Filtering accidents

Originally Posted by Bender

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.

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

[Ratty]

Originally Posted by Paws

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

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

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

[ophic]

Originally Posted by AndyW

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AndyW

The highway code is a guide, not the law, and the judges decision is very clear.

Yes and No

Originally Posted by The Highway Code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence

Originally Posted by The Highway Code

The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability.

Originally Posted by AndyW

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.

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?

Originally Posted by AndyW

Filtering is legal and has had (at least) one case where the judge has ruled so and it is now a legal precedant.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RatchetJob

Yes and No

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.

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?

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.

So the insurance companies could argue ...

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.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by AndyW

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.

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

Originally Posted by Dave20046

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

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)?

Originally Posted by Bender

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)?

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.