Case Study 2
Challenge of a "stated case" from the High Court in 1993
My challenge of this case, based upon experience and knowledge of Highway Code and Road Traffic Act, which ultimately resulted in a victory in court recently for the claimant for several thousand pounds.
"I believe that the learned Judge’s summation is flawed, as the interpretation of the Highway Code in theory, may look to be correct, but in practice and in my experience, which in this case I would respectfully suggest is far greater than the judge’s which appears a theoretical exercise."
The Judge’s theory which translated in simple terms means that one may keep going around a roundabout, as long as one is in the nearside lane and not indicating until prior to the exit required. This is nonsense and just does not work and I can name roundabouts where due to the number of accidents, the council have painted arrows in each lane to indicate to drivers as to which exit they are expected to leave at. AND to exit at anything above 180 degrees a driver should be in the outer lane, not the nearside one.
When I look at the satellite map of this roundabout, I see a picture of the A24 coming into the roundabout at 6 o clock and exiting at about 1 o clock therefore over 180 degrees. The final exit is about 3 o clock.
I believe the Judge’s interpretation of not leaving a roundabout from the nearside lane, until a signal of intent is given to leave that roundabout were put into force, the number of accidents that occur on roundabouts, which is already high, would undoubtedly increase. It would also mean that the percentages of drivers who do go on further than they should are not complying with paragraph 160 of Highway Code.
This has not been quoted this correctly as section 162 of the Highway Code 2004 edition states quite clearly "to select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout" this part he has omitted from his summation in paragraph 2 of page 2. He may well have referred to an older copy of the Highway Code, but the 2004 version is the one relevant to this accident and it is from this copy I quote. Consequently this is incorrect as claimant may well argue that the third party did not do approach from the correct lane, which I would agree.
This view was expressed by claimant's barrister and the case was won.
All information relating to cases shown are as an example and no personal details revealed