Accident and Blame, whos at fault?

[yorkie_chris]

A friend of mine who has a zx636 came off today.

Filtered down between 2 lanes of traffic, the RHS lane is a right turn or straight ahead lane.
My mate filtered to front of the traffic, between the lanes, when the lights turned he gave it some beans and indicated right, when ahead of the car (a lexus 4x4) pulled to the right as he was turning right.
At which point the lexus hits bike on rear offside quarter, throwing rider and bike down the road.
My mate is unhurt, but the bikes bashed to bits as it hit the kerb.

So, where will the blame go?
Advice for me to pass on?

Ta

Chris

Hmm. A tough one. I would like to think that driver is at fault. Was bike indicating to turn right before he made his move? Blame may be laid upon biker if not. I know we have bikes but we still should indicate to let people know which way we're going. That said if the car hit him up the bum it may default to driver of cars fault anyway. I doubt it will be cut and clear though.

Quick question did police attend, if so they would have worked out who was at fault....From what you have said, its look like to me the car turned into him....

So in that case the car failed to keep within its lane and turned onto him. To me it sounds like the car has bike by failing to keep distance and crossing into his lane. So in my opion I would say the car is at fault, on the information that I have. So the car would have the bike from o/s front wing or from the front as it was turining. Where it hit the bike would depend on the turning angle of the car.

To me that sounds like driving without due care attention.

I take it he wasn't filtering at the time was he?

If you can post any phots up from the accident that would help. Its good that your mate is okay!

Okay what I'll do as well is speak to someone who is more experined at this and get their opion and let you know what they say...I'll have think anyway.

I am not sure pal. I seem to remember that you can filter through stationary traffic but have to stop behind the first car. If that's the case he could be partially to blame? Search this forum for "filtering etc" there are few links which could help.

[G]

Its a tough one .....I would say 50/50

The car should have seen the bike and taken preventative action.

However, in my opinion the bike was not performing a safe manourver, if you want to turn right, get in the right hand lane, dont filter to the front then sit in the middle thinking you can get away quick enough to cut in, its asking for trouble, you would fail your test for it/probably get a tug by the police for it.

Both in the wrong.

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

Its a tough one .....I would say 50/50

The car should have seen the bike and taken preventative action.

However, in my opinion the bike was not performing a safe manourver, if you want to turn right, get in the right hand lane, dont filter to the front then sit in the middle thinking you can get away quick enough to cut in, its asking for trouble, you would fail your test for it/probably get a tug by the police for it.

Both in the wrong.

its hard to know without seeing the junction first hand, filtering is what is know as a high risk manourver....but it doesn't sounds like he was at the time. In fat probally turining....

In that case the car should have kept distance etc....I'll give you another example...

Moped travelling down the street, car pull out without looking into its path...the scooter goes into the front of the car. Right the car driver states that the scooter was travelling at speed faster than 30 mph..

But it doesn't matter if the scooter was speeding, becasue the car driver failed to look and went across its lane without looking. Hence car driver is totally in the wrong.

I do filter to front of lights and sit in front of the cars right we all do it or most of us, is it wrong yeah. But you shouldn't get pulled up for it.

[yorkie_chris]

Apparently the biker caned it, then moved over into right hand lane, car hit him from behind.
I believe as my mate has slowed to turn right the car has then hit him.

Police did attend (were a few cars back, didnt see anything), driver of car and his mother were in the car, no other witnesses bothered to stop.

chain of events is;
filtered down between lanes, stopped for red, set off from the lights fairly quickly, moved into the right hand lane, slowed for right turn, just started the right turn, then impact.

The car drivers words "why did you cut in front of me?"

[Bluepete]

With no independent witnesses, at best, 50/50 i would think. The Lexus driver will maintain the rider cut in at the last minute.
If the Cops took an RTC report, get your mate to ask for a copy and find out who they recorded as vehicle one. Veh. 1 is usually recorded as the one at fault in the opinion of the attending officer.

[timwilky]

From what you said, the car impacted on the offside rear of the bike.

This could read that when lights change, both car/bike set off. biker then attempts to move into RH lane and hits car already there. At which point the fault is entirely that of the rider.

Trying to turn right across the path of traffic is asking for trouble. He should have been in the lane at the start of the manoeuvre.

[the_lone_wolf]

if he stopped then the fact that he was filtering is irrelevent is it not, was it only after the lights went green and he pulled away that the car pulled over and essentially drove into the back of him?

sounds fairly air tight, but if he didn't signal until he'd started moving away from the lights it's possible the car driver simply assumed he was going straight on. i expect that's the line the car driver's defence will take, or possibly even claiming that the bike never signalled, and without witnesses it's the biker's word against the car drivers.

my prediction: 50/50