This is a travesty of justice!

http://t.co/07GXVyTi

They can't be serious!?

I know what that's touched a nerve with you.

You're allowed to use as much of your lane as you want.

I know exactly how that guy feels and this worries me slightly as my claim is still going and the lorry crossed in to my lane and hit me.

I was in the middle of my lane mind you, but, you can't say a lorry can use as much of the road as they like! That is madness

[timwilky]

Thank link doesn't work. Guess it relates to the court of appeal case that says it is expecting too much for a truck driver to stay within his own lane and if he knocks off a bikers leg whilst over a solid white it is the bikers fault for being in the wrong part of his own lane.

dopey decision. guess there were some poor barristers in court that day.

Originally Posted by timwilky

Thank link doesn't work. Guess it relates to the court of appeal case that says it is expecting too much for a truck driver to stay within his own lane and if he knocks off a bikers leg whilst over a solid white it is the bikers fault for being in the wrong part of his own lane.

dopey decision. guess there were some poor barristers in court that day.

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...ion/20647.html

Better?

Yeah, that is the general jist of it

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

I know exactly how that guy feels and this worries me slightly as my claim is still going and the lorry crossed in to my lane and hit me.

I was in the middle of my lane mind you, but, you can't say a lorry can use as much of the road as they like! That is madness

Yeah, in case I wasn't clear: HE (biker) can use as much of his lane as he wants, up to the line. For the court to somehow agree with the trucker's defense that the bike was too far over in his own lane is nuts: what if it was a large bus or something instead of a bike and they'd clipped each other?

Let's hope this isn't used as precedent.

I am absolutely speachless at this. not only is he driving a truck, HE IS A PROFESSIONAL DRIVER. its wrong on just so many different levels. Granted the biker MAY have broken the HIGHWAY CODE, but the highway code is not legally binding. The truck driver crossed the white lines when (evidently) it was not safe to do so and therefore BROKE THE LAW. The judges ruling effectively states that the highway code supercedes UK legislation.

You could take this further saying that the ruling is therefore unconstitutional (yes the UK does have a constitution), since guidelines produced by a government department cannot and should not supercede legislation enacted by parliament.

[Messie]

This may explain the decision better than I can (stolen from another site)

"The claim was civil, under the doctrine of negligence - i.e. to sue the person for damages.

this is a seperate claim as opposed to getting charged for a traffic offence, and for the insurer covering costs. It's got NOTHING to do with traffic offenses...

This is a pay-day action. If its true that the road was too narrow, the judge is saying it's not enough to show negligence to the required standard.. as in the settled legal definition... "to be so negligent, that no reasonable person in the circumstances would have done so/omitted"...

if the road was so narrow that a big truck couldn't reasonably pass without being slightly over the middle line, what was he s'posed to do? stop and do a U-turn? (potentially more dangerous) - it was found that it was open to the driver to assume that a bike, or even a car, would hug the LHS in such a situation to avoid being clipped by oncoming large truck.

tellingly, even the trial judge who allowed damages found the rider to be CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT (again, another settled legal defense to negligence) This is relevant too in victoria as IT IS POSSIBLE TO FIND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT EXTINGUISHES THE CLAIM. (see torts act 58 vic)

and the appeal court so found. This is where the trucking co's barrister's comment came in "the loss only occured as the rider was riding too close" - i.e. he argued that his contribution was so high as it ought extinguish the claim. (nexus doctrine) "the loss would not have occured but for the rider's actions"

so in the circumstances, where the truck, not prohibited from that road, and not able to reasonably make the corner without venturing somewhat over the middle line - can you say the driver was so negligent that a resonable person would not have done the same thing in the circs?

probably not.

claim dismissed."

What?

[Fallout]

Originally Posted by monkey

What?

Thanks Messie. That sheds new light on it.

I can't say this gets my goat. If I see a truck close to the white line, I ride in the gutter and kiss the hedgerow. I like my legs. I can't imagine a scenario where a truck takes me by surprise when I'm on the outside of the lane and hacks my leg off.

Don't know about your situation Cymraeg_Atodeg, but I'm sure the driver who hit you was unreasonable if he got you when you were in the centre. I could imagine a scenario where I'm passing a truck in the centre of my lane, and he suddenly swerves out and hit me. Fair play, definitely his fault then, but I'd have to be a pleb if I was in the outside of the lane passing a truck.

Only exception is when you're waiting to turn into a road. Then you should be able to be on the outside without worrying about getting mown down.