Involved in an accident- Advice needed please

[Bibio]

my training when i was a youth was... this is the clutch this is the gear lever, these are the brakes etc.etc now get on with it. 1/2hr later i was let loose on the road.

yes i crashed a LOT but i soon learnt not to do silly stuff.

fear has no belonging in motorcycle riding, if you fear the 'what if' you will never reach full potential and your reactions will never be as good. letting go of self preservation is one of the hardest things to learn and self preservation is the major cause of crashing due to 'freezing up' like corner fixation.

if i die crashing my bike i will die happy and until then i will keep riding my bike.

[shiftin_gear98]

It's obviously your choice what you do, and good on you. I took my test when I was 34.
If I'd done it when I was 17 etc. I wouldn't be here now. I used to be a Muppet in a car instead.
If I'm honest - I'm still a bit of a Muppet on the bike. But you live and learn.


If you do get the salvage back, personally I'd remove all the front fairing altogether. Tidy the bike up, sell it without the fairing - sell faring separately. Unfaired and faired bikes go for roughly the same money.
Sod spending £300 quid to get a replacement only to sell it for the same money...

[Red Herring]

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread around fault and blame, both of which are very emotive subjects and can prevent people from examining facts objectively....

Leaving them aside for a moment lets talk about responsibility and what is required by the law and the Highway code which offers guidance. Generally vehicles entering roundabouts are required to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout. Give way means they must not cause the other vehicle to have to alter course or speed. Think of the entrances rather like a series of T junctions. It doesn't matter which lane the vehicle on the roundabout is in, they are on the roundabout. Even if the vehicle on the roundabout is in lane two (counting from the outside) and is in the process of changing to lane one when they collide with the vehicle entering they still have precedence. If they are changing lane without indicating this may may be used to explain why the other driver could have been misled but it doesn't shift the precedence. Pretty much the only exception to this is when the vehicle entering has a dedicated lane clearly marked allowing them to turn left and the vehicle on the roundabout crosses this when making it's exit.

When all vehicles are on the roundabout then it is the responsibility of a driver changing lanes, or crossing the path of another, to give way. Obviously painted lanes on a roundabout help make this a while lot easier but in their absence you need to examine the space available and did each driver leave the other necessary room? The classic is the smaller roundabout where one vehicle straight lines pinching the offside vehicle against the centre island. You also need to consider where each vehicle was prior to the collision and what the driver was doing. If they were clearly behind and were effectively overtaking then they have additional responsibilities, which is worth remembering as a motorcyclist when you take a dive up the inside of a car on a roundabout only to find them closing the door.....

Having got all that off my chest I'll throw in another stirrer.... especially as Forward seems to have been getting all the flack and most seem to have missed a very obvious point.....

In my opinion the responsibility to give way in this instance appears on the information provided to rest with the vehicle entering the roundabout, however the "fault" or "blame" for the collision rests with both of them. Every single one of us is capable of making a mistake or misjudging something, and we all sit here and regularly acknowledge that car drivers are blind and out to kill us.... yet time and time again I see a motorcyclist put themselves in a position where they are completely at the mercy of a car driver and entrusting their safety to the assumption that the car driver will do what they should. We call it the dead right mentality. It's the assumption that as long as they are doing everything correctly then any collision will be the other parties "fault". They'll still be dead mind you, only they'll be dead right rather than dead wrong......

In this instance the motorcyclist is going round a roundabout and approaching an entrance to their nearside. There are various points from which another vehicle can come and kill them, check behind, nope nothing there, check alongside, all clear there as well, how about from the entrance? Oh yes, I can see a car approaching, or alternatively I can't see into that entrance at all (a junction is only clear if you physically see into it and confirm there is nothing there). Either way my riding plan is going to be based on not getting killed by anything that may or may not come out of that junction. Firstly if I can see a car approaching can I position myself so that even if they come out without stopping or giving way I can avoid them? Sometimes this only requires a minor adjustment to speed or course. If I can't do this due to other traffic already around me or the topography of the roundabout then what can I do to make sure the car driver has seen me and understands my intentions. Can I see the driver physically or can I only see their bonnet? If I can't see their eyes how can they see me? What can I do to reinforce my message either through position or use of signals (don't forget hand signals, that is the approved ones.... can be very useful to a motorcyclist especially on a roundabout).

In other words is there anything you can do, regardless of who has precedence, to avoid or reduce the possibility of a collision. In this instance I don't think the OP did. He may not agree with me on that one, he may well hold the view that it isn't his responsibility to allow for the mistakes of others in which case he is in good company because the vast majority of other motorists also hold that view. There are a lot of people out there who really appreciate them taking that approach, most of them work in the medical, legal or automotive industry.....

Originally Posted by TamSV

If you're not keeping the bike I assume the only reason to keep the salvage would be to squeeze a bit more cash out of the situation. If so, do your sums carefully.

You might be better off just taking the write off settlement.

A Cat D is worth less as it's a non-starter for a lot of people. One that's been repaired on the cheap even more so.

I'm not saying don't take it back, just don't do it because everyone seems to think it's always a good idea. Sometimes it isn't the best move.

Didn't realise that it would become a cat-d automatically, thank you for telling me.

If not cat C, depends on amount of damage

Originally Posted by Red Herring

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread around fault and blame, both of which are very emotive subjects and can prevent people from examining facts objectively....

Leaving them aside for a moment lets talk about responsibility and what is required by the law and the Highway code which offers guidance. Generally vehicles entering roundabouts are required to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout. Give way means they must not cause the other vehicle to have to alter course or speed. Think of the entrances rather like a series of T junctions. It doesn't matter which lane the vehicle on the roundabout is in, they are on the roundabout. Even if the vehicle on the roundabout is in lane two (counting from the outside) and is in the process of changing to lane one when they collide with the vehicle entering they still have precedence. If they are changing lane without indicating this may may be used to explain why the other driver could have been misled but it doesn't shift the precedence. Pretty much the only exception to this is when the vehicle entering has a dedicated lane clearly marked allowing them to turn left and the vehicle on the roundabout crosses this when making it's exit.

When all vehicles are on the roundabout then it is the responsibility of a driver changing lanes, or crossing the path of another, to give way. Obviously painted lanes on a roundabout help make this a while lot easier but in their absence you need to examine the space available and did each driver leave the other necessary room? The classic is the smaller roundabout where one vehicle straight lines pinching the offside vehicle against the centre island. You also need to consider where each vehicle was prior to the collision and what the driver was doing. If they were clearly behind and were effectively overtaking then they have additional responsibilities, which is worth remembering as a motorcyclist when you take a dive up the inside of a car on a roundabout only to find them closing the door.....

Having got all that off my chest I'll throw in another stirrer.... especially as Forward seems to have been getting all the flack and most seem to have missed a very obvious point.....

In my opinion the responsibility to give way in this instance appears on the information provided to rest with the vehicle entering the roundabout, however the "fault" or "blame" for the collision rests with both of them. Every single one of us is capable of making a mistake or misjudging something, and we all sit here and regularly acknowledge that car drivers are blind and out to kill us.... yet time and time again I see a motorcyclist put themselves in a position where they are completely at the mercy of a car driver and entrusting their safety to the assumption that the car driver will do what they should. We call it the dead right mentality. It's the assumption that as long as they are doing everything correctly then any collision will be the other parties "fault". They'll still be dead mind you, only they'll be dead right rather than dead wrong......

In this instance the motorcyclist is going round a roundabout and approaching an entrance to their nearside. There are various points from which another vehicle can come and kill them, check behind, nope nothing there, check alongside, all clear there as well, how about from the entrance? Oh yes, I can see a car approaching, or alternatively I can't see into that entrance at all (a junction is only clear if you physically see into it and confirm there is nothing there). Either way my riding plan is going to be based on not getting killed by anything that may or may not come out of that junction. Firstly if I can see a car approaching can I position myself so that even if they come out without stopping or giving way I can avoid them? Sometimes this only requires a minor adjustment to speed or course. If I can't do this due to other traffic already around me or the topography of the roundabout then what can I do to make sure the car driver has seen me and understands my intentions. Can I see the driver physically or can I only see their bonnet? If I can't see their eyes how can they see me? What can I do to reinforce my message either through position or use of signals (don't forget hand signals, that is the approved ones.... can be very useful to a motorcyclist especially on a roundabout).

In other words is there anything you can do, regardless of who has precedence, to avoid or reduce the possibility of a collision. In this instance I don't think the OP did. He may not agree with me on that one, he may well hold the view that it isn't his responsibility to allow for the mistakes of others in which case he is in good company because the vast majority of other motorists also hold that view. There are a lot of people out there who really appreciate them taking that approach, most of them work in the medical, legal or automotive industry.....

Thank you very much RH.

Regards not having to take responsibility for others, I tend to find opinion completely splits on that depending on whether the driver has undertaken any further training.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by daktulos

There are no lane markings between where the car entered and the bike was due to exit. I was taught that this was a single lane the width of two cars, so the bike would not have been changing lanes before exiting.

Either way, the bike would have been positioning itself before the car entered the roundabout, and the car has to give way to traffic on the roundabout.

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

[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.

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 thought it was a very good post.

It only talks about taking a share of blame after he says "now I've got all that off my chest", before that he discusses the semantics of how right of way works a) When joining a roundabout, and b) after everyone has joined.

Did you only gather what you gathered from it because the second and third paragraphs was still stuff you already knew? Or is it worthwhile reading the second and third paragraphs again?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

The most enduring thing I have I have learned in my life so far is -

A man convinced against his will, retains the same opinion still !

It's the hardest thing in the world for some people to admit their judgment may sometimes be on the flawed side of perfect - it takes practice and humble pie can taste pretty awful to start with, but the reaction and respect from others can sweeten the taste quite quickly.

One thing I have noted on many forums is that no one ever says its a good post if the views expressed are not in line with their own views.

From my point of view RH is totally wrong and is being provocative to state in his last paragraph that he didn't think the OP did all he could to avoid the collision, the only way anyone can make a statement like that is if they were actually there at the time with a birds eye view of the scene - and I'm guessing he was nowhere near.