Any traffic police on here?

[Winder]

I was approaching a set of traffic lights with 3 lanes.
Left and middle lane arrowed for forward travel only.
Right hand lane arrowed for right turn only.

I am travelling in the left hand lane.
I can see that the lights are red.
No vehicles in the left lane.
Around 6 vehicles in the middle lane.
1 vehicle in the right lane.

I stay in the left lane, slow to around 15mph and the lights change to green.

I roll on the throttle and continue forward in the left lane passing the stationary vehicles in the middle lane.

Up ahead the two forward travel lanes merge into one.

Another 200 meters up the road a woman pulls out of a filling station and knocks me off my bike breaking two bones.

Question 1: Was the manouver at the lights an illegal undertake?

Question 2: Does that take away from the fact she pulled into my right of way a lot further up the road?

Question 3: If the answer to question 1 is that is was illegal then should I join the middle lane and drive in the incorrect lane like the other drivers? Is that the official view?

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

Q1: No
Q2: No, She should have looked as the view of you was not obscured by another vehicle
Q3: Needs no answer

Hope this helps

[Bluepete]

As above.

[Bibio]

were you undertaking the stationary vehicles after the merge or was the way clear?

[andrewsmith]

Q1: No
Q2: No, She should have looked as the view of you was not obscured by another vehicle
Q3: Needs no answer

Hope this helps

+2

[martin15s]

retired trafpol - as Bluepete etc. Sorry to hear about the off - really unlucky considering my lad's recent escapade. Get well soon.

[EssexDave]

To undertake you must change lanes.

Driving with the flow of traffic in your lane does not include an undertake as far as I am aware.

[Kilted Ginger]

Q1: No
Q2: No, She should have looked as the view of you was not obscured by another vehicle
Q3: Needs no answer

Hope this helps

+3

[Biker Biggles]

My take-----
Your manoevre at the traffic lights was not an undertake but it doesnt matter anyway as 200 yards later someone pulled out on you and knocked you off.That is the relevant fact,not what happened 200 yards away.

A mate of mine was knocked off his bike by a car driving aggressively because he had allegedly been "cut up" by said mate at a junction several hundred yards previously.This may or may not have been true,but the police threw the book at the car driver and discounted anything else as heresay and not relevant to the act of dangerous driving.

[Specialone]

Traffic police on here? Like asking if there's any SV owners :rolleyes:

[Bluepete]

Traffic police on here? Like asking if there's any SV owners :rolleyes:

Not many then!

Any Triumph owners on here?

Mind the rush...

Pete ;)

[Cymraeg_Atodeg]

Ah, to be one of the select few

[Winder]

Cheers for the help. Witness statements say i under took traffic before the incident (as mentioned on first post), a passer by thought the accident was my fault as they think i was speeding, police arent interested and have left it to solicitors.
It's all rubbish and anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see the car driver is at fault but my solicitors dont seem to be filling me with confidence and as i am completely skint i dont think i can afford to jump ship.

The undertaking and speeding seem to be the only things they have to go on. The speeding is completely wrong and they will never be able to prove it because it didn't happen but i was unsure what the legal stance was on the undertaking.

The law seems to be a bit of a game rather than clear cut when these solictor types are involved.

[maviczap]

The law seems to be a bit of a game rather than clear cut when these solictor types are involved.

You need to go to a specialist solicitor who specialises in motorcycle accidents

SVrich got knocked off his SV by a taxi that did a U turn out of a traffic queue as he was filtering on the outside if I remember correctly.

His original solicitor sounds much like yours, then he swapped to a specialist solicitor who knew what SVRich was on about, and understood the legal side of things.

He won his case

PM SVRich for the name, its a well known company, but I can't remember :smt120

[maviczap]

White Dalton

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=145119&page=3

[Dave20046]

Cheers for the help. Witness statements say i under took traffic before the incident (as mentioned on first post), a passer by thought the accident was my fault as they think i was speeding, police arent interested and have left it to solicitors.
It's all rubbish and anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see the car driver is at fault but my solicitors dont seem to be filling me with confidence and as i am completely skint i dont think i can afford to jump ship.

The undertaking and speeding seem to be the only things they have to go on. The speeding is completely wrong and they will never be able to prove it because it didn't happen but i was unsure what the legal stance was on the undertaking.

The law seems to be a bit of a game rather than clear cut when these solictor types are involved.
Why don't you go get the portion of the highway code that says it's fine to pass a line of queueing/slow moving traffic on the left hand side* send it to your solicitors and tell them to pull their fingers out?
Don't worry about the speeding thing they all try and claim it, a chap that pulled out on me said the same my response was "if you see something coming towards you is it right to pull out infornt of it?...No" "if you see something coming towards you really fast, do you pull out infront of it?...No"
I was going well below the speed limit though and luckily the witness was in my favour.




*it's something to that effect

[NTECUK]

Speeding is always a favorite.
But its subjective and no way to prove you were.
Just get a better Brief.
Had a simler thing when i was 17 .Hit a police mechanic .Went to court!
Still stood my ground and one.

[Paul the 6th]

As Dave numbers points out, the highWay code says its illegal to undertake, unless traffic in front of you is indicating to turn right, or if traffic in the lane to the right of you is moving slower than you are/is stationary.

So q) 1 is answered no its not illegal that you passed stationary traffic which should really have been in the nearside lane anyway.

2) two wrongs don't make a right, so even if you had undertaken illegally the woman shouldn't have pulled out & knocked you off.

3) if witnesses say you were speeding then I'd imagine a judge hearing the case would want you to answer to the accusations as it could well be a contributing factor to the accident i.e. the woman didn't anticipate your approach correctly because you were doing 50mph in a 30. Did you take any photographs of the accident? Or skidmarks on the road? Probably quite tricky to calculate your speed off the back of suggest evidence without proper measuring & physics calculations..

I'd want to know about the speeding witness statements - did they claim you were accelerating too quickly or was it a steady constant excessive speed?

Anywho, sounds like you need a proper traffic solicitor - they're usually advertised in the problem pages of MCN. Good luck

[Nobbylad]

Get a better solicitor...the worst mistake I ever made was sticking with the solicitor provided by my insurance company. I (wrongly) believed that they'd pursue the right outcome for me as it was a no-blame (for me) accident. I wish I'd gone to a specialist as things would have been so much simpler and resolved far quicker.

[Owenski]

The experts have answered your origianl post and Im sorry to hear of your off.
I agree with that the others have said as well, get a new solicitor. It appears as though the insurance recommended ones are more keen on getting a 50/50 as it satisfys the interest of both insurance companies, pick up a brief who only wants to win for you and it all changes in your favour.

[Winder]

Thanks again for all your replies. Just to clarify this accident happened months ago and my bones have healed, I'm still in pain with my neck, back etc and cant get back to most of my hobbies just yet.

It takes a long time for the legal eagles to get all their sh*t in one sock, that's why I am asking these questions now rather than nearer the time of the crash.

I'm getting a phone call from my solicitors tomorrow morning. I am going to tell them what I want to happen and if they can't do it I'll get someone who can. I'm not being unreasonable or unrealistic, I just want them to fight my corner and keep me well informed.

Thanks for the name of the company SVrich used, I've checked them out and they look the business.

Cheers