because he had time to avoid an accident. You almost always have time to avoid crashing into the back of another vehicle...I guess except under icy broad conditions.Defensive driving. ...like someone said earlier... when you consider every driver on the road is a maniac except you.... and they are trying to get into an accident with you and you are trying to avoid that from happening.

How do you practice defensive driving? Is it by some supernatural sensory powers? No. It is still by using basic tools in your car. Checking the rearview mirror, side mirrors and having a birds eyeview of what is ahead of you, then using that to make anticipate events around you. It's not some rocket science technique .

dabossman:
Which you have admitted is defensive driving. Yet there was still contact.

This is where you are missing the point. He did not hit the car in the back.... and this is a car that cut him off suddenly from the next lane. The case in question. .. the driver saw the car veering from at least two lanes over heading into his lane but did nothing to avoid the collision.
The other scenario similar to being given at fault for hitting a vehiclee in the back... is hitting a stationary vehicle. Eg... running into a double parked car..... even though it was not supposed to double park.... it would be your fault.

Originalsly:
This is where you are missing the point. He did not hit the car in the back.... and this is a car that cut him off suddenly from the next lane. The case in question. .. the driver saw the car veering from at least two lanes over heading into his lane but did nothing to avoid the collision.
The other scenario similar to being given at fault for hitting a vehiclee in the back... is hitting a stationary vehicle. Eg... running into a double parked car..... even though it was not supposed to double park.... it would be your fault.

I think you should go to page one and read the OP's account again, then read my account. Both cases involved someone cutting in suddenly from the next lane. The slow lane for that matter.

The problem is there are so many wrong things being done on our roads these days which have now become acceptable because people don't know any different. There was a time in the 80's when people would not even overtake you from the right, even on Lagos-Ibadan expressway. If you were going slowly on the fast lane, the car coming behind you would flash you and you woudl make way by switching to the slow lane. But today you will see drivers who will squeeze themselves between your car and the open gutter to overtake you on the right, and they'll still claim they've done nothing wrong.

I won't say more than this. The day a reckless driver changes lanes suddenly in front of you and there is no time or space for you to avoid contact, I hope you will accept that it is your fault and you will pay to fix the other driver's car. Adios.