Involved in an accident- Advice needed please

[Emankiwi]

Hey there,
Was heading home from London, and on way was hit by a car.
At that time I was on a roundabout turning right. Car pulled in front of me and I hit him on the front right bumper panel. My left side of the bike is heavily damaged. This is obviously his fault right?
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/IMG_1509.jpg
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/IMG_1511.jpghttp://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/Image%2035.jpg

[Biker Biggles]

Looks like the car is at fault.Did you have your left indicator on?Any witnesses?It might be worth getting hold of a bike specialist legal firm for assistance.White Dalton is one that others on here have used to good effect.Dont forget to document any injuries you have,however minor and any kit/clothing that is damaged.You may find that compensation for the bike is derisory,so injury/kit can make up for that.
Good luck.

[Emankiwi]

Thanks a lot for your advice, my indicator was on and unfortunately no one stoped to help. I will contact Dalton asap.
My leg is not too bad, I don't really want to deal with this at the moment and was thinking of just asking for £300 to get everything fixed. What do you think?
Many thanks

[Biker Biggles]

As long as you are all legit Id go through insurance every time.Id report the incident to plod as well,especially as you have an injury.If you dont,the other party can turn it back on you and make a claim against you for their damage and other losses.Straight down the line if you can or things can get messy.

[Blapper]

REALLY sorry to read this Emankiwi. I very much doubt that £300 is enough. Get an estimate. Go in high, not low.

[Emankiwi]

Yes all legit and insured, will go though insurance then. All advice Is much appreciated!

[Emankiwi]

REALLY sorry to read this Emankiwi. I very much doubt that £300 is enough. Get an estimate. Go in high, not low.

Thank you, will go though insurance and will try to buy the bike back if they want to write it off. If anyone has anything else to say please do .

[garynortheast]

Definitely report it to the police and get an incident number if you can. Also go to your docs or A&E to get checked over.

[DomP]

I got rear ended in my car on Friday 13th last November on the way to my Mod 2 which I then failed. Bad day all round. Any way the damage was minimal, just a scuffed and cracked bumper in all honesty but his insurance tried to offer me a repair or £300. I wanted to get it repaired by my own repairer as it was a cherished car bur knew £300 was well off the mark so I got a quote and emailed to his insurance for near £600 and with a bit of persuasion they paid up.

Perseverance is key, harass them until you get what you want.

[Emankiwi]

Great advice everyone, didn't know it was compulsory to call police when you are inquired. I called them and got a reference number. Will be calling white dalton on Monday. Will update this when I know more.
Thank you everyone!!! :)

[Emankiwi]

The person that hit me accept liability and agreeed to pay £300. My leg is okay and I won't need to be off work. Also I don't want to be milking the system for whiplash and pretending it's worse than it is. Does anyone know how much insurance is likely to offer me?

[Emankiwi]

Fairing will need to be replace and the brace, here are pictures of damage behind the fairing .
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/IMG_1517.jpg
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/IMG_1519.jpg
What is your estimate to get them replaced with used ones ?

[garynortheast]

Do nothing to the bike till you've spoken to White Dalton.

[DomP]

For the mid fairing bracket I'd buy R&G crash bungs

[DomP]

I also don't see £300 covering it really

[SV650rules]

Glad you are OK, it never hurts to get an incident number. This looks like an open and shut case that you were cut up - but things never seem to be clear cut when you have an accident on a bike - I have noticed in the past few years that people are getting more and more reluctant to give way when they are entering an island - everyone seems in such a rush. I live in Telford, the town with more road islands per square kilometre that anywhere else in the UK, if not the world and even in the car you have to be extra wary. I would certainly get repairs quoted and as another poster said - go in high rather than low, don't feel its your fault in any way. In the name of self-preservation have fitted a couple of 10 watt cree LED spotlights to my AL7, I use them as DRL's and have noticed a difference in the way other road users react, where you would see vehicles inching forward over stop / give way lines and then suddenly slamming brakes on as they saw you they now stay behind the lines. I have no doubt that the compulsory fitting of DRLs to other vehicles has made motorbikes even more vulnerable because other road users are only looking for vehicles with bright lights on now and don't look so carefully. Even riding with headlights lit up on you bike doesn't guarantee people will see you.

The LED lights are a lot more eye-catching than headlight and because they are mounted on handlebars (even though they are pointed down and towards the kerb) they are probably visible to people in junctions even when I am behind a (normal height) car, as they can probably see them through car windows. I have had them on for 6 months - decided to do something after an SUV cut out on me as I was turning left off a busy Island (it looks almost identical to your case, I had seen him edging forward and was luckily expecting him to do something rash and the incident came to nothing - whew ! )

[Red ones]

Doesn't the headlamp on an AL7 stay on all the time anyway? It does on my K8.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

Doesn't the headlamp on an AL7 stay on all the time anyway? It does on my K8.


Headlamp does stay on all the time (its the law now), but like most bike headlamps (unless they are HID ) it is of limited use as an aid to daytime visibility - even with blue tinted Xenon 150% brighter Phillips Xtreme brite headlamp bulb the LED lamps are about 10x more eye-catching.

Alchemy parts have a good selection of LED lights and switches etc. You can get lower or higher wattage than the ones in photo - I bought them because they have Cree LED's which are noted for good quality (made in USA) cost £59 a pair and paid about £10 for an on-off handlebar switch which matches to ones already on bike for colour. Very happy with the quality of the lights and the extra visibility they provide for my bike.

[Heorot]

Do you have fully comprehensive insurance? If so, and there is no dispute over liability, than your insurer should sort everything out with the other party's insurer with no loss of no claims. It's normal practice for insurers to ask for new parts, which is why many older bikes get written off. You can ask your insurer to fit used parts but some won't do this. Certainly get a medical letter showing your injuries, even if they are minor; a payout could be more than the bike offer.

I was a motor insurance claims handler before I retired.

[Heorot]

I also don't see £300 covering it really

DomP is right, £300 won't come anyware near the cost of repairs. You are looking at around that for the fairing alone without fitting parts, paint, labour etc. The paint job on the fairing alone is likely to be £100 - £150. I recently had a scuff on the corner on my partners car bumper painted at a national car repairer and that small area cost me £75 at mates rates because I used to put a lot of work their way as a claim handler.

[shiftin_gear98]

Hope you get it sorted. If you are fully comp get them involved. If you are third party fire and theft - DO NOT LET ANYONE TAKE YOUR BIKE. Learnt that the hard way. The side panel is more than £300.00. Good luck.

[Fordward]

The way you've drawn it on the google maps doesn't show him pulling onto a roundabout into your path, it shows you being side by side on a two lane roundabout and you exiting the roundabout across his path.

The collision is not shown as happening when he enters, it's shown as happening when you exit, which would be your fault.

If you had your left indicator on he probably shouldn't have entered the roundabout and come up your inside in the first place, but it's difficult to prove whether you had the indicator on or not, whether you switched from right to left indicator before or after he entered, and they may unbeknowst to you not have been working, so you are expected not to rely on somebody else having seen them, so if the white line lane markings continue round the roundabout (which they do in this case), then at the point of you exiting, the law sees it as though you crossed his lane.

If you'd hit him at the point where he joined the roundabout that would be different, that would be his fault. But the way you've drawn it, it happened on exit.

Next time you've got a vehicle on your inside when you want to exit, abandon the exit and do another loop round the roundabout.

[SV650rules]

IMHO the diagram show the car pulling across in front of OP bike and blocking off his exit as the blue line extends across exit lane.

Don't know if this is the case here but I have had quite a few occasions when there is a double lane off the island where people will pull out on you even when you are indicating left to go off at that exit, seems like they are pushing you to use the RH lane off the island while they think they can sneak straight into the LH lane of the exit. I was always of the opinion that vehicles already on the island have right of way - period. I have abandoned turn-off and gone round again a few times when someone came on to island unexpectedly in front of me - or looked as though they were going too fast to stop in time - discretion being the better part of valour and all that. I have also had people in front of me on an island with a double lane off and I have been in LH lane of island indicating left while they are in RH lane, they just signal left and pull right across your bows into LH lane of exit, completely ignoring the second lane off (makes me wonder how aware these drivers are of anything that may be happening around them and how often, if ever they use their mirrors).

[Fordward]

It's difficult to say without being there and it could just be a badly drawn diagram.

I've drawn a new diagram.

If the bike took the black road positioning, and started switching to the left hand lane at the green X, and the car pulled onto the roundabout and the collision happened with the black car at the red X, then the accident was the cars fault. The indicator should have been switched from right to left indicator at the green X, but doesn't necessarily have a bearing on fault because neither driver should be relying upon them. Note also that the black path would not have allowed a car the space to get up his inside.

If the bike took the blue path, as it seems to me from the OP's diagram that it did, and it collided with the purple car at the orange X, then it's the bikes fault for crossing the purple cars lane to get to his exit, his road positioning didn't help tell the driver where he was going, and faced with a potential collision from a car on his inside should have abandoned the exit and gone round again.

Only the OP or the car driver can tell us which one actually happened.

[Blapper]

I'd say the green X is too late in your diag, it should be just as he passed the exit before the one he wanted not in no mans land where you've drawn it. If he did, there is no excuse for the car entering the roundabout when he is clearly indicating that he is coming off at the next exit.

[SV650rules]

Truth is there are too many people who seem highly annoyed when they have to actually stop and wait at any junction, and who will pull onto an island when someone is approaching them, this is asking for trouble as some people don't even indicate when they are leaving the island and will happily pull straight across from RH lane into the exit.

I used to indicate RH going round the island and LH when I was leaving - I got so fed up of people cutting onto the island in front of me that I have stopped indicating at all until I am ready to leave island, people don't tend to 'cut me up' anywhere near as much now. Leave 'em guessing seems to be the way to go.

[Fordward]

I'd say the green X is too late in your diag, it should be just as he passed the exit before the one he wanted not in no mans land where you've drawn it. If he did, there is no excuse for the car entering the roundabout when he is clearly indicating that he is coming off at the next exit.

It is intended to be in no mans land as it's a dual carriageway. Maybe you could put it 3-4mm further to the left (a split second earlier), but opposite that bit of central reservation grass is where the indicator needs to be.

Obviously to have your indicator flashing and visible at the green X, you need to have thought about it and moved the handlebar switch a moment earlier.

No mans land as you call it is where DSA, IAM and ROSPA all expect to see it and where is it on the diagrams in the highway code section on roundabouts. That's so cars waiting to join the roundabout at that exit can see where you are intending to go. See the diagram below section 185 on the following linky

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---roundabouts-184-to-190.html

All that matters is it's clear to the vehicles waiting to join the roundabout that you are going to leave at the next exit.

[daktulos]

There are no lane markings between where the car entered and the bike was due to exit. I was taught that this was a single lane the width of two cars, so the bike would not have been changing lanes before exiting.

Either way, the bike would have been positioning itself before the car entered the roundabout, and the car has to give way to traffic on the roundabout.

[Fordward]

There are no lane markings between where the car entered and the bike was due to exit. I was taught that this was a single lane the width of two cars, so the bike would not have been changing lanes before exiting.

Either way, the bike would have been positioning itself before the car entered the roundabout, and the car has to give way to traffic on the roundabout.

Maybe just obscured on google maps by the opaque overlay, but if you look at other bits of the roundabout, like at my green x or behind the white van, its marked as two lane.

The car has to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout, but if he's joined safely in the inside lane, because another vehicle is in the outside lane, once they are both on the roundabout side by side, it's a different story.

[Fordward]

There are no lane markings between where the car entered and the bike was due to exit. I was taught that this was a single lane the width of two cars, so the bike would not have been changing lanes before exiting

Just looked at it on Google Streetview and you may have a point there, those lane markings you see on satellite view are there where the car entered, but they are not all the way round, and not past the junction where he exited.

So if it's still like that, the car driver should have treated it as a single lane and shouldn't have got up his inside, but he can be forgiven for thinking it's two lane as he see's lane markings when he's looking right towards the traffic on the roundabout as he's joining.

So actually is the council to blame here??

But the theory of what I've written is correct, in that if you have two lanes, you are on a roundabout alongside another vehicle, regardless of where they joined, it's your responsibility to change lane for your exit safely.

Sometimes you can't call these things on a forum, you have to be there, and sometimes even when you are there it's not clear cut and you can have knock for knock. What's for sure in any accident is it's very rarely 100% one parties fault. There is always SOMETHING one party could have done differently to avoid it.

In any case, in this scenario, I'd have been countersteering hard on the right bar and going for another loop of the roundabout as it doesn't really matter who's at fault once you are on your ar$e.

[Fordward]

the bike would have been positioning itself before the car entered the roundabout

This was the basis of my original question, the line as it was drawn below, doesn't look like the positioning was obvious

http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/Image%2035.jpg

[Blapper]

Although it isn't a large enough scale drawing to be totally precise, it still looks pretty clear to me. The car entered the roundabout and collided with the bike. 'Give way to traffic from the right' and the bike came from the car driver's right.

Insurance companies do try to make everything 50/50 these days though.

[Fordward]

Those red and blue lines meet just beyond the exit, not where the car enters the roundabout. But when it comes to accidents between bikes and cars, bikers see only what they want to see.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[PyroUK]

Tbf the fact you may have to lean a bike until the moment you change direction doesn't help with making it clear what direction you are going.

On a decent size roundabout you can be leaning to right, right up to the junction before flicking over to the left to exit. So if you are a bit too far right in the lane it can easily appear to someone else you are continuing round.

When I say leaning and flicking, I don't mean knee down Rossi style, just the fact you are off upright.

It's a lack of understanding as to how bikes manoeuvre, a lot of people don't understand counter steering and think because your bars and wheel aren't turning that you aren't


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Heorot]

Fordward, you are right. I know that roundabout well and the road was resurfaced last year when the road the bike was approaching from was converted from a single lane to a dual carriageway. I know from experience that cars approaching that roundabout from Norwich on the A11 tend to treat it as a chicane, i.e. they slow down but with no intention of stopping unless forced to by crossing traffic.

[Heorot]

Emankiwi. You need to add yourself to the location map here http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=214816

You are pretty local to me.

[Fordward]

Fordward, you are right. I know that roundabout well and the road was resurfaced last year when the road the bike was approaching from was converted from a single lane to a dual carriageway. I know from experience that cars approaching that roundabout from Norwich on the A11 tend to treat it as a chicane, i.e. they slow down but with no intention of stopping unless forced to by crossing traffic.
So is it single lane round the roundabout or dual?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Heorot]

Two fairly narrow lanes. Most vehicles treat it as a single lane when turning to take the Thetford road.

[Fordward]

Back to my diagram then, whether the accident happened when the car joined, or whether the car had already joined the inside lane safely and it happened when the bike exited, will ultimately determine fault. If the latter and the bikes indicator was on then the car driver is far from blameless though. It usually is the case that both screw up in some way and there's a series of unfortunate events that lead up to a collision.

Hopefully that answers the OP's original question.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[650]

You were turning right, he hit you.

His fault, end of story.

TBH though, it all the damage is on that panel, I'd just ask the guy if he wanted to settle it by buying a new one. Why bother involving insurance? It just bums you both and everyone else - non-fault claims are just that, a claim. It makes the whole price for everyone go up collectively.

Otherwise, have at it. Regardless of whether you were indicating or not, he failed to give way to someone approaching from the right - your road position is of zero consequence.

[650]

Oh and typing all this on a forum won't be doing you any favours, insurance companies have, do and will continue to use all avenues of information to rattle your claim.

[timwilky]

From lesson learned by my kids I would always caution against settling outside of insurance.

Lesson 1. Daughter. Stupid to let the dog in her car which distracted her. Into the back of an old rover. No problem dear, my husband put this non color match bumper on from a scrap yard last week, he will be able to do it again. Result. Until quote from main dealer colour matched £400 arrived. Paid as it worked out slightly cheaper than all the lost no claims. We drove past her house 6 months later and the car still had the non matching bumper fitted. But made them sign at the time that it was in full and final settlement. Which was the mistake of lesson 2.

Lesson 2. Mummies little soldier. His girlfriend of the time is in the car in front with her mates, he is dicking about in the car behind. Driver in front slams on (No reason) and he nudges it. No damage,all mates. So on they all go. 4 moths later he has bust up with his girlfriend and a solicitors letter arrives. A passenger is claiming whiplash. So now he has to report it to his insurers who want to know why he did not report at the time etc. Suddenly 2 more also have injuries. Insurers decide it is cheaper to pay up than fight. and he get loss of no claims as a result.

[Heorot]

Whiplash claims are a nightmare as it is almost impossible to prove the claimant has it or not. Unless it is a really obviously spurious claim like the time our driver hit the wing mirror of a parked car with 2 occupants who both made claims for whiplash. No other damage to either vehicle. That was one claim I was able to refuse.

[Emankiwi]

Thank you so much for your hard work at trying to figure out who is at fault and your advice has been really appreciated! Here are the latest news:

After speaking to White Dalton they told me to just call third party insurance and deal with them because car driver accepted liability.

Aviva accepeted full liability for their costumer, they are saying the bike is likely written off and I will get a chance to buy it :).
I should know their final decision tomorrow.

Bike value should be at around £2500 as it's only done 13000 miles and it was in perfect condition (2007), do you think insurance will offer a similar amount ?

Who knows if sv650 fairings can still be bought new?

Thank you! Will keep you updated:)

Also here is the updated map with what happened, first one was done in few minutes. http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/Image%2036_1.jpg

[Fordward]

Yes, with that new map you've drawn now, it's clear that its the car drivers fault, he violated your right of way.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[650]

Yes, with that new map you've drawn now, it's clear that its the car drivers fault, he violated your right of way.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It'd be the same situation, whichever route the car driver wanted to take.

Either way, we all agree here - the car driver is 100% at fault.

[Fordward]

If you are going round a two lane roundabout, on the outside lane and you cross the inside lane in order to exit, and you collide with another vehicle who is already in the inside lane, it is your fault. Unless the lane markings are absent or they flow into the exit instead of continuing round the roundabout.

But not many people know this peculiarity in motoring law and everyone on a forum thinks they are right, so I never expected to get agreement from people on this thread, and frankly 650, whether or not you agree, I don't care.

Whether or not people agree on a forum, it won't change the law.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[shiftin_gear98]

Hopefully you have it in writing from Aviva that they accept full liability?

[Bibio]

roundabouts are like traffic lights except that the red light is any traffic coming from your right unless there are contraflows marked out with solid white lines or hatched areas. when there is no vehicles on your right its a green light so you can go. no matter how many lanes there are on the roundabout. yes its common law of the road that everyone is ok about turning left when traffic is on the inside lane and not taking your exit but its still not correct.

biggest cause of crashes like this are people leaving their right indicator on but taking an exit.

a lot of the 3 lane roundabouts up here are now contra flowed once your in a lane thats it your committed, A1 sheriffhall roundabout is a prime example.. lights, contraflows and 3 lanes. its funny as fek watching the LOP's take the wrong exit due to being in the wrong lane :-)

[daktulos]

Another thing I was told, which makes sense so is probably wrong, is that as soon as a roundabout has lights on it, it's no longer a roundabout - it's a one-way circulatory system.

It doesn't make much difference, but from a roundabout you can exit from the right-hand lane ... if it's not a roundabout, you're probably in the wrong lane as they generally spiral outwards.

[Fordward]

roundabouts are like traffic lights except that the red light is any traffic coming from your right unless there are contraflows marked out with solid white lines or hatched areas. when there is no vehicles on your right its a green light so you can go. no matter how many lanes there are on the roundabout

True but only true when you are joining.

Once you've joined a multi lane roundabout you must respect the lane just as you would on a straight dual carriageway.


Another thing I was told, which makes sense so is probably wrong, is that as soon as a roundabout has lights on it, it's no longer a roundabout - it's a one-way circulatory system

Yes that's correct.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[650]

If you are going round a two lane roundabout, on the outside lane and you cross the inside lane in order to exit, and you collide with another vehicle who is already in the inside lane, it is your fault. Unless the lane markings are absent or they flow into the exit instead of continuing round the roundabout.

But not many people know this peculiarity in motoring law and everyone on a forum thinks they are right, so I never expected to get agreement from people on this thread, and frankly 650, whether or not you agree, I don't care.

Whether or not people agree on a forum, it won't change the law.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Care to reference said law? I'm not trying to be arsey, I genuinely want to see it.

[Fordward]

Care to reference said law? I'm not trying to be arsey, I genuinely want to see it.
Road Traffic Act - The law that says when you change lane and cross the white line it's your responsibility to do it safely and not hit the guy next to you.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[650]

Road Traffic Act - The law that says when you change lane and cross the white line it's your responsibility to do it safely and not hit the guy next to you.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

So in this case, absolutely irrelevant, regardless of his road position, he was approaching from the right. The person waiting at the junction has to wait until the vehicle has passed safely and not make assumptions, it's a basic duty to do that.

So not so much a 'peculiarity in road law', more 'made up as you go along'

Ergo, car at fault. No shared blame here.

[Fordward]

So in this case, absolutely irrelevant, regardless of his road position, he was approaching from the right. The person waiting at the junction has to wait until the vehicle has passed safely and not make assumptions, it's a basic duty to do that.

So not so much a 'peculiarity in road law', more 'made up as you go along'

Ergo, car at fault. No shared blame here.
The lines drawn on his first diagram showed the two vehicles on the roundabout with parallel lines alongside each other, indicating he was in lane 2, the car had already joined and was alongside him in lane 1 and he crossed lane 1 to get to his exit.

He has now clarified his drawing showing that the two were not side by side.

If you can't understand the difference there's nothing further I can say that will help you to.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[650]

Would you join the road if you were unsure of the bikes direction?

Don't say yes just to play devils advocate, because we know you wouldn't.

You're being awfully semantic about something that is crystal clear, REGARDLESS of road position, you have to give way to your right until it's absolutely safe to join, he didn't do that, he did the typical cockwomble thing and made an assumption. Now we have a broken bike and a damaged bumper.

[Fordward]

Maybe another pretty picture will help you understand, see attached. You'll note its exactly the lines that were drawn in the first diagram. You'll also note by looking at other vehicles in the picture the bike and car I've drawn are about 3 times the size they should be, so they'd have had to have traveled parallel about 4 car lengths AFTER the car joined the roundabout in order to get into this situation.

In this scenario the accident happens when the bike exits, not when the car joins, there is about 1.5 times the length of an HGV between those two points, and it is the bikes fault, regardless of how much of a muppet the car driver was to get alongside him in the first place.

[Teejayexc]

I don't really care one way or t'other.....

But keep posting 650 I love yer avatar. :-)

[Emankiwi]

Maybe another pretty picture will help you understand, see attached. You'll note its exactly the lines that were drawn in the first diagram. You'll also note by looking at other vehicles in the picture the bike and car I've drawn are about 3 times the size they should be, so they'd have had to have traveled parallel about 4 car lengths AFTER the car joined the roundabout in order to get into this situation.

In this scenario the accident happens when the bike exits, not when the car joins, there is about 1.5 times the length of an HGV between those two points, and it is the bikes fault, regardless of how much of a muppet the car driver was to get alongside him in the first place.

Are you saying that I should have been in the outside lane ? Or that I should have been going slow enough to be able to stop in less than 4 metres? Because when he came out travailng at about 20 miles per hour I barely saw him before he hit me. I am glad that he was a nice person and accepted liability at the spot and later was very helpful. From the damage to my bike you can clearly see who's at fault.

[Emankiwi]

And I agree that on the first picture I would have been at fault, but as I said the second picture is much more accurate. Still waiting for insurance to get back to me

[Fordward]

Everything you did is fine. The only thing that caused confusion was a bit of a dodgy drawing, which made it look as if what you'd done might not be fine.

If you look back at my posts on this thread you will notice that they are discussing the two scenarios and asking for clarification, not making a judgement on which one was actually the case.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Emankiwi]

No problem, wasn't sure if you are discussing the second picture, but would definitely agree with you that on the Last pic that you posted the bike would have been at fault. Thanks for your help @Fordward

[Fordward]

No problem, wasn't sure if you are discussing the second picture, but would definitely agree with you that on the Last pic that you posted the bike would have been at fault. Thanks for your help @Fordward
Yep, I drew it as a hypothetical scenario to try to get 650 to understand why the bike COULD be at fault in this accident as he/she was saying it was crystal clear the cars fault whatever happened.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Blapper]

Yes, taking 650's approach to it's logical conclusion, it would be like saying the first person to enter a roundabout can do no wrong.

[650]

Are you saying that I should have been in the outside lane ? Or that I should have been going slow enough to be able to stop in less than 4 metres? Because when he came out travailng at about 20 miles per hour I barely saw him before he hit me. I am glad that he was a nice person and accepted liability at the spot and later was very helpful. From the damage to my bike you can clearly see who's at fault.

He's talking ****. Ignore.

[650]

Yep, I drew it as a hypothetical scenario to try to get 650 to understand why the bike COULD be at fault in this accident as he/she was saying it was crystal clear the cars fault whatever happened.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

That's just the point, you're going off on ridiculous, irrelevant scenarios - your pretty little picture serves no purpose as that's not what happened here. Even if it WAS what happened, the car would still be at fault, assumption is dangerous.

Have you ever been anywhere near the insurance industry? I spent the best part of 5 years (up til February this year) sitting next to approximately 15 claims adjusters, this kind of nonsense came across their desk on an obscenely regular basis, the person turning right at a roundabout always won out or got at most 25% of the blame. Even then, it was down to situations where witness statements caused contradictions and physical evidence made it almost impossible to work out!

[Fordward]

What an arrogant w***nker to post that somebody's talking **** while hiding behind a keyboard.

I post something to help the OP, the OP is happy and agrees with what I've posted, so what is the point in 650 coming along as of post #46 and starting an argument?

The thread was looked at by a motoring lawyer I was drinking with at the time I first posted and he agrees with me completely, as does everyone else on this thread except 650.

I've nothing else to say here the OP has had the advice he needed and the thread has run its course.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[650]

What an arrogant w***nker to post that somebody's talking **** while hiding behind a keyboard.

I post something to help the OP, the OP is happy and agrees with what I've posted, so what is the point in 650 coming along as of post #46 and starting an argument?

The thread was looked at by a motoring lawyer I was drinking with at the time I first posted and he agrees with me completely, as does everyone else on this thread except 650.

I've nothing else to say here the OP has had the advice he needed and the thread has run its course.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yawn. HAHA...motoring lawyer.

Yeah, alright ;)

[tom_e]

At the end of the day it makes absolutely no difference what a forum full of randoms decide. The insurance company will make up their own minds.
I'm not even sure why it's been discussed this much!

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[Biker Biggles]

If you want to make love or have a fight,get a room.
Lets keep it civil eh?

[fizzwheel]

Indeed, knock if off with the personal insults please.

[Emankiwi]

Indeed, knock if off with the personal insults please.
Nice to see that Admins are keeping this forum civil. Thank you

Does anyone have a fairing bracket for sale?
http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q427/Emankiwi/IMG_1517.jpg

[Fordward]

I'm not known for mincing my words when face to face as you know Fizz, behind a keyboard not much changes. I'd rather just get along but I'm too long in the tooth to put up with those intent on arguments.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Blapper]

If you are indeed long in the tooth Fordward, you should have learned that it is enough to state the facts clearly and calmly. Whether the other party agrees or not will not be influenced by losing it with them. That only influences what everybody else thinks of you.

I disagreed with your explanation of where you said one should indicate on the roundabout but I didn't respond aggressively to you because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether we agree or not.

The OP explained that his first sketch wasn't accurate and the consensus was that he is in the right. Job done, move on.

[BanannaMan]

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/word/more-drama-plz-smiley-emoticon.png

[Fordward]

If you are indeed long in the tooth Fordward, you should have learned that it is enough to state the facts clearly and calmly. Whether the other party agrees or not will not be influenced by losing it with them. That only influences what everybody else thinks of you.

I disagreed with your explanation of where you said one should indicate on the roundabout but I didn't respond aggressively to you

Nor did I respond aggressively to you, and that's how it should be.

Facts stated clearly and calmly to everyone except 650 who's posts in thread have been very aggressive also berating the OP for posting online details that might influence his insurance claim.

I don't suffer fools gladly, and I'm sick to the back teeth of the keyboard warriors (I very much doubt he'd dare respond as he does face to face) on this forum, which is why I don't use it anymore. People start getting aggressive with me then sorry they are going to get it back and I don't care if somebody then thinks bad of me as a result.

Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

At the end of the day it makes absolutely no difference what a forum full of randoms decide. The insurance company will make up their own minds.
I'm not even sure why it's been discussed this much!

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

People love a postmortem, and some people very wise after the event ( I would have signaled earlier, you should have gone into this lane at point X), you can't possibly discuss what the outcome of the insurance claim will be, just offer advice in what to do afterwards in the light of your own experiences. The fact that the driver admitted responsibility should sway things (even though insurance companies tell you never to admit anything, and a smart company will dismiss the drivers confession as 'shock' or some such thing).

Actually 650 was correct in warning against posting stuff online about an upcoming claim, the internet gives an illusion of privacy that simply does not exist, you should not post anything online that you would not be willing to put on the side of a London bus and drive around the country - this is where a lot of young people fall down and get caught 'by posting stuff 'privately on facebook - how naive can you get kids (millennials Heh, what are they like). I know at least 3 people who have lost their jobs through stuff they posted on facebook about their company.

As Blapper rightly said, you gotta know when things are escalating too much (on forums and in real life) and take a chill pill, and don't start getting personal it just ain't worth it.

[Fordward]

They wouldn't escalate face to face as people would have more respect.

If people disagree that's not a problem, if people want to advise not to post accident details on a forum thats no problem either, but do it nicely and show some respect for the person at the other end. That's the only problem.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[shiftin_gear98]

Anyhow moving on, Emankiwi (http://forums.sv650.org/member.php?u=21561).


Those brackets are pants. They literally only hold the fairing in place. They offer no structural support in an off. My bike once stalled pulling out of a side road, basically doing 1 mile an hour.
However I was wrong footed and couldn't stop the inevitable. I held it up in limbo for as long as I could. But had no choice when my back finally said no more than to place my bike on the ground. The banana bracket simply crumpled. Piece of ****.


That's why I purchased a set of R&G protectors, ok they cost £95.00. But having had the bike slip off the side stand one morning and smash into the floor. With zero damage to the fairing. I'm quite glad I did. Shame it didn't save the rear plastic too.


Sorry but I binned the other side in rage at the time.


As before, good luck getting it all sorted.

[shiftin_gear98]

Sorry Fordward, My post took me about 10 mins to type. It sounds way more flippant then intended.
Personally I enjoy this forum as many on here have an insight into stuff I really have no clue of, as I did when I was in a similar situation. (thanks Tam)

[Littlepeahead]

Anyhow moving on, Emankiwi (http://forums.sv650.org/member.php?u=21561).


Those brackets are pants. They literally only hold the fairing in place. They offer no structural support in an off. My bike once stalled pulling out of a side road, basically doing 1 mile an hour.
However I was wrong footed and couldn't stop the inevitable. I held it up in limbo for as long as I could. But had no choice when my back finally said no more than to place my bike on the ground. The banana bracket simply crumpled. Piece of ****.


That's why I purchased a set of R&G protectors, ok they cost £95.00. But having had the bike slip off the side stand one morning and smash into the floor. With zero damage to the fairing. I'm quite glad I did. Shame it didn't save the rear plastic too.


Sorry but I binned the other side in rage at the time.


As before, good luck getting it all sorted.


Agree on the R&Gs, I had some on my SV and on the day when I went to put my foot down at a T-junction only to discover a big dent under my foot in the Tarmac I laid the bike down as gently as possible and the only damage was the end broke off the gear changer. A friend did a similar thing on his GSXF without bungs and managed a ridiculous amount of expensive cosmetic damage - of course he did this the day after asking me if I thought bungs were worth the £85 and should he order some? S0d's law at its finest.

[Blapper]

OMG LPH - sounds like me!

I'm looking for some for my curvy now...

[Swin]

Hit a patch of black ice on my SV a few years back, the R&Gs prevented nearly all the damage, although I did have a chip out of the rear cotton bobbin where it touched down. Had to replace the crash bung, but as LPH says, that could have turned out a hell of a lot more expensive without them

[Blapper]

You mean I could have avoided this: https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5664/31017452121_cfb4512950.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PfUxTg)2016-11-20 13.08.35 (https://flic.kr/p/PfUxTg) by Andrew Hayes (https://www.flickr.com/photos/spraynpray/), on Flickr

[shiftin_gear98]

Yep

[Emankiwi]

Will be selling the bike in Spring because I am too young to die or to get any permanent disability. I did only 2,000 miles total before this happened and it wasn't the first close call, Had 2 just in November then this happened. So I would like to get the bike back to original condition and then sell it.

Good new is that bike is written off and I will buy it back.

Thank you for your advice, totally agree that in a crash those brackets are useless and probably do more damage...

[Fordward]

Would thoroughly recommend advanced training, teaches you how to anticipate and avoid this kind of thing.

I'm 24 years without a collision with another vehicle, all my accidents have been due to going too fast on country roads.

I do about 12000 miles a year on average by motorbike. Couple of years ago due to a few European trips it was 16000.

Decided several years ago to stop riding like a muppet because that was the only time I crashed, so the logic was stop doing stupid things you'll stop crashing. So far it has worked, touch wood! Haven't crashed since.

Motorcycling doesn't have to be dangerous, it's all down to the rider.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Emankiwi]

What you said is very true, but I haven't been a very good rider and because the bike is used just for fun my riding is very aggressive, I am only 20.
I will possibly get a bike in future but at the moment I would rather not risk my life.

[Emankiwi]

Also that was my first bike, and I passed after only 11 hours of training. So that's definitely not how you want to start riding.

[TamSV]

If you're not keeping the bike I assume the only reason to keep the salvage would be to squeeze a bit more cash out of the situation. If so, do your sums carefully.

You might be better off just taking the write off settlement.

A Cat D is worth less as it's a non-starter for a lot of people. One that's been repaired on the cheap even more so.

I'm not saying don't take it back, just don't do it because everyone seems to think it's always a good idea. Sometimes it isn't the best move.

[Bibio]

my training when i was a youth was... this is the clutch this is the gear lever, these are the brakes etc.etc now get on with it. 1/2hr later i was let loose on the road.

yes i crashed a LOT but i soon learnt not to do silly stuff.

fear has no belonging in motorcycle riding, if you fear the 'what if' you will never reach full potential and your reactions will never be as good. letting go of self preservation is one of the hardest things to learn and self preservation is the major cause of crashing due to 'freezing up' like corner fixation.

if i die crashing my bike i will die happy and until then i will keep riding my bike.

[shiftin_gear98]

It's obviously your choice what you do, and good on you. I took my test when I was 34.
If I'd done it when I was 17 etc. I wouldn't be here now. I used to be a Muppet in a car instead.
If I'm honest - I'm still a bit of a Muppet on the bike. But you live and learn.


If you do get the salvage back, personally I'd remove all the front fairing altogether. Tidy the bike up, sell it without the fairing - sell faring separately. Unfaired and faired bikes go for roughly the same money.
Sod spending £300 quid to get a replacement only to sell it for the same money...

[Red Herring]

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread around fault and blame, both of which are very emotive subjects and can prevent people from examining facts objectively....

Leaving them aside for a moment lets talk about responsibility and what is required by the law and the Highway code which offers guidance. Generally vehicles entering roundabouts are required to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout. Give way means they must not cause the other vehicle to have to alter course or speed. Think of the entrances rather like a series of T junctions. It doesn't matter which lane the vehicle on the roundabout is in, they are on the roundabout. Even if the vehicle on the roundabout is in lane two (counting from the outside) and is in the process of changing to lane one when they collide with the vehicle entering they still have precedence. If they are changing lane without indicating this may may be used to explain why the other driver could have been misled but it doesn't shift the precedence. Pretty much the only exception to this is when the vehicle entering has a dedicated lane clearly marked allowing them to turn left and the vehicle on the roundabout crosses this when making it's exit.

When all vehicles are on the roundabout then it is the responsibility of a driver changing lanes, or crossing the path of another, to give way. Obviously painted lanes on a roundabout help make this a while lot easier but in their absence you need to examine the space available and did each driver leave the other necessary room? The classic is the smaller roundabout where one vehicle straight lines pinching the offside vehicle against the centre island. You also need to consider where each vehicle was prior to the collision and what the driver was doing. If they were clearly behind and were effectively overtaking then they have additional responsibilities, which is worth remembering as a motorcyclist when you take a dive up the inside of a car on a roundabout only to find them closing the door.....

Having got all that off my chest I'll throw in another stirrer.... especially as Forward seems to have been getting all the flack and most seem to have missed a very obvious point.....

In my opinion the responsibility to give way in this instance appears on the information provided to rest with the vehicle entering the roundabout, however the "fault" or "blame" for the collision rests with both of them. Every single one of us is capable of making a mistake or misjudging something, and we all sit here and regularly acknowledge that car drivers are blind and out to kill us.... yet time and time again I see a motorcyclist put themselves in a position where they are completely at the mercy of a car driver and entrusting their safety to the assumption that the car driver will do what they should. We call it the dead right mentality. It's the assumption that as long as they are doing everything correctly then any collision will be the other parties "fault". They'll still be dead mind you, only they'll be dead right rather than dead wrong......

In this instance the motorcyclist is going round a roundabout and approaching an entrance to their nearside. There are various points from which another vehicle can come and kill them, check behind, nope nothing there, check alongside, all clear there as well, how about from the entrance? Oh yes, I can see a car approaching, or alternatively I can't see into that entrance at all (a junction is only clear if you physically see into it and confirm there is nothing there). Either way my riding plan is going to be based on not getting killed by anything that may or may not come out of that junction. Firstly if I can see a car approaching can I position myself so that even if they come out without stopping or giving way I can avoid them? Sometimes this only requires a minor adjustment to speed or course. If I can't do this due to other traffic already around me or the topography of the roundabout then what can I do to make sure the car driver has seen me and understands my intentions. Can I see the driver physically or can I only see their bonnet? If I can't see their eyes how can they see me? What can I do to reinforce my message either through position or use of signals (don't forget hand signals, that is the approved ones.... can be very useful to a motorcyclist especially on a roundabout).

In other words is there anything you can do, regardless of who has precedence, to avoid or reduce the possibility of a collision. In this instance I don't think the OP did. He may not agree with me on that one, he may well hold the view that it isn't his responsibility to allow for the mistakes of others in which case he is in good company because the vast majority of other motorists also hold that view. There are a lot of people out there who really appreciate them taking that approach, most of them work in the medical, legal or automotive industry..... :)

[Emankiwi]

If you're not keeping the bike I assume the only reason to keep the salvage would be to squeeze a bit more cash out of the situation. If so, do your sums carefully.

You might be better off just taking the write off settlement.

A Cat D is worth less as it's a non-starter for a lot of people. One that's been repaired on the cheap even more so.

I'm not saying don't take it back, just don't do it because everyone seems to think it's always a good idea. Sometimes it isn't the best move.
Didn't realise that it would become a cat-d automatically, thank you for telling me.

[Corny Gizmo]

If not cat C, depends on amount of damage

[Fordward]

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread around fault and blame, both of which are very emotive subjects and can prevent people from examining facts objectively....

Leaving them aside for a moment lets talk about responsibility and what is required by the law and the Highway code which offers guidance. Generally vehicles entering roundabouts are required to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout. Give way means they must not cause the other vehicle to have to alter course or speed. Think of the entrances rather like a series of T junctions. It doesn't matter which lane the vehicle on the roundabout is in, they are on the roundabout. Even if the vehicle on the roundabout is in lane two (counting from the outside) and is in the process of changing to lane one when they collide with the vehicle entering they still have precedence. If they are changing lane without indicating this may may be used to explain why the other driver could have been misled but it doesn't shift the precedence. Pretty much the only exception to this is when the vehicle entering has a dedicated lane clearly marked allowing them to turn left and the vehicle on the roundabout crosses this when making it's exit.

When all vehicles are on the roundabout then it is the responsibility of a driver changing lanes, or crossing the path of another, to give way. Obviously painted lanes on a roundabout help make this a while lot easier but in their absence you need to examine the space available and did each driver leave the other necessary room? The classic is the smaller roundabout where one vehicle straight lines pinching the offside vehicle against the centre island. You also need to consider where each vehicle was prior to the collision and what the driver was doing. If they were clearly behind and were effectively overtaking then they have additional responsibilities, which is worth remembering as a motorcyclist when you take a dive up the inside of a car on a roundabout only to find them closing the door.....

Having got all that off my chest I'll throw in another stirrer.... especially as Forward seems to have been getting all the flack and most seem to have missed a very obvious point.....

In my opinion the responsibility to give way in this instance appears on the information provided to rest with the vehicle entering the roundabout, however the "fault" or "blame" for the collision rests with both of them. Every single one of us is capable of making a mistake or misjudging something, and we all sit here and regularly acknowledge that car drivers are blind and out to kill us.... yet time and time again I see a motorcyclist put themselves in a position where they are completely at the mercy of a car driver and entrusting their safety to the assumption that the car driver will do what they should. We call it the dead right mentality. It's the assumption that as long as they are doing everything correctly then any collision will be the other parties "fault". They'll still be dead mind you, only they'll be dead right rather than dead wrong......

In this instance the motorcyclist is going round a roundabout and approaching an entrance to their nearside. There are various points from which another vehicle can come and kill them, check behind, nope nothing there, check alongside, all clear there as well, how about from the entrance? Oh yes, I can see a car approaching, or alternatively I can't see into that entrance at all (a junction is only clear if you physically see into it and confirm there is nothing there). Either way my riding plan is going to be based on not getting killed by anything that may or may not come out of that junction. Firstly if I can see a car approaching can I position myself so that even if they come out without stopping or giving way I can avoid them? Sometimes this only requires a minor adjustment to speed or course. If I can't do this due to other traffic already around me or the topography of the roundabout then what can I do to make sure the car driver has seen me and understands my intentions. Can I see the driver physically or can I only see their bonnet? If I can't see their eyes how can they see me? What can I do to reinforce my message either through position or use of signals (don't forget hand signals, that is the approved ones.... can be very useful to a motorcyclist especially on a roundabout).

In other words is there anything you can do, regardless of who has precedence, to avoid or reduce the possibility of a collision. In this instance I don't think the OP did. He may not agree with me on that one, he may well hold the view that it isn't his responsibility to allow for the mistakes of others in which case he is in good company because the vast majority of other motorists also hold that view. There are a lot of people out there who really appreciate them taking that approach, most of them work in the medical, legal or automotive industry..... :)
Thank you very much RH.

Regards not having to take responsibility for others, I tend to find opinion completely splits on that depending on whether the driver has undertaken any further training.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Fordward]

There are no lane markings between where the car entered and the bike was due to exit. I was taught that this was a single lane the width of two cars, so the bike would not have been changing lanes before exiting.

Either way, the bike would have been positioning itself before the car entered the roundabout, and the car has to give way to traffic on the roundabout.

RH. What you've said about lane markings seems to be contrary to the above, with what you've said about there being space for two vehicles invoking the same rules.

I thought what Daktulos was saying was right in that if the are no lane markings there is only one lane?

It seems there may be a misunderstanding or gap in my knowledge there. Please can you elaborate?

Is it a case of lane markings making it more clear cut, and no lane markings needing an examination of the circumstances to determine where the majority of blame lies?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

All I gather from RH post is that if you do not strive to second guess the intentions of every other driver / rider on the road and an accident ensues, then it is partly you fault - even if you are doing the correct things - quite a perverse point of view really.

We know any biker worth his salt (and with any sense of self preservation) does this anyway, but just because you maybe guessed wrong on one occasion you are somehow at fault does not seem correct to me.

As I said earlier everyone loves a post morten, and you always get the 'if only you had done this instead of that' - this is the last thing you want to hear when you or your beloved bike is damaged - what you need is advice on getting the best claim result from insurance.

[Fordward]

All I gather from RH post is that if you do not strive to second guess the intentions of every other driver / rider on the road and an accident ensues, then it is partly you fault - even if you are doing the correct things - quite a perverse point of view really.

We know any biker worth his salt (and with any sense of self preservation) does this anyway, but just because you maybe guessed wrong on one occasion you are somehow at fault does not seem correct to me.

As I said earlier everyone loves a post morten, and you always get the 'if only you had done this instead of that' - this is the last thing you want to hear when you or your beloved bike is damaged - what you need is advice on getting the best claim result from insurance.

I thought it was a very good post.

It only talks about taking a share of blame after he says "now I've got all that off my chest", before that he discusses the semantics of how right of way works a) When joining a roundabout, and b) after everyone has joined.

Did you only gather what you gathered from it because the second and third paragraphs was still stuff you already knew? Or is it worthwhile reading the second and third paragraphs again?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

The most enduring thing I have I have learned in my life so far is -

A man convinced against his will, retains the same opinion still !

It's the hardest thing in the world for some people to admit their judgment may sometimes be on the flawed side of perfect - it takes practice and humble pie can taste pretty awful to start with, but the reaction and respect from others can sweeten the taste quite quickly.

One thing I have noted on many forums is that no one ever says its a good post if the views expressed are not in line with their own views.

From my point of view RH is totally wrong and is being provocative to state in his last paragraph that he didn't think the OP did all he could to avoid the collision, the only way anyone can make a statement like that is if they were actually there at the time with a birds eye view of the scene - and I'm guessing he was nowhere near.