Filtering accidents
 

I've been researching the outcome of insurance claims involving filtering since my accident last Friday. Seems I might not have a leg to stand on (pun) in the claims department with maybe a best case of 50 - 50 :mad:. I know there has been a recent land-mark but it may not be relevant to my case because both parties were travelling along the same road in that case.

How have you gone on with filtering insurance claims?
Did you have witnesses?

Thanks in advance for any feedback

Ratty

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Bit of a grey area, filtering.

Having read your other post though, you said the other party was flashed out - this should go in your favour because flashing has no legal recognition - you should only pull out if its safe to do so. Clearly it wasn't. Could she have been reasonably expected to see you approach?

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Theres a letter that you can fill in and send off to your solicitor which should help you, its on here somewhere as it was one of the org members that came up with it

Re: Filtering accidents
 

send me your email address and I can send it on, or search for linsey w's letter

It isn't really a grey area anymore. Think it was a of 2006

what happened, didn't someone pull out from a junction in front of you? Their fault.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

Found it:
Filtering letter, helped my mate win his case :)

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.p...ltering+letter

Re: Filtering accidents
 

See here too


The third party have ended up saying that they will pay for everything without predjudice as they have had no further communications from their client.......which is an admission of guilt in my eyes.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

ditto, althoguh that without predujice thing ****es me off.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

I think there are at least two elements to this accident:

1. The car driver pulled out at a junction (minor road to major road) without giving way to traffic (you) on the major road. (Rule 172)
2. Filtering is regarded as an overtaking manoeuver and the highway code states that you must not overtake when approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road (rule 167)

So fault may not be so easy to determine. It is not just a simple case of someone causing an accident by performing a U turn without proper observation.

I am not siding with the car driver, I do believe she should have moved out carefully, but these are the rules that you may come up against.

Re: Filtering accidents
 

how many lanes were on your side of the road?

Re: Filtering accidents
 

If she was flashed to go by another driver, then the flashing driver takes some responsibilty. As pointed out on IAM courses, don't ever indicate to someone else it is safe to go as you assume responsibility and become liable.
Filtering is legal and has had (at least) one case where the judge has ruled so and it is now a legal precedant. The highway code is a guide, not the law, and the judges decision is very clear. Fluffed if I know where to look the exact case up now, but it should be in the archives on here somewhere as I remember a similar discussion.

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.