bike crash

[yorkie_chris]

Nah seems quite reasonable to me.

(if she's alright looking...)

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by teriyakimonkey

P.S. post 49 is a bit strong aint it?

i went back and re-read what i'd written, and i thought to myself

"god damn i am so right it's wrong"

there's a time and place for sarcastic comments, while in earshot of someone you could have killed because you didn't look properly isn't one of them

a note to the literal nazis - it was a metaphorical financial raping i was endorsing, not a genuine one

Where were you Heros on the inside of the cars or in between the two lanes?

[heros]

in between the two lanes whys that?

Trying to picture what happened. Was she reversing onto the opposite lane to end up driving toward the camera?

[heros]

no she was not reversing, she was turning right to go the opposite way to me so coming across traffic. according to the passenger in the car that let her out she just looked left without looking right then pulled out, saw me on the right too late, paniced and stopped leaving me nowhere to go

[heros]

i hope that makes sense lol the painkillers im on are quite strong atm

Originally Posted by teriyakimonkey

From what I've always read the insurance usually goes 50/50 becuase you were filtering but I think there was a landmark kind of case where it went 70/30 in the bikes benefit, which can be mentioned to get you the same deal. Don't know where I read it though I'm afraid.

Glad you're ok and good luck! Hope you get a good payout.

P.S. post 49 is a bit strong aint it?

here you go http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/...tering_law.htm

[Red Herring]

Good article but I'd read a bit more into it than suggesting that all filtering is now legal and you have nothing to worry about if knocked off whilst doing so. Firstly you still need to consider the highway code and advice in relation to overtaking (which is in effect what you are doing) so filtering past junctions or anywhere where a driver might reasonably be expected to emerge will go against you. Secondly you still have an obligation to ride with due care and attention, so riding past a gap where a driver could reasonably be expected to occupy without checking it is clear isn't going to do you any favours either. Finally the case law says that you must have no chance to take avoiding action, and I think any barrister worth the cost of his wig will be able to suggest the Op could have done things to reduce the chance of this collision.

This thread is full of persons offering sympathy to the Op, and fair enough he is in some rather delicate pain and certainly fell victim to another's mistake. I deliberately wrote a rather provocative post suggesting he might not be quite the victim he thought, half expecting the be hit by a barrage of replies challenging my view or at least a few PM's telling me I'm a heartless arrogant oaf......

The fact that I have neither suggests persons on here have no bottle (not likely from what I've seen) or that they see some sense in what I said. We all know that there are some drunk, drugged, unlicenced, infirm or just plain incompetent drivers out there who are all equally capable of breaking the rules of the road, and i would suggest that anyone who is prepared to go out there in anything less than a tank without recognising that they have to take some personal responsibility for avoiding these drivers is pushing their luck. We are all capable of making mistakes, sometimes it just results in us falling off on a bend, sometimes we actually involve another vehicle, but being on bikes we generally lose. Unfortunately sometimes out mistake is actually failing to see somebody else's mistake in time to avoid being involved in it, and the frustrating thing is they are often the easiest ones to avoid. I'm not suggesting that everybody rushes out and forms a queue at their local IAM/ROSPA group, but if when something like this thread happens we spent more time examining why it happened rather than slagging off the other driver and working out how we can get loads of compensation we might well avoid it happening again. Crashes don't just happen, they are the consequence of a chain of events that we can recognise and break at any time.

The Op was filtering past a line of stationery traffic, with nothing coming the other way. There was a gap in the traffic next to a driveway. He was doing 20-25 mph.

First he could have been further out. The only source of danger was in the line of traffic, distance = time to react.

He saw the gap, and presumed it was caused by the traffic stopping for the roadworks. Why? When was the last time you saw someone stop in a line and leave a gap in front of them? If there is a gap someone will try and fill it. Where could they come from? The gap in the tree line rather gives the presence of the driveway away.

Did he see the driver emerging from the driveway into the gap? Probably not, otherwise the driver would have been able to see him. Did the driver even look for him, apparently not as the witness says they were looking the other way. Not all drivers think bike (fact of life). She is coming out of her driveway across a line of traffic just like every other day that week. A car has stopped short to give her room to emerge so now all she is interested in is looking to her left to see if she can go straight out. She sees it is clear to the left, starts forward and as soon as she gets a view to the right she sees the bike, and stops (confirmed by OP). You run this scenario past just about any normal member of the public and they will tell you that in their opinion there was not a lot else the driver of the car could have done. 50/50? Helps you understand why the original judge put it 80/20 against the bike!

In reality if the Op had been further out, recognised the potential for someone to come out of the gap, and slowed down giving both himself and the car driver more time to react, none of this would have happened. Sorry folks, sermon over, good luck in court!

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Good article but I'd read a bit more into it than suggesting that all filtering is now legal and you have nothing to worry about if knocked off whilst doing so. Firstly you still need to consider the highway code and advice in relation to overtaking (which is in effect what you are doing) so filtering past junctions or anywhere where a driver might reasonably be expected to emerge will go against you. Secondly you still have an obligation to ride with due care and attention, so riding past a gap where a driver could reasonably be expected to occupy without checking it is clear isn't going to do you any favours either. Finally the case law says that you must have no chance to take avoiding action, and I think any barrister worth the cost of his wig will be able to suggest the Op could have done things to reduce the chance of this collision.

This thread is full of persons offering sympathy to the Op, and fair enough he is in some rather delicate pain and certainly fell victim to another's mistake. I deliberately wrote a rather provocative post suggesting he might not be quite the victim he thought, half expecting the be hit by a barrage of replies challenging my view or at least a few PM's telling me I'm a heartless arrogant oaf......

The fact that I have neither suggests persons on here have no bottle (not likely from what I've seen) or that they see some sense in what I said. We all know that there are some drunk, drugged, unlicenced, infirm or just plain incompetent drivers out there who are all equally capable of breaking the rules of the road, and i would suggest that anyone who is prepared to go out there in anything less than a tank without recognising that they have to take some personal responsibility for avoiding these drivers is pushing their luck. We are all capable of making mistakes, sometimes it just results in us falling off on a bend, sometimes we actually involve another vehicle, but being on bikes we generally lose. Unfortunately sometimes out mistake is actually failing to see somebody else's mistake in time to avoid being involved in it, and the frustrating thing is they are often the easiest ones to avoid. I'm not suggesting that everybody rushes out and forms a queue at their local IAM/ROSPA group, but if when something like this thread happens we spent more time examining why it happened rather than slagging off the other driver and working out how we can get loads of compensation we might well avoid it happening again. Crashes don't just happen, they are the consequence of a chain of events that we can recognise and break at any time.

The Op was filtering past a line of stationery traffic, with nothing coming the other way. There was a gap in the traffic next to a driveway. He was doing 20-25 mph.

First he could have been further out. The only source of danger was in the line of traffic, distance = time to react.

He saw the gap, and presumed it was caused by the traffic stopping for the roadworks. Why? When was the last time you saw someone stop in a line and leave a gap in front of them? If there is a gap someone will try and fill it. Where could they come from? The gap in the tree line rather gives the presence of the driveway away.

Did he see the driver emerging from the driveway into the gap? Probably not, otherwise the driver would have been able to see him. Did the driver even look for him, apparently not as the witness says they were looking the other way. Not all drivers think bike (fact of life). She is coming out of her driveway across a line of traffic just like every other day that week. A car has stopped short to give her room to emerge so now all she is interested in is looking to her left to see if she can go straight out. She sees it is clear to the left, starts forward and as soon as she gets a view to the right she sees the bike, and stops (confirmed by OP). You run this scenario past just about any normal member of the public and they will tell you that in their opinion there was not a lot else the driver of the car could have done. 50/50? Helps you understand why the original judge put it 80/20 against the bike!

In reality if the Op had been further out, recognised the potential for someone to come out of the gap, and slowed down giving both himself and the car driver more time to react, none of this would have happened. Sorry folks, sermon over, good luck in court!

sure... in exactly the same way if he hadnt left the house the accident wouldnt have happened...



there are two parties involved, sure the motorcyclist coudl well have hung back or been further out etc but he wasnt, this does not mean they shoudl accept liability on a legal basis at all. On a Hinesight (sp) level.. sure.. Just like my identical prang years ago.. I have learnt and now I know a gap is there for a reason...

any way..

best of luck with the insurance etc..