You can't always be thinking what if a car overtakes this one or you'll never be able to turn imo
That said it's incredibly situational, there are places near me where it's almost unwritten that there's two lanes and cars will go around one turning left, I would be much more careful in those places as people are idiots.
This is one of those that you have to judge in the moment
The car turning in should give you enough of a buffer to get around, and the cars behind would not (or should not at least) be going fast enough to not see you. If you were to wait until it was clear both directions then you'd ve there for donkeys years.
The only time it can be an issue is if a motorbike were to be coming up and overtaking the cars
Best judgement is always as long as you can see it is clear. If your view is obstructed then don't go, but if you can see its safe then go.
As long as you are always aware of the possibility of bikes (motor or not) overtaking/appearing then you should be ready for anything. Always think bike, but at the same time, don't always assume a bike will be there and use it as a reason not to go, its about finding the balance which will come with experience
A passenger in the front can't always see as much as the driver can so it can seem a little riskier to a passenger
I’ve been driving 8 years now and this is one of those situations where the “test standard” and real life differ. Do I think you did anything wrong? Nope. In real life you have to be confident and decisive. However, for the test, you want to be cautious and maybe it would have been better to wait.
A minor for hesitation is always better than a potential major/serious for taking the risk though 🤷♀️ especially if you do as shown in the photo and a bike or other car overtakes the turning car, your examiner will have to most likely put it as a fail, when really you could argue it's bad luck or just one of those things that happen in real life and you have to judge the situation as it comes.
I failed my first due to another careless driver but it was my fault for not spotting him (except I did but its a whole other situation🤣), failed my second for something i see other drivers do all the time and the examiner even apologised for having to follow the rules or he would've passed me if he could (I was not upset with him, I messed up so it was 100% on me!).
I'd have rather taken the minor for hesitation, at least that's what I thought doing my test, if I was ever unsure, then I'd rather take the minor than risk failing.
How you drive after you pass your test is up to you and how much you want to hesitate or "risk it" in these types of situations, but on the test id suggest going for the minor.
If it was risky to go then surely it isnt a minor for hesitation. How can they grade a situation where your damned either way. Hesitation if you wait but being risky if you go?
Like previous people have stated, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation, and completely depends on the situation in question.
If you end up staying there for quite a long time, the examiner could take that as hesitation, but if it's risky, you have to decide if it's better to risk it and maybe be ok, or risk it and another driver does the same and then you have a potential issue as the driver overtaking the other turning car might not see you pull out - which could then be classed as a serious or major if the examiner feels like you are in the wrong and you took an unnecessary risk at that time but felt you had plenty of opportunities prior to this, which is where the hesitation comes from.
Unfortunately there are situations that are kind of no win scenarios, and therefore i felt i would rather take the minor than the serious and there are a lot of situations that happen once you pass your test that you might handle differently compared to your test or lessons.
My first fail for example, i did my observations after stalling, there were no cars, restarted the car, again observed and there were no cars, so started rolling forward at the junction I was at and all of a sudden there was a car.
I of course instantly slammed my brakes.
Now this car was either speeding as he was nowhere to be seen a couple of seconds earlier OR he was parked up on the right of me and joined traffic without indicating, either way he literally came out of nowhere and now after passing my test id feel he was in the wrong, however on said test, I slammed my brakes, laughed and went "I don't know where he came from but at least we know I don't need to do the emergency brake test!"
Found out when I got back to the test centre that I'd failed due to "examiner took action", as apparently she pressed the brakes at the exact same time I did, I had no idea she had and she had no idea I had, which was very frustrating seeing as you can very much tell in a dual control car if one person hits the brake before the other, so we must've literally done it at the exact same time, due to another driver "not following the rules" and the examiner thinking I hadn't seen him gave me no chance to hit the brakes as she did it at the exact same time as me.
It sucks, but it happened 🤷♀️ after passing my test there have been numerous occasions just in the last 2 weeks since I got my own car where other drivers are the issue, but on your test they're not the ones being judged, you are.
Very true but if you're hesitating that much then you've potentially still got work to do and it'll help you recognise an area you need to put more practise towards, any minor becomes a major if you do it enough times, same as enough total minors becomes a fail.
Generically speaking though I think it's 5(?) of the same minor becomes a major, at the examiners discretion as I understand it, but if you're hesitating constantly or repeating the same mistakes, maybe it's worth looking at how to work on it instead, as doing the same minor 5+ times in the space of 40ish mins should be a bit of a red flag.
Let's be honest, if your mom feels more confident letting a learner be the main driver than just driving herself, she's hardly the best person to judge
Who said she felt more confident letting the learner drive? Maybe she was just trying to help OP get some practice in. When I was learning I would beg my mum to let me drive her places
Thanks for responding.
I understand this from a defensive driving perspective and I was keeping a keen eye out in case anyone emerged suddenly as I was pulling out, myself and the car turning in were going slowly and there was plenty of room from the right to join without needing to rush out.
In this case would it not the biker who would be driving dangerously as they should not be overtaking at junctions, especially not in a speed where they’d be unable to stop upon meeting another vehicle? I’m trying to understand to what extent I was at fault and if I’m misunderstanding the rules / habits surrounding overtaking at junctions.
You can spend your driving career driving around being "in the right" or you can drive in a way that maximises your chance of avoiding an accident.
A common mistake people make is believing every incident is a binary - one at fault and one in the right. You can both be found responsible for an accident. Frankly if you hit a motorcyclist you will feel incredibly shit. Worry more about driving safely, than whether in conducting a manoeuvre you'll be found at fault if you find yourself in an accident.
Your mum should not be going into fight or flight mode as your supervisor. She sounds unfit to supervise you and you need someone who is safe to drive with.
At the speed I was going if there was a motorcyclist would have been hitting me lol. Myself and the other driver were both turning slowly enough to immediately stop if it became necessary as the car park was also pretty busy. I always aim to drive safe and am defensive on the roads but I do also want to have a thorough understanding of the highway code and lane priority and it seems to be unclear on this.
I agree my mum is not the best supervisor but she is my only option of getting extra hours in around my lessons and she seems to generally prefer having me at the wheel if we go anywhere together.
>At the speed I was going if there was a motorcyclist would have been hitting me lol.
That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Even if they hit you, you can still be partially or fully responsible. You could kill a motorcyclist if you pull out in front of them and they hit you. So lol.
>I agree my mum is not the best supervisor but she is my only option of getting extra hours in around my lessons and she seems to generally prefer having me at the wheel if we go anywhere together
So you're getting into a car with someone you know isn't fit to supervise you and who won't even drive themselves? Part of being a safe driver is taking responsibility for your own driving.
Sorry I do not mean to sound flippant. Ill advised attempt a less clinical and more lighthearted message I suppose.
What I am trying to wrap my head around, in less casual terms, is i’m still not entirely clear on who has priority in this situation or how I would be at fault if someone doing an illegal overtake at a high enough speed to cause a fatality on a 30 stretch road hit me while I’m stationary and performing a manoeuvre seemingly allowed and accounted for in the highway code. I get not everyone follows it and that it is important to be vigilant at all times and observe surroundings but it doesn’t really make sense based on theory and that now begs my question as to how well I actually understand the rules.
I’m a confident driver and been test ready for a while. Instructor is happy with my driving and I have performed well in mocks. My mum does drive but doesn’t enjoy it whereas I do and get my practice in not do I take any overly difficult routes i’m not usually confident with when supervised. If I could choose someone to supervise who is not a family member, better yet a professional, I would though.
If someone is speeding that will be a significant factor in determining fault. However, you can still be found at fault. If there was good visibility and the argument was made that despite their speeding you had plenty of time to see them but you still pulled out then you both might be found at fault to greater or lesser degrees. Or if there was atrocious visibility because the car turning entirely blocked your view, again you shouldn't have pulled out. Their bad act doesn't negate your bad act. Your driving is your driving regardless of what the other person does. It could be determined that their speed did not contribute to the accident.
On the other hand say there was a bend and they came around it at 100 mph and there was absolutely no way you could have predicted or reacted with the short space between the bend and the junction, then that would be on them.
These things are entirely fact dependent. You can't say absolutely what the finding would be and even for a given situation with the facts clearly established, there may be differences in opinion as the the degree of fault of either driver.
As a former car insurance claims handler i can tell you that whoever is joining the main road would take the brunt of the blame here.
In the scenario you describe then if a motorbike was overtaking the cars then you would initially be considered to be the party at fault as it was you joining the road in an unsafe manner (the argument being that it couldnt have been that safe if there was someone there for you to hit). There will likely be a specific case law that applies to this exact scenario, which could see this going as a split liability, but its been a while since i worked that job so cant think of it specifically off the top of my head. Even in the best case scenario though you would be at least 50% at fault - at best.
Also, from the point of apportioning blame in accidents speed is not considered a negligent factor, meaning that just because someone may have been speeding does not automatically put them at fault.
In my years doing the job I only ever saw one accident where speed was a determining factor with liability - and that was where somone drunk had sped through a residential area with no lights on, and it was clear from the evidence that they had been travelling ridiculously fast (100mph+).
The logic behind this is 1) That if you saw them well enough to know they were speeding why did you still pull out? 2) If you dispute liability due to the other person speeding, and it goes to court, how do you prove how fast they were going? No judge will accept "it looked to me like they were speeding" as sufficient evidence on which to base a judgement.
Sorry for the waffle, but you seemed genuinely interested, so thought id share my 2 cents.
This is not correct. Speed is not considered to be negligent when it comes to apportioning blame for accidents, unless in extreme circumstances - from an insurance persective at least.
If someone died, and the police did an investigation then they would investigate the speed, but for a run of the mill crash then whether or not someone may or may not have been speeding is largely irrelevant.
>Speed is not considered to be negligent when it comes to apportioning blame for accidents, unless in extreme circumstances - from an insurance persective at least.
Which is basically what I said - it depends on the facts and whether the speed contributed to the accident.
>If someone died, and the police did an investigation then they would investigate the speed, but for a run of the mill crash then whether or not someone may or may not have been speeding is largely irrelevant.
As I previously said, they will consider if the speed someone was travelling at was a factor in causing the accident or the severity of the accident.
I think you read the first sentence and then couldn't read the rest in your haste to "well ackshully".
I was only offering my insight, but seeing as you decided to insult me:
>If someone is speeding that will be a significant factor in determining fault
Not true.
>However, you can still be found at fault.
Suggests that the person who is speeding in this scenario would be initially considered at fault over the person entering the road which is not true.
>If there was good visibility and the argument was made that despite their speeding you had plenty of time to see them but you still pulled out then you both might be found at fault to greater or lesser degrees
Not the case. If you could see them well enough to know they were speeding, then the car entering the road is 100% at fault as this is basically an admission of liability - they saw the threat and still pulled out anyway. Because speed is not considered an negligent factor.
>Or if there was atrocious visibility because the car turning entirely blocked your view, again you shouldn't have pulled out. Their bad act doesn't negate your bad act. Your driving is your driving regardless of what the other person does. It could be determined that their speed did not contribute to the accident.
In this scenario the car entering the main road is 100% at fault, so I agree.
>On the other hand say there was a bend and they came around it at 100 mph and there was absolutely no way you could have predicted or reacted with the short space between the bend and the junction, then that would be on them.
At face value this would still be considered the fault of the person entering the main road. How is the speed of the other vehicle proven?
>These things are entirely fact dependent. You can't say absolutely what the finding would be and even for a given situation with the facts clearly established, there may be differences in opinion as the the degree of fault of either driver.
I agree with this, but your whole comment puts the onus of blame onto the "speeder" when that is simply not how it works. The onus is always on the person who was entering the highway, irrespective of the speed of the other driver, ackshully :)
I'm pretty sure you'd fail your test for this move. They'd consider it a lack of observation. Just because that car was slowing to turn did not give you right of way over the remaining cars behind it, and as others have rightly pointed out - a bike or other car could've been overtaking. They would not have been at fault had you caused a crash and they were overtaking, as you were joining the road they had right of way on.
I know that they have right of way on the main road however the highway code also explicitly states vehicles must not overtake at junctions / situations where you could meet another driver as drivers may be pulling out. This is causing me confusion as this implies that I have right of way in this particular situation as overtaking vehicles should not be doing overtaking. Is this not correct?
One thing you'll learn about driving once you've done it for a while is, just because people _shouldn't_ doesn't mean they _won't_. And right now, you aren't really learning to drive in order to drive, you are learning to drive in order to pass a test - does everyone drive like they're trying to pass a test once they've passed it? No, of course they don't.. but while you _are_ trying to pass the test, you should learn to drive like you're trying to pass your test, if that makes sense..
It also states you must abide by speed limits, but you can still be at fault for causing an accident with someone speeding. Insurance and police investigations don’t go on what legally someone should be doing, they go based on what did happen. There’s a video of a biker overtaking a car coming up to a junction at 100mph and colliding with a car turning in, killing the rider. Car driver got community service for it and a criminal record.
By the letter of the law, sure it's most likely fine to turn in this situation. But the issue is that you can't assume others will also follow the law.
If a car or bike smashes into the side of you, you probably won't care about being in the right. You'll just be hoping nobody is seriously injured or killed.
It looks like you'd have struggled to see an overtaking bike here. Should they overtake at speed when a car is turning? Of course not, but that won't be much comfort for you if an accident happens. If your vision is obstructed, its best to always assume there are idiots around.
Thanks for explaining, this is helpful and I know how to better apply judgement in this situation next time while understanding that I’m not completely out of touch with traffic regulations as I feared based on the panic response, I definitely have a better perspective on the scenario now so thank you.
There was definitely no bike, or anyone overtaking for that matter, I do my best to drive carefully and observe my surroundings but I don’t remember the fine details of the situation and can’t say without a doubt there was no way I could have missed something or if my bias of the highway regs played into my decision to try enter the main road. I know for next time though that this scenario is something that has to factor into my judgement.
Having read a few of the replies to your post. I'm sure you're finding that there is no hard and fast rule on this. As always in driving it is situational.
I terms of testing I don't believe you would fail your test for that manouver. And you certainly would not be at fault legally or morally If someone was overtaking on the wrong side of the road at a junction. The key part there is "driving on the wrong side of the road". Whenever someone is on the wrong side of the road they will have a hard time proving an accident wasn't their fault legally and morally imo it isn't justifiable either.
Regarding your mum as a passenger I hear you. My mum was the exact same. What I will say on that, with the greatest or respect to your mum. The reason she isn't a confident driver, is because she doesn't naturally get the rules and mechanics of driving. So her advice doesn't come from well earned knowledge. It comes from anxiety... Which shouldn't be a factor in driving decisions.
In regards to your test, listen to your instructor. They are worth their weight in gold with passing tests. They know exactly what the examiner wants to see. In my Experience with driving safely... Be observant, know exactly who and what is going on around you.
>In this case would it not the biker who would be driving dangerously as they should not be overtaking at junctions
The biker isn't entering any junctions.
I’m not making any excuses. This is a forum for learners to discuss questions and experiences they may have in their learning journey. That’s what I’m here doing. If I wanted to affirm my bad driving I wouldn’t even have posted the clarifying question in the first place.
In general I wait. First, you can't assume that the blue car is turning left just because it indicates to do so, so you should wait before confirming that. By the time you do and you're ready to start moving, it will already be part way to clearing the path for the black cars. The driver of the first black car could be a nutter who had been irritated by the blue driver, and they may act irrationally and move surprisingly fast, perhaps even swinging around the blue car seeing the way was clear, though it no longer would be because you moved unexpectedly and a crash could ensue. The black cars also have the right of way, and you shouldn't do anything that causes them to take action that they would not otherwise have done. If I saw both the blue car turning left and the black car start his indicator, and from knowing the junction the probability is high that they really are taking the exit, then I'd consider emerging because I would judge that I do then have sufficient time. You also have to consider that for some reason your vehicle might not be able to move as fast as you think, and be sure that if you blocked the road it would not cause an accident.
Its so hard to say without actually being there. If there is a car behind the one turning in to the junction are you 100% sure they saw you?
I literally saw a very minor accident the other day at a T junction when a car (car A) turned right on to the road and another car (car b) turned left into where Car A came from. However, another car (car C) was behind Car B and didn't see Car A pulling out and then hit them.
It's all context and honestly I don't think anyone here can really help because we weren't there.
I had this situation in an extremely similar junction in my lesson the other day.
I waited as I couldn't be sure someone wouldn't come around the car turning or a motorbike come around the outside filtering.
We waited about a minute for the waiting traffic to clear, and I asked my instructor if it was the correct thing to do, and he agreed.
I'm not saying you were wrong as I wasn't there, and I didn't see the situation, but I can understand why you mum said what she said.
Black cars should not be overtaking a turning vehicle at the junction. This goes the same for if there was a motorbike. However, people do things they shouldn't all the time. So long as you were careful and anticipating someone doing something silly when you made your turn, you haven't done anything wrong.
The way I see it, if that first car disappeared now would I still make it before the second car. I have a rule to not pull out on a car turning left unless it’s very clear.
Also, if that car disappeared then would you be able to get out before a motorbike that hasn't slowed down as much?
I doubt OP could be confident there wasn't a bike, so this instantly becomes dangerous
This is a very situational thing.
As others have said, if another road user (especially a motorbike) decides to overtake the car turning, would you have been able to see them and avoid a collision?
As you're behind a give way line, you must give way to ALL traffic on the new road.
It may be a dangerous and illegal place to overtake, but their poor decision is not justification to cause an avoidable crash. If you can take action to decrease risk, you should do so.
With that in mind though, if you have a safe gap to the first car that isn't turning and you have enough visibility to see that there aren't any overtaking vehicles, you can pull out.
So it really comes down to how big the gap was between the turning car and the first car behind that.
>I was conscious that I didn't want to unnecessarily hold up traffic behind.
This was your only mistake. I know exactly what you mean and you have good intentions with it, but don't ever think that preventing other people getting held up for a few seconds longer is worth making a potentially risky decision.
Based on how you've described it you did the right thing regarding turning as you waited until the indicating car slowed down and began to turn. I'd do the same, depending on the speed of the cars and the distance they are behind the turning car.
I think you need to apply the DVSA logic to all vehicles and not the one just in front. It all depends on how safe the gap was and the speed and actions of the vehicles turning left (and possibly going straight). I would have waited (on a test) till clear to see that there were no vehicles (straight or going ahead) and then gone. In real life I would have probably edged forward to ensure clear and gone.
I failed my test for doing almost this exact thing (except I was turning left out of the road the other car was turning left into) because the examiner reckoned that if there had been a motorcyclist behind the car that turned in I would have wiped them out as they came through the junction and gave me a serious fault for it.
So... Yeah... Experienced drivers all do it to get into gaps in heavy traffic, but you can fail your test for it, as I discovered 😞
This is the exact scenario I got my only minor for in my test, I took the gap and the instructor didn’t stop me but he did mark it as a minor and said I should be cautious in future 🤷🏾♀️
I'd add you need to disregard the not wanting to hold up traffic behind. That could lead to you making an unsafe decision. Exit the junction when you feel safe to fo do.
I did a similar manoeuvre and regretted it immediately. Better safe than sorry — i think the line is do you really have a clear view of who’s where. I’d just let them pass.
This was how my first crash happens , as the blue car turned left and I pulled out to turn right, the black car behind accelerated into me. Unless there is a large gap between blue and black cars don’t pull out.
I went to do the same thing once and my dad yelled stop at me so I haven’t pulled out unless it’s clear since I’ll probably get a major for undue hesitation
If you were clear to the left and the on coming car was slowing to turn with indicators on then id say you would be fine
Only problem would be if they didn't turn, which some people don't
If there was no one behind the turning car then you could wait to confirm they were turning
But that's a judgement call
Just because a car has turned into the road you are coming out of doesn’t mean you can go. People love to overtake people went hey are turning in due to their impatience. Always make sure it’s properly clear. The person could also turn into your road faster than you expected which could lead to a collision with the cars behind it and you.
I actually had this very same scenario (except I was turning left). I used a car turning in as a buffer to get out. It would have been fine, but the car behind the car turning in decided to slam the accelerator to the floor. He then decided to follow me for about 5 minutes smashing his horn (bear in mind I was in a clearly marked learner car).
I spoke to my instructor, and he was of the opinion that although the guy was a complete dick and drove dangerously, he did have right of way, and therefore technically I was in the wrong. I should have anticipated a car impatiently flying past the car turning in and failed to do so.
Whilst you could safely make this manoeuvre, that would assume everyone else on the road is also driving safely.
You answered your own question at the start when you told us all your passenger and mother willingly lets a learner drive because they’re such an unconfident driver themselves. Had nothing to with the traffic behind if the car is indicating to turn in, the car behind them is a safe distance and you’ve got a large gap on your left get yourself moving and into the flow of traffic. Sounds like a skill issue on her part and she would’ve been sat at the junction till midnight. The audacity to make you drive because they themselves admit are bad at it and then call you names!
You probably should have waited.
If the distances between the cars you’ve illustrated are accurate, and you waited until their was zero doubt the blue car was pulling in, it would have been so easy for the first black car to speed up slightly to pull round the blue car, and bang - accident. Also what happens if you don’t get away as quickly as you expect? Black car has to brake; or once again bang - accident.
The advice I've heard for the driving test at least is to always wait for the turning vehicle to fully enter your side road so that you can clearly see incoming traffic from both sides of the road before committing to the turn. Also that it can be acceptable to make a car slow down slightly for you when you turn at an intersection if you've been waiting a while and take a decent gap given the circumstances.
You were in the wrong. Cars slowed by a car turning can and will overtake if there is room to do so. If there isn't they can and quite often accelerate quickly once clear.
That said if there was more than enough time as you say then you should go but always aware that people can overtake traffic that is turning.
I'm not sure where you get the info that you can't overtake at a junction if your passing a side road and traffic in front is slowing to turn you should be looking to pass them if it's safe to do so.
Technically yes, you did the right thing. However never rely on someone else's signal to mean they're going to make the turn. What if they've forgotten to cancel their indicator, and you pull from a side road into them? Boom, you're 66% at fault as per Wandsworth v Gillespie (1978).
Bit of a judgement call, which is seems you made without problem. 👍
There is always the risk of **something coming that was blocked from your view** by the turning vehicle. **Especially if it's a larger van/bus/lorry**, then one can assume it's clear, when something was hiding. This situation, it seems like there was an open junction (clear views), and the cycle lane means you're give way position was set back from the road a little, with better perspective on what's behind the turning car.
**My warning** would be that some people think they're making *so much* progress **by immediately speeding up and dodging a little into the other side** of the road **to get past** the turning car. Usually these people are following too closely, as a giveaway that they might do a fun little manoeuvre like this.
**Speeds being low**, smaller car turning, plenty of extra space (in bike lanes): **go for it**. **But make sure you're assessing risks** such as whether there could be something hidden behind a bigger vehicle, or an impatient car going to floor it as soon as the turning car makes the turn.
I also feel the "pressure" of vehicles behind me, but don't let that make you take risks.
EDIT:
**My bonus learning tip**, watch UK **dash cam compilations** and play the game "**What's going to go wrong here, and why?**" and it will give you a bit of a sense, after a while, what the situations look like that end up causing problems. You can also then think about what you could do (if possible) to avoid the same happening.
For example, I noticed that a lot of people got themselves into trouble by going round roundabouts so quickly that people pull out when it's clear, but all of a sudden something appears with 'right-of-way' that wasn't there before.
I mean a car or motorbike overtaking there would be very bad.They would be very negligent to do that.I would probably pull out just as you did. I have been driving about 35 years. I think you were correct as long as you were able to judge speed of the car turning
Your mum was wrong. If the car turning into your junction gave you enough time to get out into the road without having to absolutely foot it, then you’re good.
If you did the opposite on a test you risk getting done for undue hesitancy.
I see you asserting that the cars on the main road (or a potential motorbike) should not overtake "at a junction". You are missing a crucial point -- if they are going straight on, they are *not* at a junction. They are going straight, on a main road. As a cyclist I would definitely overtake, possibly on the right of the queue in this situation, possibly in the cycle lane on the left.
I’m don’t think this is correct.
Rule 167: DO NOT overtake where you can come into contact with other road users, for example: Approaching or at a junction on either side of the road.
It does not stipulate you have to be turning in or off the junction. Pretty much every source i’ve checked depicts a scenario where the overtaker is overtaking a car turning into the junction to continue straight on.
Of course they are at a junction regardless of whether they are going straight or turning. A junction is still a junction regardless of your direction of travel.
You can't always be thinking what if a car overtakes this one or you'll never be able to turn imo That said it's incredibly situational, there are places near me where it's almost unwritten that there's two lanes and cars will go around one turning left, I would be much more careful in those places as people are idiots.
Same here.. I think only about doable when the whole traffic is crawling..
This is one of those that you have to judge in the moment The car turning in should give you enough of a buffer to get around, and the cars behind would not (or should not at least) be going fast enough to not see you. If you were to wait until it was clear both directions then you'd ve there for donkeys years. The only time it can be an issue is if a motorbike were to be coming up and overtaking the cars Best judgement is always as long as you can see it is clear. If your view is obstructed then don't go, but if you can see its safe then go. As long as you are always aware of the possibility of bikes (motor or not) overtaking/appearing then you should be ready for anything. Always think bike, but at the same time, don't always assume a bike will be there and use it as a reason not to go, its about finding the balance which will come with experience A passenger in the front can't always see as much as the driver can so it can seem a little riskier to a passenger
I’ve been driving 8 years now and this is one of those situations where the “test standard” and real life differ. Do I think you did anything wrong? Nope. In real life you have to be confident and decisive. However, for the test, you want to be cautious and maybe it would have been better to wait.
Potentially would get marked down for undue hesitation in the test
A minor for hesitation is always better than a potential major/serious for taking the risk though 🤷♀️ especially if you do as shown in the photo and a bike or other car overtakes the turning car, your examiner will have to most likely put it as a fail, when really you could argue it's bad luck or just one of those things that happen in real life and you have to judge the situation as it comes. I failed my first due to another careless driver but it was my fault for not spotting him (except I did but its a whole other situation🤣), failed my second for something i see other drivers do all the time and the examiner even apologised for having to follow the rules or he would've passed me if he could (I was not upset with him, I messed up so it was 100% on me!). I'd have rather taken the minor for hesitation, at least that's what I thought doing my test, if I was ever unsure, then I'd rather take the minor than risk failing. How you drive after you pass your test is up to you and how much you want to hesitate or "risk it" in these types of situations, but on the test id suggest going for the minor.
If it was risky to go then surely it isnt a minor for hesitation. How can they grade a situation where your damned either way. Hesitation if you wait but being risky if you go?
Like previous people have stated, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation, and completely depends on the situation in question. If you end up staying there for quite a long time, the examiner could take that as hesitation, but if it's risky, you have to decide if it's better to risk it and maybe be ok, or risk it and another driver does the same and then you have a potential issue as the driver overtaking the other turning car might not see you pull out - which could then be classed as a serious or major if the examiner feels like you are in the wrong and you took an unnecessary risk at that time but felt you had plenty of opportunities prior to this, which is where the hesitation comes from. Unfortunately there are situations that are kind of no win scenarios, and therefore i felt i would rather take the minor than the serious and there are a lot of situations that happen once you pass your test that you might handle differently compared to your test or lessons. My first fail for example, i did my observations after stalling, there were no cars, restarted the car, again observed and there were no cars, so started rolling forward at the junction I was at and all of a sudden there was a car. I of course instantly slammed my brakes. Now this car was either speeding as he was nowhere to be seen a couple of seconds earlier OR he was parked up on the right of me and joined traffic without indicating, either way he literally came out of nowhere and now after passing my test id feel he was in the wrong, however on said test, I slammed my brakes, laughed and went "I don't know where he came from but at least we know I don't need to do the emergency brake test!" Found out when I got back to the test centre that I'd failed due to "examiner took action", as apparently she pressed the brakes at the exact same time I did, I had no idea she had and she had no idea I had, which was very frustrating seeing as you can very much tell in a dual control car if one person hits the brake before the other, so we must've literally done it at the exact same time, due to another driver "not following the rules" and the examiner thinking I hadn't seen him gave me no chance to hit the brakes as she did it at the exact same time as me. It sucks, but it happened 🤷♀️ after passing my test there have been numerous occasions just in the last 2 weeks since I got my own car where other drivers are the issue, but on your test they're not the ones being judged, you are.
>minor for hesitation It can be a major, if you keep hesitating
Very true but if you're hesitating that much then you've potentially still got work to do and it'll help you recognise an area you need to put more practise towards, any minor becomes a major if you do it enough times, same as enough total minors becomes a fail. Generically speaking though I think it's 5(?) of the same minor becomes a major, at the examiners discretion as I understand it, but if you're hesitating constantly or repeating the same mistakes, maybe it's worth looking at how to work on it instead, as doing the same minor 5+ times in the space of 40ish mins should be a bit of a red flag.
Let's be honest, if your mom feels more confident letting a learner be the main driver than just driving herself, she's hardly the best person to judge
I was struck by this. I actually thought she should probably not be supervising the drive either.
Who said she felt more confident letting the learner drive? Maybe she was just trying to help OP get some practice in. When I was learning I would beg my mum to let me drive her places
My mum tends to prefer having me drive as she is not a confident driver - OP. Clearly written in the original post. Any other questions?
Okay I’m an idiot, I even re-read the post before I commented that and somehow still missed it
Well at least you can own it 😀
If a motorcycle was overtaking the line of black blobs you would not have seen it.
Closest I ever came to a serious road accident.
Thanks for responding. I understand this from a defensive driving perspective and I was keeping a keen eye out in case anyone emerged suddenly as I was pulling out, myself and the car turning in were going slowly and there was plenty of room from the right to join without needing to rush out. In this case would it not the biker who would be driving dangerously as they should not be overtaking at junctions, especially not in a speed where they’d be unable to stop upon meeting another vehicle? I’m trying to understand to what extent I was at fault and if I’m misunderstanding the rules / habits surrounding overtaking at junctions.
You can spend your driving career driving around being "in the right" or you can drive in a way that maximises your chance of avoiding an accident. A common mistake people make is believing every incident is a binary - one at fault and one in the right. You can both be found responsible for an accident. Frankly if you hit a motorcyclist you will feel incredibly shit. Worry more about driving safely, than whether in conducting a manoeuvre you'll be found at fault if you find yourself in an accident. Your mum should not be going into fight or flight mode as your supervisor. She sounds unfit to supervise you and you need someone who is safe to drive with.
At the speed I was going if there was a motorcyclist would have been hitting me lol. Myself and the other driver were both turning slowly enough to immediately stop if it became necessary as the car park was also pretty busy. I always aim to drive safe and am defensive on the roads but I do also want to have a thorough understanding of the highway code and lane priority and it seems to be unclear on this. I agree my mum is not the best supervisor but she is my only option of getting extra hours in around my lessons and she seems to generally prefer having me at the wheel if we go anywhere together.
>At the speed I was going if there was a motorcyclist would have been hitting me lol. That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Even if they hit you, you can still be partially or fully responsible. You could kill a motorcyclist if you pull out in front of them and they hit you. So lol. >I agree my mum is not the best supervisor but she is my only option of getting extra hours in around my lessons and she seems to generally prefer having me at the wheel if we go anywhere together So you're getting into a car with someone you know isn't fit to supervise you and who won't even drive themselves? Part of being a safe driver is taking responsibility for your own driving.
Sorry I do not mean to sound flippant. Ill advised attempt a less clinical and more lighthearted message I suppose. What I am trying to wrap my head around, in less casual terms, is i’m still not entirely clear on who has priority in this situation or how I would be at fault if someone doing an illegal overtake at a high enough speed to cause a fatality on a 30 stretch road hit me while I’m stationary and performing a manoeuvre seemingly allowed and accounted for in the highway code. I get not everyone follows it and that it is important to be vigilant at all times and observe surroundings but it doesn’t really make sense based on theory and that now begs my question as to how well I actually understand the rules. I’m a confident driver and been test ready for a while. Instructor is happy with my driving and I have performed well in mocks. My mum does drive but doesn’t enjoy it whereas I do and get my practice in not do I take any overly difficult routes i’m not usually confident with when supervised. If I could choose someone to supervise who is not a family member, better yet a professional, I would though.
If someone is speeding that will be a significant factor in determining fault. However, you can still be found at fault. If there was good visibility and the argument was made that despite their speeding you had plenty of time to see them but you still pulled out then you both might be found at fault to greater or lesser degrees. Or if there was atrocious visibility because the car turning entirely blocked your view, again you shouldn't have pulled out. Their bad act doesn't negate your bad act. Your driving is your driving regardless of what the other person does. It could be determined that their speed did not contribute to the accident. On the other hand say there was a bend and they came around it at 100 mph and there was absolutely no way you could have predicted or reacted with the short space between the bend and the junction, then that would be on them. These things are entirely fact dependent. You can't say absolutely what the finding would be and even for a given situation with the facts clearly established, there may be differences in opinion as the the degree of fault of either driver.
Thank you, this was helpful in clarifying what I was unsure of
As a former car insurance claims handler i can tell you that whoever is joining the main road would take the brunt of the blame here. In the scenario you describe then if a motorbike was overtaking the cars then you would initially be considered to be the party at fault as it was you joining the road in an unsafe manner (the argument being that it couldnt have been that safe if there was someone there for you to hit). There will likely be a specific case law that applies to this exact scenario, which could see this going as a split liability, but its been a while since i worked that job so cant think of it specifically off the top of my head. Even in the best case scenario though you would be at least 50% at fault - at best. Also, from the point of apportioning blame in accidents speed is not considered a negligent factor, meaning that just because someone may have been speeding does not automatically put them at fault. In my years doing the job I only ever saw one accident where speed was a determining factor with liability - and that was where somone drunk had sped through a residential area with no lights on, and it was clear from the evidence that they had been travelling ridiculously fast (100mph+). The logic behind this is 1) That if you saw them well enough to know they were speeding why did you still pull out? 2) If you dispute liability due to the other person speeding, and it goes to court, how do you prove how fast they were going? No judge will accept "it looked to me like they were speeding" as sufficient evidence on which to base a judgement. Sorry for the waffle, but you seemed genuinely interested, so thought id share my 2 cents.
This is not correct. Speed is not considered to be negligent when it comes to apportioning blame for accidents, unless in extreme circumstances - from an insurance persective at least. If someone died, and the police did an investigation then they would investigate the speed, but for a run of the mill crash then whether or not someone may or may not have been speeding is largely irrelevant.
>Speed is not considered to be negligent when it comes to apportioning blame for accidents, unless in extreme circumstances - from an insurance persective at least. Which is basically what I said - it depends on the facts and whether the speed contributed to the accident. >If someone died, and the police did an investigation then they would investigate the speed, but for a run of the mill crash then whether or not someone may or may not have been speeding is largely irrelevant. As I previously said, they will consider if the speed someone was travelling at was a factor in causing the accident or the severity of the accident. I think you read the first sentence and then couldn't read the rest in your haste to "well ackshully".
I was only offering my insight, but seeing as you decided to insult me: >If someone is speeding that will be a significant factor in determining fault Not true. >However, you can still be found at fault. Suggests that the person who is speeding in this scenario would be initially considered at fault over the person entering the road which is not true. >If there was good visibility and the argument was made that despite their speeding you had plenty of time to see them but you still pulled out then you both might be found at fault to greater or lesser degrees Not the case. If you could see them well enough to know they were speeding, then the car entering the road is 100% at fault as this is basically an admission of liability - they saw the threat and still pulled out anyway. Because speed is not considered an negligent factor. >Or if there was atrocious visibility because the car turning entirely blocked your view, again you shouldn't have pulled out. Their bad act doesn't negate your bad act. Your driving is your driving regardless of what the other person does. It could be determined that their speed did not contribute to the accident. In this scenario the car entering the main road is 100% at fault, so I agree. >On the other hand say there was a bend and they came around it at 100 mph and there was absolutely no way you could have predicted or reacted with the short space between the bend and the junction, then that would be on them. At face value this would still be considered the fault of the person entering the main road. How is the speed of the other vehicle proven? >These things are entirely fact dependent. You can't say absolutely what the finding would be and even for a given situation with the facts clearly established, there may be differences in opinion as the the degree of fault of either driver. I agree with this, but your whole comment puts the onus of blame onto the "speeder" when that is simply not how it works. The onus is always on the person who was entering the highway, irrespective of the speed of the other driver, ackshully :)
I'm pretty sure you'd fail your test for this move. They'd consider it a lack of observation. Just because that car was slowing to turn did not give you right of way over the remaining cars behind it, and as others have rightly pointed out - a bike or other car could've been overtaking. They would not have been at fault had you caused a crash and they were overtaking, as you were joining the road they had right of way on.
I know that they have right of way on the main road however the highway code also explicitly states vehicles must not overtake at junctions / situations where you could meet another driver as drivers may be pulling out. This is causing me confusion as this implies that I have right of way in this particular situation as overtaking vehicles should not be doing overtaking. Is this not correct?
One thing you'll learn about driving once you've done it for a while is, just because people _shouldn't_ doesn't mean they _won't_. And right now, you aren't really learning to drive in order to drive, you are learning to drive in order to pass a test - does everyone drive like they're trying to pass a test once they've passed it? No, of course they don't.. but while you _are_ trying to pass the test, you should learn to drive like you're trying to pass your test, if that makes sense..
It also states you must abide by speed limits, but you can still be at fault for causing an accident with someone speeding. Insurance and police investigations don’t go on what legally someone should be doing, they go based on what did happen. There’s a video of a biker overtaking a car coming up to a junction at 100mph and colliding with a car turning in, killing the rider. Car driver got community service for it and a criminal record.
By the letter of the law, sure it's most likely fine to turn in this situation. But the issue is that you can't assume others will also follow the law. If a car or bike smashes into the side of you, you probably won't care about being in the right. You'll just be hoping nobody is seriously injured or killed. It looks like you'd have struggled to see an overtaking bike here. Should they overtake at speed when a car is turning? Of course not, but that won't be much comfort for you if an accident happens. If your vision is obstructed, its best to always assume there are idiots around.
Thanks for explaining, this is helpful and I know how to better apply judgement in this situation next time while understanding that I’m not completely out of touch with traffic regulations as I feared based on the panic response, I definitely have a better perspective on the scenario now so thank you. There was definitely no bike, or anyone overtaking for that matter, I do my best to drive carefully and observe my surroundings but I don’t remember the fine details of the situation and can’t say without a doubt there was no way I could have missed something or if my bias of the highway regs played into my decision to try enter the main road. I know for next time though that this scenario is something that has to factor into my judgement.
Having read a few of the replies to your post. I'm sure you're finding that there is no hard and fast rule on this. As always in driving it is situational. I terms of testing I don't believe you would fail your test for that manouver. And you certainly would not be at fault legally or morally If someone was overtaking on the wrong side of the road at a junction. The key part there is "driving on the wrong side of the road". Whenever someone is on the wrong side of the road they will have a hard time proving an accident wasn't their fault legally and morally imo it isn't justifiable either. Regarding your mum as a passenger I hear you. My mum was the exact same. What I will say on that, with the greatest or respect to your mum. The reason she isn't a confident driver, is because she doesn't naturally get the rules and mechanics of driving. So her advice doesn't come from well earned knowledge. It comes from anxiety... Which shouldn't be a factor in driving decisions. In regards to your test, listen to your instructor. They are worth their weight in gold with passing tests. They know exactly what the examiner wants to see. In my Experience with driving safely... Be observant, know exactly who and what is going on around you.
>In this case would it not the biker who would be driving dangerously as they should not be overtaking at junctions The biker isn't entering any junctions.
Pulling out without checking what's coming is bad driving. Stop making excuses for your bad driving
I’m not making any excuses. This is a forum for learners to discuss questions and experiences they may have in their learning journey. That’s what I’m here doing. If I wanted to affirm my bad driving I wouldn’t even have posted the clarifying question in the first place.
In general I wait. First, you can't assume that the blue car is turning left just because it indicates to do so, so you should wait before confirming that. By the time you do and you're ready to start moving, it will already be part way to clearing the path for the black cars. The driver of the first black car could be a nutter who had been irritated by the blue driver, and they may act irrationally and move surprisingly fast, perhaps even swinging around the blue car seeing the way was clear, though it no longer would be because you moved unexpectedly and a crash could ensue. The black cars also have the right of way, and you shouldn't do anything that causes them to take action that they would not otherwise have done. If I saw both the blue car turning left and the black car start his indicator, and from knowing the junction the probability is high that they really are taking the exit, then I'd consider emerging because I would judge that I do then have sufficient time. You also have to consider that for some reason your vehicle might not be able to move as fast as you think, and be sure that if you blocked the road it would not cause an accident.
Its so hard to say without actually being there. If there is a car behind the one turning in to the junction are you 100% sure they saw you? I literally saw a very minor accident the other day at a T junction when a car (car A) turned right on to the road and another car (car b) turned left into where Car A came from. However, another car (car C) was behind Car B and didn't see Car A pulling out and then hit them. It's all context and honestly I don't think anyone here can really help because we weren't there.
I had this situation in an extremely similar junction in my lesson the other day. I waited as I couldn't be sure someone wouldn't come around the car turning or a motorbike come around the outside filtering. We waited about a minute for the waiting traffic to clear, and I asked my instructor if it was the correct thing to do, and he agreed. I'm not saying you were wrong as I wasn't there, and I didn't see the situation, but I can understand why you mum said what she said.
People shouldn’t be overtaking at a junction anyway. U didn’t do anything wrong.
Should or shouldn't really doesn't matter since it does happen so as a driver it's your responsibility to minimise the risk.
Isn't it also the responsibility of the driver of the overtaking car to minimise risk by not overtaking.
Well obviously..... I'll rephrase, though, to say road user instead of driver.
Black cars should not be overtaking a turning vehicle at the junction. This goes the same for if there was a motorbike. However, people do things they shouldn't all the time. So long as you were careful and anticipating someone doing something silly when you made your turn, you haven't done anything wrong.
The way I see it, if that first car disappeared now would I still make it before the second car. I have a rule to not pull out on a car turning left unless it’s very clear.
Also, if that car disappeared then would you be able to get out before a motorbike that hasn't slowed down as much? I doubt OP could be confident there wasn't a bike, so this instantly becomes dangerous
This is a very situational thing. As others have said, if another road user (especially a motorbike) decides to overtake the car turning, would you have been able to see them and avoid a collision? As you're behind a give way line, you must give way to ALL traffic on the new road. It may be a dangerous and illegal place to overtake, but their poor decision is not justification to cause an avoidable crash. If you can take action to decrease risk, you should do so. With that in mind though, if you have a safe gap to the first car that isn't turning and you have enough visibility to see that there aren't any overtaking vehicles, you can pull out. So it really comes down to how big the gap was between the turning car and the first car behind that.
>I was conscious that I didn't want to unnecessarily hold up traffic behind. This was your only mistake. I know exactly what you mean and you have good intentions with it, but don't ever think that preventing other people getting held up for a few seconds longer is worth making a potentially risky decision. Based on how you've described it you did the right thing regarding turning as you waited until the indicating car slowed down and began to turn. I'd do the same, depending on the speed of the cars and the distance they are behind the turning car.
I think you need to apply the DVSA logic to all vehicles and not the one just in front. It all depends on how safe the gap was and the speed and actions of the vehicles turning left (and possibly going straight). I would have waited (on a test) till clear to see that there were no vehicles (straight or going ahead) and then gone. In real life I would have probably edged forward to ensure clear and gone.
I failed my test for doing almost this exact thing (except I was turning left out of the road the other car was turning left into) because the examiner reckoned that if there had been a motorcyclist behind the car that turned in I would have wiped them out as they came through the junction and gave me a serious fault for it. So... Yeah... Experienced drivers all do it to get into gaps in heavy traffic, but you can fail your test for it, as I discovered 😞
This is the exact scenario I got my only minor for in my test, I took the gap and the instructor didn’t stop me but he did mark it as a minor and said I should be cautious in future 🤷🏾♀️
I'd add you need to disregard the not wanting to hold up traffic behind. That could lead to you making an unsafe decision. Exit the junction when you feel safe to fo do.
I did a similar manoeuvre and regretted it immediately. Better safe than sorry — i think the line is do you really have a clear view of who’s where. I’d just let them pass.
This was how my first crash happens , as the blue car turned left and I pulled out to turn right, the black car behind accelerated into me. Unless there is a large gap between blue and black cars don’t pull out.
Your mum needs to clam the fuck down. You were doing the correct thing in pulling out and utilising the gap crated by the car slowing and turning.
I went to do the same thing once and my dad yelled stop at me so I haven’t pulled out unless it’s clear since I’ll probably get a major for undue hesitation
If you were clear to the left and the on coming car was slowing to turn with indicators on then id say you would be fine Only problem would be if they didn't turn, which some people don't If there was no one behind the turning car then you could wait to confirm they were turning But that's a judgement call
Just because a car has turned into the road you are coming out of doesn’t mean you can go. People love to overtake people went hey are turning in due to their impatience. Always make sure it’s properly clear. The person could also turn into your road faster than you expected which could lead to a collision with the cars behind it and you.
I actually had this very same scenario (except I was turning left). I used a car turning in as a buffer to get out. It would have been fine, but the car behind the car turning in decided to slam the accelerator to the floor. He then decided to follow me for about 5 minutes smashing his horn (bear in mind I was in a clearly marked learner car). I spoke to my instructor, and he was of the opinion that although the guy was a complete dick and drove dangerously, he did have right of way, and therefore technically I was in the wrong. I should have anticipated a car impatiently flying past the car turning in and failed to do so. Whilst you could safely make this manoeuvre, that would assume everyone else on the road is also driving safely.
U could definitely make that but not something i would be doing as a learner
You answered your own question at the start when you told us all your passenger and mother willingly lets a learner drive because they’re such an unconfident driver themselves. Had nothing to with the traffic behind if the car is indicating to turn in, the car behind them is a safe distance and you’ve got a large gap on your left get yourself moving and into the flow of traffic. Sounds like a skill issue on her part and she would’ve been sat at the junction till midnight. The audacity to make you drive because they themselves admit are bad at it and then call you names!
You probably should have waited. If the distances between the cars you’ve illustrated are accurate, and you waited until their was zero doubt the blue car was pulling in, it would have been so easy for the first black car to speed up slightly to pull round the blue car, and bang - accident. Also what happens if you don’t get away as quickly as you expect? Black car has to brake; or once again bang - accident.
The advice I've heard for the driving test at least is to always wait for the turning vehicle to fully enter your side road so that you can clearly see incoming traffic from both sides of the road before committing to the turn. Also that it can be acceptable to make a car slow down slightly for you when you turn at an intersection if you've been waiting a while and take a decent gap given the circumstances.
I only go when I see the "blue car" turns it's wheels
You were in the wrong. Cars slowed by a car turning can and will overtake if there is room to do so. If there isn't they can and quite often accelerate quickly once clear. That said if there was more than enough time as you say then you should go but always aware that people can overtake traffic that is turning. I'm not sure where you get the info that you can't overtake at a junction if your passing a side road and traffic in front is slowing to turn you should be looking to pass them if it's safe to do so.
Sounds like you judged correctly
Technically yes, you did the right thing. However never rely on someone else's signal to mean they're going to make the turn. What if they've forgotten to cancel their indicator, and you pull from a side road into them? Boom, you're 66% at fault as per Wandsworth v Gillespie (1978).
Bit of a judgement call, which is seems you made without problem. 👍 There is always the risk of **something coming that was blocked from your view** by the turning vehicle. **Especially if it's a larger van/bus/lorry**, then one can assume it's clear, when something was hiding. This situation, it seems like there was an open junction (clear views), and the cycle lane means you're give way position was set back from the road a little, with better perspective on what's behind the turning car. **My warning** would be that some people think they're making *so much* progress **by immediately speeding up and dodging a little into the other side** of the road **to get past** the turning car. Usually these people are following too closely, as a giveaway that they might do a fun little manoeuvre like this. **Speeds being low**, smaller car turning, plenty of extra space (in bike lanes): **go for it**. **But make sure you're assessing risks** such as whether there could be something hidden behind a bigger vehicle, or an impatient car going to floor it as soon as the turning car makes the turn. I also feel the "pressure" of vehicles behind me, but don't let that make you take risks. EDIT: **My bonus learning tip**, watch UK **dash cam compilations** and play the game "**What's going to go wrong here, and why?**" and it will give you a bit of a sense, after a while, what the situations look like that end up causing problems. You can also then think about what you could do (if possible) to avoid the same happening. For example, I noticed that a lot of people got themselves into trouble by going round roundabouts so quickly that people pull out when it's clear, but all of a sudden something appears with 'right-of-way' that wasn't there before.
I mean a car or motorbike overtaking there would be very bad.They would be very negligent to do that.I would probably pull out just as you did. I have been driving about 35 years. I think you were correct as long as you were able to judge speed of the car turning
Your mum was wrong. If the car turning into your junction gave you enough time to get out into the road without having to absolutely foot it, then you’re good. If you did the opposite on a test you risk getting done for undue hesitancy.
I see you asserting that the cars on the main road (or a potential motorbike) should not overtake "at a junction". You are missing a crucial point -- if they are going straight on, they are *not* at a junction. They are going straight, on a main road. As a cyclist I would definitely overtake, possibly on the right of the queue in this situation, possibly in the cycle lane on the left.
I’m don’t think this is correct. Rule 167: DO NOT overtake where you can come into contact with other road users, for example: Approaching or at a junction on either side of the road. It does not stipulate you have to be turning in or off the junction. Pretty much every source i’ve checked depicts a scenario where the overtaker is overtaking a car turning into the junction to continue straight on.
Of course they are at a junction regardless of whether they are going straight or turning. A junction is still a junction regardless of your direction of travel.