Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 14:07

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 15:03 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 14:18
Posts: 6
Hi ,

Whilst overtaking slow moving traffic on a 2 way road a car i was pulling along side suddenly turned right without indicating.the car struck me ( i was by his rear door ) and sent me sliding down road.

I was travelling at around 45mph , no traffic on other side of road.

The car pulled over and driver ran in to bar/resturant which was along side us, I'm assuming he planned to turn in to car park, a second person then returns and drives the car off , the driver i am told has run off and his brother has driven off in car.This is all 2nd hand information i was still trying to get up / regain consciousness.

I have a witness a few cars back who saw crash and got a registration number, once police had arrived two more witnesses came over and explained to police what had gone on with driver / brother / car to them.

Once the rac had recovered bike i popped down to a and e to discover the only injury i had received was a broken big toe , so very lucky indeed.

When i rang my insurance company to explain , they did a check to see if the registration of other car was involved in a claim it turns out the driver had reported inccident to his insurance firm.

4 days later i receive a call from police saying driver had reported accident 3 days after it happening , claiming he didn't stay at scene as after the ambulance arrived there was nothing he could do ( he left within 5 minutes of accident there was no ambulance present ) and that he has the names of 2 witnesses who say it is my fault , as i said earlier i think he was meeting family/ friends at this bar so i guess it was easy to contact some people later.

I have a qeustion that i hope you people may be able to help with:

Is it my fault , surely if a driver performs a random manoeuvre with out indicating / checking blind spot and hits some one then the driver is at fault ?


Thanks for your time.

Rob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 15:17 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I can't comment on if any liability attaches to you based on the information given but I reckon the "driver gets out and rushes into a bar to be replaced by his brother" can only mean one thing.

If I was drunk and had an accident then by going into a bar and having a stiff drink before any police turn up I would then not be able to be proved guilty of drink driving.

My guess is that this will be a 50/50 liability. You should have been more aware of the hazard of passing a slower vehicle while he should have looked before turning.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 15:30 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 14:18
Posts: 6
hi ,

Thanks , to be fair i thought the same my self ! I guess its a lesson learned.

Thanks for your opinion.

Rob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 16:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
As far as I am aware a rather dated precedent still exists by which filtering bikers are considered jointly liable for any incidents due to undertaking a "risky manoeuvre", or words to that effect. Until this is challenged in court it will remain the status quo.

I consider this a rather sorry state of affairs, as it certainly does not encourage drivers to "Think Bike!". The onus is on any road user to make their intentions as clear as possible, and ensure that a piece of road is clear before moving into it. Do remember however that their 50% includes half of losses that may not be insured, such as leathers and helmet.

Your case sounds rather more complex. I would hope, however, that your independant witnesses who are able to corroborate your account of events would carry far more weight than any number of his friends or family backing him up! Furthermore, considering a vast number of the public believe that filtering is illegal (perhaps it offends their queuing sensibilities), I would imagine that their judgment of fault may well be flawed, nor is it their place to apportion blame.

Guidance I received very early on in my biking life was to never filter at more than 40mph, and I would suggest that even this is too fast past stationary/very slow moving traffic.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 18:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
First of all I’m very sorry to hear it Rob, from one fellow biker to another.

It’s just about the most risky manoeuvre you can perform on a bike and I’m always fearful of someone doing exactly what you have described. TBH, I have had one or two close calls filtering through traffic on motorways when it’s backed up several miles and frustrated drivers are vying for a lane which will give them an advantage.

You mention 40 mph Robin but I think the police have a rule that you should not have a differential speed of more than 20 mph when filtering. I can’t remember who told me now or indeed how truthful that is? I think it’s possibly more of a tacit agreement between traf pol, assessed by sight, but if nothing else it sounds like a good rule to me and is probably why, so far but not the only reason, I have escaped ;)

I’m in no doubt it could happen to me though no matter how careful I am so as Shakespeare might say ‘to filter or not to filter, that is the question’. I agree with Robin that 45 mph does seem a little bit quick for the conditions if you don't mind me saying?

There are countries, like Canada for one, where you are forbidden to filter and if someone tried to there are many drivers who will deliberately try to impede you. On safety grounds it does sound like filtering is a bad idea but on easing congestion and Greenness it has to be a good thing so long as it is just used with great caution. You would also have to ask should cyclists' be forced to do the same thing so I think it could get quite silly if filtering wasn't allowed. We are the sand between the stones and boulders :D Once again, it's about education and training for all road users.

I wish you a swift recovery and I guess if it does go 50/50 you can at least count your blessings. I saw a man recently who came off his bike at less than 20 mph. He gave it a bit too much from a standstill and the back wheel stepped out before eventually throwing him off. He broke his neck but I’ll leave what remains and how he is cared for to your imagination...

Take care bud and I'd be interested to hear the eventual outcome.

Tony Image

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 18:25 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 14:18
Posts: 6
Hi ,

Thanks for further replys , to be honest Tony and Robin before this i wouldn't think twice about filtering a 45mph but your always learning and i consider my self lucky that i only broke a toe whilst 'learning'.

I guess i will do more than think twice before pulling out to filter in the future !

On the subject of who's at fault i guess if it goes 50/50 then i will have to accept it.

Would have been nice to have some indication and for him to stick around but on the other hand if i was going slower i guess maybe i could have dealt with the situation better.

Spoke to police officer who attended and he has two idependant witnesses as well as the name and number of the one i have as well so as for the guy making up storys , i don't think he will get very far.

And on another positive note i got the bike running again :clap:

Will up date if i get any more news.

Rob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
I'm glad you haven't been put off riding and got back on 'the horse' :)

I admire and respect your honesty and powers of introspection. The world needs more like you :)

It’s cheeky but I’m wondering if you were born in 1980? ;)

Take good care Rob and do please keep in touch here, or have a surf and enjoy the arguments. :P

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2010 01:50 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
r80rob wrote:
he has the names of 2 witnesses who say it is my fault


Witnesses don't decide who is at fault.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:33 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 14:18
Posts: 6
Hi,

Just thought i would up date not much happened really insurance company want to write off bike so arguing that one at the minute.

Homer - I'm glad thats the case to honest just want to sort claim and get the bike back on road now.

Tony - Don't mind mate d.o.b = '83 so yes your assumption is correct.

I'm glad i have found this forum will keep coming back seems there is a lot to learn here.

Again i will up date if anything else happens , thanks for all the posts / info.

Rob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 12:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
I was told that if the insurance company sees so much, or little, as a scratch on the frame they will right it off because it’s too much of a risk to take with such an important and integral part. Smacks of more OTT litigious/H&S to me but I have to be careful what I say in case someone here who works in that field is watching and tells me off again :D ;)

If you haven’t already, you may want to invest in some cotton reels and mushrooms etc. to save the bike. If you have a spill of your own doing it don’t arf save you a packet. Fairings especially are ridiculously overpriced! (Soz if you already know this Rob). I once read that if you constructed a complete motorbike from new parts it would come to about ten times the price of one off the shop floor!

If your jacket is knackered, and not covererd on insurance, Lidl or Aldi are selling some good armoured ones at the mo if you're quick. I bought one two years ago for just £40 and it's brill. Actually it's too hot to wear on anything but a very cool day. Just the job in Autumn/Winter :)

I’d be interested to know where you stand these days regarding getting your vehicle back off the insurance company if it’s written off? Like many bikers, I have an emotional attachment to mine so if I did have a spill I’d like to know that I have the option to buy it back.

r80rob wrote:
Don't mind mate d.o.b = '83 so yes your assumption is correct.
Same year as my daughter :D Take care son ;)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 13:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Big Tone wrote:
On safety grounds it does sound like filtering is a bad idea but on easing congestion and Greenness it has to be a good thing........ so I think it could get quite silly if filtering wasn't allowed. We are the sand between the stones and boulders :D Once again, it's about education and training for all road users.


It is surely about making safe progress rather than easing congestion or Green-ness? Whilst prima facie, if a bike filters rather than queues up with the cars, the one behind him (and hence everyone behind him) can move up a place, this is only a small part of it. A queue will be caused by something. If that something is logistics (eg lights) and the filtering bikes can maintain parallel progress right up to and beyond the queue end without creating/exacerbating a pinch point, yes it will be better from a green and congestion perspective to filter. However, in the event of the bike having to duck in further down the queue - for ANY reason, unless there is a motorist who anticipates this and pre-emptively creates a gap - which has to be a bike length plus a following distance over and above the norm to be safe - and does so with adequate smoothness to disperse this down the line of motorists with adequate retention of laminar flow in the traffic (whereuopn things would be no worse, but no better overall from a green/congestion perspective), it will be worse, simply because the traffic will have a ripple stop bouncing back up the line in a peristaltic wave. The action in such cases also might cause reaction, possibly over-reaction - in the traffic coming toward ther filtering motor-cyclist.

I'm not against filtering - I often give a small chink to increase the motor-cyclist's gap, partly to let them know I've eyeballed what they're up to. However, I abhor it at high speed and suggest - as with the OP - it is an absolute no-no at a road junction. I believe it is - and should rightly be - regarded as progress for the motor cyclist for his own temporal gains, reduction in fume inhallations etc etc - all those good things, but it is typically not greener, and typically not a congestion-saver, and can in many circumstances and instances be a congestion-creator/exacerbator, though that may not be obvious from the filtering biker's perspective (or anyone else except perhaps those right up at the pinch point).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 17:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Even if a bike behaves like a car, it is still occupying less space than a single-occupant car, being considerably shorter than most cars, thus reducing congestion, albeit by a smaller factor than when filtering. You'll also often find filtering bikers moving off from a position adjacent to four-wheelers at lights, and a greater rate of accelerating, thus mitigating the effects of this "pinch point" as well.

What I really wish however is that, whether drivers realised it was in everyone's interests for bikes to filter or not, they would realise that it is legal, and of no detriment to them, and not behave like pricks trying to block filtering bikers (me especially! :P ). In an even better world they would check their mirrors and blind-spot before changing lanes as well, and therefore not try to ram into us/me!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 21:30 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3428
Quote:
What I really wish however is that, whether drivers realised it was in everyone's interests for bikes to filter or not, they would realise that it is legal, and of no detriment to them, and not behave like pricks trying to block filtering bikers (me especially! :P ). In an even better world they would check their mirrors and blind-spot before changing lanes as well, and therefore not try to ram into us/me!


I really can't understand the attitude of people who try and block the progress of anyone who is trying to travel legally (or otherwise) and safely at a faster speed than oneself.
I always travel at the limit when alone and conditions allow but when I have passengers who I feel wish to travel slower than the limit I will do so but I am always scanning my mirrors for people wishing to overtake and will encourage such manouveres and allow plenty of gap both to my offside and infront of me to encourage this. What is it with British motorists and their "I can't have you going ahead of me ", mentality....I've never seen it anywhere else in the world.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 21:39 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
RobinXe wrote:
Even if a bike behaves like a car, it is still occupying less space than a single-occupant car, being considerably shorter than most cars, thus reducing congestion, albeit by a smaller factor than when filtering. You'll also often find filtering bikers moving off from a position adjacent to four-wheelers at lights, and a greater rate of accelerating, thus mitigating the effects of this "pinch point" as well.

Yup - for a starting point of bike in paralle rather than in series with the front runners on a clutch start take-off, it will be good from all perspecticves. However, the ratio of the lengths is less importasnt than the difference between them, as each vehicle does - or should - come with its 2-second coccoon behind it. Even if all vehicles are infintessimally long, the start-up time and 2-seconf gap between them all is totally dominant, all of which is outwieghed hundredsfold by a break in laminar flow that causes the stop-start (and that is often precipitated by the action of filtering and either belligerant or, more likely I suggest, poor observing motorists who end up having to break suddenly because they have not made allowances for the motor cyclist having to pick a gap as the traffic bunches up a bit.

RobinXe wrote:
What I really wish however is that, whether drivers realised it was in everyone's interests for bikes to filter or not, they would realise that it is legal, and of no detriment to them, and not behave like pricks trying to block filtering bikers (me especially! :P ). In an even better world they would check their mirrors and blind-spot before changing lanes as well, and therefore not try to ram into us/me!


Can't dispute that - and wouldn't dispute most of it even if filtering was illegal. It is not a lay-motorist's or an advance motorist's job to police other road users for technical offences. The biker could be on any mission including life-and-death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 22:34 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 14:18
Posts: 6
Hi ,

Thanks for all the comments and opinons expressed regarding this.

I have an up date regarding bike and liability claim.

Insurance company wanted to write off bike ( 1984 bmw r80 rt) once my excess had gone I would be entitled to £600 !
As i had paid more than that having the gearbox rebuilt some time back I declined this.After looking in to other options ie ; me getting an independant qoute to get bike road for less than £600 , it seemed the easiest and cheapest option was to cancel claim and do the work my self.
I paid £12 for 2 second hand rocker covers removed the fairing and took bike for a mot explaing what had happened and it passed with no problems - so much for writing it off !

Regarding the injury / liability claim;

Once soliciters found out other party was insured they went for 50/50 wich to be honest was what I expected at the start.

Qoute from solicitors letter reads :

' I do not believe you are fully to blame for this accident ; however I do think that there is some fault on your part. There is case law wich holds both parties eqaully to blame'

Enclosed was a copy of a case ; Hillman v tompkins wich is very similar to what happened to me.

Thanks again,

(especially to Big Tone for your kind words cheers mate :D )

Rob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 09:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Oh thanks Rob and thanks for the update :)

I’m just glad you’re okay.

I see such horrors in my work and know only too well how things can turn out. There but for the grace of God go I, an’ all that…

I hope you stick around.

Take care and best wishes Rob

Tone Image

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 21:31 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 14:18
Posts: 6
Hi,

I'm back again seems I was wrong to write this of just yet, the driver had been summoned to court for not stopping at scene and for not reporting accident.

I thought that would be the last i would hear but got a letter last week asking me to attend court in April as a witness regarding crash , I'm not sure why can only assume he pleaded not guilty ?

To be honest bit worried about this , from the looks of his car and his actions he's probably not the nicest person in the world and I'm going to have to sit in the same waiting room as him.I guess he doesn't know what I look like so won't be a problem until after hearing - don't really know what to expect.

Still not heard anything from solicitors regarding compensation, the last update was they were going to put across a proposal of 70/30 my way with the expectation of receiving a 50/50 proposal back.

Thanks again Rob.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.283s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]