Involved in an accident- Advice needed please

Admitting your judgement is on the flawed side of perfect is also key to keeping you safe on a motorbike!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[daktulos]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

All I gather from RH post is that if you do not strive to second guess the intentions of every other driver / rider on the road and an accident ensues, then it is partly you fault - even if you are doing the correct things - quite a perverse point of view really.

I don't think so. It's everyone's responsibility to avoid an accident, whoever has the right of way.

Consider two cars, one driving behind the other. If the one in front brakes suddenly and is rear-ended, the car behind is at fault. However, the blame is shared - the car behind for driving too close for the conditions, and the car in front for driving in an erratic way.

Whether in a car or on a bike, I personally assume other road users are idiots - when they prove that they are, it's less of a surprise.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Fordward

RH. What you've said about lane markings seems to be contrary to the above, with what you've said about there being space for two vehicles invoking the same rules.

I thought what Daktulos was saying was right in that if the are no lane markings there is only one lane?

It seems there may be a misunderstanding or gap in my knowledge there. Please can you elaborate?

Is it a case of lane markings making it more clear cut, and no lane markings needing an examination of the circumstances to determine where the majority of blame lies?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Lane markings make it easier to understand because drivers see them as identifying which part of the road is "theirs" and which bit isn't.... however because they make things simple they tend to stop drivers from thinking laterally, both literally and metaphorically.

If you take a piece or road that is wide enough for two vehicles to travel side by side but isn't divided by markings then is there any particular reason why they shouldn't do so? Not if there is room to do so safely which is quite achievable if they both consider the other. Think about every time you filter on a motorcycle, isn't that in effect what you are doing? The only way for for two vehicles travelling side by side to hit each other is for them to move together, either because they both moved, or one to move towards the other and for the other to be unable,or unwilling, to get out of the way.

The most obvious example where we find this is on a roundabout that has a two lane approach and a two lane exit straight ahead, but no markings actually on the roundabout. Two cars enter side by side, travel around the roundabout side by side, and exit side by side, no problem. Unfortunately sometimes the vehicle on the left decides they actually want to continue around the roundabout, whilst the one on the right decides they want to leave..... In this example the primary responsibility would rest with the vehicle on the right because they are the one attempting to leave the roundabout which they are both on, so they are in effect moving into the vehicle on the left.

Compare this with the scenario where in exactly the same circumstances on the same roundabout they enter side by side and the vehicle on the left attempts to straight line the roundabout and as a result hits the car on the right which is unable to avoid them due to the centre of the roundabout being in the way. Here the responsibility would primarily rest with the driver on the left, because it was them that moved across.

In practice the vast majority of roundabouts laid out in this manner are single carriageway approaches which divide immediately before the roundabout forming two lanes. This is primarily to allow vehicles intending to go in different directions, left and right for example, to both queue or enter the roundabout simultaneously thus improving traffic flow. Sometimes of course both drivers intend to go straight on and because the Highway code says that in such circumstances you can use either lane on entry people sometimes attempt to use it as an opportunity to overtake... motorcyclists in particular. This is where it gets really messy because the driver on the left, fully intending to straight-line the roundabout, completely fails to anticipate the overtaking vehicle who in turn isn't expecting to be "cut up" and the two meet. These ones are always harder to adjudicate on, however on balance the "overtaking" driver tends to come of worse which is why I gave the health warning earlier about riders who dive up the inside on roundabouts.....

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

All I gather from RH post is that if you do not strive to second guess the intentions of every other driver / rider on the road and an accident ensues, then it is partly you fault - even if you are doing the correct things - quite a perverse point of view really.

We know any biker worth his salt (and with any sense of self preservation) does this anyway, but just because you maybe guessed wrong on one occasion you are somehow at fault does not seem correct to me.

As I said earlier everyone loves a post morten, and you always get the 'if only you had done this instead of that' - this is the last thing you want to hear when you or your beloved bike is damaged - what you need is advice on getting the best claim result from insurance.

I said that the set of circumstances that led to the OP being knocked off his bike was entirely predictable and he needs to understand that if he wants to avoid it happening again. Certainly from all of the information he provided I don't think that is an unreasonable conclusion, but as you say later, I was't there so I don't know for sure. Getting a good result from the insurance claim won't stop it happening again, all it will do is provide the means for it to happen sooner.

Stop thinking in terms of "fault" being who pays out. It's not about "guessing", it's about looking at the information and circumstances and considering what is likely to happen then having a plan to deal with it.

I spent the best part of thirty years dealing with the result of people not doing this and it was very rare for me to be confronted by a set of circumstances where one of the drivers involved could not have avoided the collision with just a little bit of anticipation and planning.

Personally speaking I've been lucky enough to be riding on the road for pretty much the same length of time without ever being off my road bike or colliding with another vehicle. Obviously I'm an old fart who potters around really slowly and doesn't ever have any fun on their bike, although there are a fair few people on this forum who may have ridden with me and disagree with that.....

[Biker Biggles]

I think it is sometimes helpful to distinguish between legal liability and fault.In this case I would think from what we know legal liability will be 100% against the car but there can then be some discussion about both partys being at fault to some extent.I was taught that if I have a crash it would always be partially my fault for failing to anticipate it and hence avoid it,even if no legal liability came my way.A bit harsh,but not a bad mindset to go driving with.
Some people cannot get their heads round the concept that they can be at some fault but completely right in law.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Some people cannot get their heads round the concept that they can be at some fault but completely right in law.

Absolutely, as I said earlier these are the people who will be dead right.....

It takes two mistakes for the majority of collisions to occur, one driver makes a mistake or misjudgement, the other fails to allow for it.

Anybody who drives or rides under the illusion that drivers and riders don't make mistakes and fails to plan for them has only themselves to blame when a reasonably predictable set of circumstances gets them into trouble.

I know this sounds like a holier than thou sermon, and I'm sorry for that. This is not in any way intended to be a go at the OP, but anybody who cannot understand how they can learn from his misfortune but instead pats him on the back and says never mind it was all the other chaps fault is doing him no favours at all.

[shiftin_gear98]

Big up OMO, I for one am happy this thread went the way it did, always glad of others insight. Every days a learning day.

RH, I get the two lane thing and when I filter on my bike I always view and plan that as an overtake manoeuvre whereby the responsibility is on me.

My question was more a black and white one about how the courts/insurance companies view fault in this scenario.

I thought that from a legal perspective (which doesn't have to be written in law it can be set by precedent) if there is no lane markings (on any wide road) then there is no lane and you must treat it as a single carriageway. If you chose through your actions to treat it as two lanes, and pass or get alongside another vehicle, you are liable if it goes wrong.

It sounds from what you are saying though there is no rule, it just depends on the individual circumstances.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

PS: I treat everything as if it's my fault if it goes wrong. Even straight T bone right of way violations, they way I see it is if they are waiting at a Give Way they want to pull out, bikes are easily missed, so why should I be surprised when that happens.

That's how I've done my 24 years without a road traffic collision, and I'm not an old fart who hangs about either, I just slow down when the circumstances require it.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Fordward

It sounds from what you are saying though there is no rule, it just depends on the individual circumstances.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The vast majority of incidents like this require all of the circumstances to be considered when trying to establish how something happened, let alone portion blame/fault and decide on an appropriate redress.

As far as the law is concerned Sect 3RTA requires all drivers to drive with due care and attention and reasonable consideration to other road users. For any prosecution to be successful under this legislation the standard is one that falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. The problem here is that we all have different expectations, you only have to look on this thread to see that, and this can cause some real problems when it comes to considering a prosecution. The vast majority of Sect 3 prosecutions result from collisions because it's practically impossible for two vehicles to hit each other without one of the drivers breaking the law, however this is not to say that the vast majority of collisions result in a prosecution. In fact the opposite is true, the vast majority of collisions do not lead to a prosecution because on examining the facts it is blatantly obvious that the other driver involved contributed to the circumstances. The standard I used to apply was to ask if there was anything the other driver could have reasonably done to have avoided the collision. If the answer was yes I generally filed it NFA. Most of my peers applied a similar system.