Re: Filtering accidents
 

Same thing happened to me and I tried to swerve out of the way.
They never replied to the letters from their company so I got all my cash back :D

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Thanks for that Paws. That's brill. And thanks for all the helpful replies. I'll use a version of the letter in my reply to the solicitor and hopefully with good responses from the witnesses I'll have a better chance.

I'll keep you posted.

Alan

Re: Filtering accidents
 

When i did my driving test, they said the exact opposite - never believe someone who flashes, as the responsibility for checking that the road is clear lies with you and no-one else.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Yes and No



Nope. If someone flashes their lights at you, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is safe to proceed. No one elses. Do you trust everyone on the road, have you seen some of the drivers out there?

Yes, filtering is legal in the same way that overtaking is legal. But they are both only legal under certain circumstances. I.e. one car over taking another on a blind bend and causing an accident - not legal.



Rule 167 about overtaking is a guideline with no specific law behind it.

Rule 172 about emerging from junctions is backed by the road traffic act.


So the insurance companies could argue that the OP broke a rule while filtering past a junction and the the car driver broke the law by not giving way at the junction.

However, the argument could continue along the lines of "because you broke the rule, the driver didn't break the law", etc, etc.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

What's legal and what's not is largely irrelevant to be honest. This is a civil claim not a criminal prosecution. Civil claims resolve on negligence not necessarily road law.

For example, speeding is illegal, however if you are doing 60 in a 40 on a straight road and someone pulls out in front of you from a side road, they are still 100% at fault in civil law, as they have been negligent in not ensuring the way was clear before emerging.

Filtering is always a difficult one, but in my experience, rarely goes 100% in the bikes favour, when filtering at a junction. Filtering at a junction in itself is often interpreted as an act of negligence, unless you are going at a speed that will allow you to immediately stop if confronted by a hazard (ie. walking pace)

The only real hope you have to be honest of a 100% recovery is if the witess evidence confirms that the car driver just shot straight out of the junction without making any reasonable check to ensure it was clear. If the witnesses say that the driver edged out you are probably looking at a split liability settlement. The most common precedent used in these cases is Powell -v- Moody, which (sorry) is 80% in favour of the car driver.

If the witnesses say the car driver was edging out, then there is case precedent 100% in the car's favour (clarke -v- Winchurch)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but, unless the other guy shot straight out of the junction, and the witnesses confirm this, you are not going to be looking at a 100% settlement here. Unless of course, as others have, the car driver just refuses to cooperate with his insurer.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Apologies for probably badly quoting this.
Also we are probably getting into the niggles of the law where you want to talk to a qualified motoring solictor to get a definitive answer.

The highway code is NOT and cannot be law. The law is the Road Traffic Act (or the highways act or whichever) which may be excerpted in the highway code. A law must be passed by an act of parliament, which the highway code isn't. The highway code simplifies what the actual law says, and has had misprints.

The highway code is used to deduce liability as it is assumed that this is the minimum standard of acceptable driving, and if not following the code then you are judged to be driving dangerously.

No I don't trust anyones decision but mine, and neither should anyone else trust anyones but theirs. Some muppet has flashed me to go when there was a pedestrian walking in front of my car!
If you say in court that you moved out from the junction because the bloke in the blue car indicated it was safe to do so, bloke in blue car can be assigned some liability.

Thats why it ends up in court, both sides blame the other and judge will decides who is to blame and to what amount.
Nothing legal is ever cut and dried.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

I seriously doubt that this is true, unless the bloke in the blue car is the one claiming against you.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Sorry to de-rail for a second Ratty.

What does this "Without predujice" thing actually mean? It was explained to me recently but I've forgotten. Does it mean that liability doesn't stand with me and that it's a non-fault claim (for insurance purposes)?

Re: Filtering accidents
 

It is a way of "protecting" the parties during a negotiation. It basically means that when one party makes an offer "without prejudice" the other party can't refuse the offer and then take them to court saying he offered me £x as a settlement so he must be at fault. etc.

You can still turn down the offer and take the matter to court it just means that the offer in itself won't be seen as an admission of liability.

I hope that makes sense.