Safe Speed Forums

As in my case, the driver pulled out without indicating, backed up by two witnesses, and I was awarded 100% costs. If I'd thought about it at the time I would have called the police out and asked them about potential for driving without due care and attention.



Totally agree with you there Robin

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I dont think it IS reasonable to expect to be passed at a large differential. For the very circumstances detailed here, one should exercise caution.
I understand Smeggy's assumption regarding the door, but one would expect the witnesses to attest that the OP simply pulled out while the rider was along side, which does not appear to be the case.
In your case R1, the driver did not indicate, and the witnesses supported YOU, not the driver of the car. In the case of the OP, three witnesses seem to support HIS version of events.

On Robins comments, I suggest the OP checked BEFORE indicating, indicated, then LOOKED ONCE MORE, and was 75% towards completing it before he was struck.
This manouvre would seem to have taken place over a reasonable period of time in which a rider behaving sensibly should:
1. Anticipate such a manouvre
2. Observe the signal and be prepared to stop,
3. Observe the manouvre, and take appropriate action - such as moving over into the space the OP was going to move into.
This final manouvre would of course depend on the rider observing the first two points!!

My experience of slow moving traffic was travelling to college in Blackpool, where on the M6 approaching the M55 junction at Broughton, traffic is invariably down to below 40 mph during Blackpool lights.
If space and vehicle speed allows it, filter on the OUTSIDE of the third lane, reducing risk, rather than between two lanes where vehicles might pass either way between the two lanes

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Given that, following the guidelines for filtering, the traffic could be stationary and the filtering vehicle could be at 40mph, is that not a large differential?

In my greater-then-limited experience of these situations, the car-driver witnesses almost invariably attest that the biker was in the wrong. Most drivers are unaware that filtering is legal, and feel affronted by someone making progress whilst they themselves are queuing. They also tend to underestimate the time it takes them to change lane, and are quite used to putting the nose of the vehicle into the next lane and expecting the following traffic to yield.



That may well be the impression the OP gives, but given the situation, which is feasibly completely legal and completely predictable for an experienced or switched-on driver, the space was obviously not cleaers well enough.

Two-wheelers should never filter in the outside lane of three! Not only is it illegal, but they are likely to encounter all sorts of detritus cast from the main roadway, making progress more treacherous. Furthermore, in an emergent situation, their only ever possible escape route would be onto an unmetalled surface and/or into armco! Its an eminently bad idea!

Let me be clear here, I am not suggesting that the rider is completely free of blame/fault. As a more vulnerable road user one should always be ready to make allowances for less aware road users. That is why I have stated my opinion that 50/50 is an offer that the OP should be more than happy with, and should garner some valuable experience from the episode.

Ah, now you are getting to the crux of the matter.

The ARMCO is not going to move out on you. I must ask why using the space on the outside lane is illegal, (dangerous) yet using the same space (if it is sufficient) between two lanes, where vehicles might elect to change left or right is legal.
If somebody moves out and forces you into the armco, is that more dangerous than forcing you into another lane of moving traffic?

I'd be surprised if three people thought the rider was to blame when he wasn't - just look at the way people jumped in at the start of this thread!
Most seemed happy to ignore the fact the rider might have been reckless, and too fast, in favour of pointing suspicion on the OP.
e.g.
Hence:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

To be fair, I do believe that the thread has improved considerably since that post. Thanks all.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The armco may not move out on you, but nor are you ever likely to be able to find a gap in it to escape into. The poor surface at the edge of the tarmac, and the unmetalled surface beyond, is incredibly treacherous for two-wheeled vehicles, something a car driver is unlilkely to understand. Furthermore, it is a part of the road where no driver is routinely going to expect other traffic to be, whereas both lanes of drivers will expect traffic on that side of them, if filtering between 2 and 3; thus is offers some measure of predictability. Additionally, yes, it is potentially more dangerous to be forced into the armco than into other traffic moving slowly in the same direction, since most bikers will have their CofG above the top of the barrier, and may well find themselves tossed into oncoming traffic, which may not be travelling at the same reduced speed as their own carriageway! Some dual-carriageway barriers, notably the wire variety, are well known for decapitating and dismembering bikers!

I wouldn't be surprised that three drivers thought a biker was in the wrong for filtering, I have seen it too many times before.

The fact of the matter remains that either party could likely have avoided this collision, the OP by proper observation, and the biker by anticipation of such manoeuvres. No matter how good the OP's lookout, it was clearly not sufficient, as the space he pulled into was not vacant!

The penultimate quote you have offered was not my own, I have maintained all along that 50/50 is something the OP should be happy with, and that hopefully both parties will gain experience from this.

I already answered that. 'I did not try to absolve any rider of any blame. I said what I would be doing in that situation.' Are you suggesting that stating what I would be doing if I were in the riders situation is an 'embarrassment'?

What does the sticky at the top of this part of the forum say about learning from near misses?

One day, Ernest, someone reading this may may succeed in drive their car into the path of another filtering rider. If it is me that they are paying no attention to, they should now know I (and other riders) are prepared to go to great lengths to attempt to make sure 100% of the 'blame' for the incident would be pinned on them.

We dont know that it was not vacant - the possibility exists that the rider attempted to pass the vehicle when she saw it exiting, instead of moderating her speed. She may even have speeded up in an attempt to get past before the OP could complete the manouvre rather than be "held up" while he did so.
Three witnesses seem inclined to agree that the OP could not have anticipated the arrival of the bike along side him, while here, people who did not see it were quick to jump in and apportion a good deal of the blame to the OP!
I'm not surprised he has not been back to witness the improvement Paul noted.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Vehicle Make/Model: HONDA FES 125 PANTHEON

As previous, It was a 125 vehicle. Seriously, the 2 pages of discussion about naming convention is amusing but lets put that to rest now that I have gone and checked. Whilst trying to avoid crashing on a daily (or even on a decade-ly) basis and being inexperienced at insurance claims (Which is why I registered here, to receive ADVICE about it) I may have used the incorrect word once or twice whilst attempting to defend myself.

Moving on...

Yes, I am 100% sure I indicated and it was working. I am also sure that she hit me towards the end of my manouvre, and the witnesses in all cases will agree all the above points.

I thank you for your support. Obviously, I agree with you - but I do not feel I was in the wrong so thats fair enough. That is fairly subjective and I never said there was anything wrong with disagreeing with me either. However theres no real need for negativity either.

Thanks megaginge. I can understand how people could mistake that for a moped.
Icandoit’s assertion you quoted has already been shown to be illogical and irrelevant, there’s no point dwelling on it.


An outstanding question: did the rider accept you were clearly and properly indicating?
edit: this is important to know if advice is to be given.

Can I remind you that you titled this topic 'Your OPINION on an accident...'?

Really? I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion. megaginge presumed that it was a moped and it turns out that it was not. How does that preclude them from not being as wrong about all their other 'facts' about this incident?

No 'moped' will be doing between 40 and 45mph. It wasn't a moped. I was correct in questioning the 'fact' that we had been told and I even gave the OP a link to check their 'facts'. What a surprise when it turns out I was correct and, to paraphrase you, 'that is why that was being argued'

Hahaha - You arent by any chance the lawyer for the "moped" rider are you?

Let the sarcasm stop now. Please.

No, but I wish I could advise them to get Rider Support Services (or similar) on your case.

I'm not being remotely sarcastic, but then I'm not making smart-arse comments about being 'a lawyer' either.

Why - when every assumption you have made about my driving is contrary to the opinions of all 3 witnesses who were at the scene of the crime?

I was told that it was my responsibility by the attending PO aswel. I asked for his Badge number as it isnt his place to make assumptions before consulting witnesses.

Lets move past this now shall we. I am doing my best to remain polite.

Yes, please do! The issue has already been debated; I for one am not going to repeat myself.

I think everyone should ignore further posts on that issue; it is not furthering the thread at all.




Megaginge,
What did the rider say about it afterwards, especially about indication?

Unfortunately I have been completely unable to talk to the rider herself as she was taken in for shock at the time.

I am able to get the contact details for her boss but not herself via one of my witnesses (She was asked to call the girl's work to inform her) but I have not attempted to do so as of yet. I fear that my calling her now may be considered harassment and could work against me though I am going to seek advice regarding this. You guys would be a good place to start in that respect.

However wouldnt the word of myself and 3 witnesses that I was indicating correctly and in good time stand up against the rider no matter what she said? Or is it simply a case of her admitting this is bound to help.

I am in the dark as to how to proceed at the moment.

Where do you think have I made any 'assumptions' about your driving?

You are asking our opinion on only that you have written rather selectively (as it turns out below) and with material factual errors (moped, already spotted). I'm giving you MY opinion. It happens that you don't like it, apparently.

Well, well. What a surprise. You seem to have omitted from mentioning that in anything you have posted so far.

You don't think so, eh? You have got a lot to learn.

Where has anyone, other than Oscar, not been polite on this thread?