Motorcycle Filtering Accident

Wig

I don't agree, every road user has a responsibility to act with caution.

A pedestrian who walks out without looking, is partly to blame the driver who sees him but carries on regardless taking no evasive action and hits him is most to blame 90% driver 10% pedestrian fault. If the pedestrian walks straight infront of a car giving the driver no room to take evasive action 90% pedestrian 10% driver fault

A guy on a bike overtaking stationary or near stationary traffic has a duty to himself and other road users not to overtake too quickly so that he has enough time to react when ahead of him he sees a car has left a gap in the traffic to allow another car from a side road to emerge. If he is reading the road properly he should view any gap in the traffic ahead of him as a potential hazard and slow down.

Depending on the speed of the bike, the traffic conditions, I would aportion blame in that manner, whether the bike should have seen the gap ahead of him, seen any road signs indicating a junction, could have slowed down, etc.

mikey72

redsclubbedup wrote: »

yes mikey that is correct - the police tok statements, and said that they wouldnt be progressing further against me, as it was my right of way, so i was not at fault / the casue of teh accident

Difficult, if the stopped car had surendered the right of way to the car on the side road, and called him out.
So while the police had the view it wasn't your fault, are they prosecuting the driver of the car on the side road?

sequence

mikey72 wrote: »

Difficult, if the stopped car had surendered the right of way to the car on the side road, and called him out.
So while the police had the view it wasn't your fault, are they prosecuting the driver of the car on the side road?

It was obviously the drivers fault, just because someone flashes/lets you out doesn't mean you can ignore the rules of the road. I doubt the police will prosecute anyone for flashing/letting someone out, because I don't think that's illegal...

mikey72

mikey72 wrote: »

Difficult, if the stopped car had surendered the right of way to the car on the side road, and called him out.
So while the police had the view it wasn't your fault, are they prosecuting the driver of the car on the side road?

The car that pulled out. If you driver was being prosecuted, it would greatly help the op to pursue his claim.

Alias_Omega

sequence wrote: »

I doubt the police will prosecute anyone for flashing/letting someone out, because I don't think that's illegal...

The highway code states that flashing someone is a sign that you are letting them know that you are there.

Example..

I could flash you to pull out of a junction into my path, then crash into you. It would be your fault as you assumed that i flashed you to let you out, but the highway code states that its to let somone know that you are there..

A common mistake..

Alias_Omega

In reflect to the post above by me, i have found the para in the highway code.

From the link - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070289

Para - 110

Flashing headlights.

Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

Hope this clears this up for some of you, and maybe a saver in the future.

Regards,

Alias

sebdangerfield

Alias_Omega wrote: »

The highway code states that flashing someone is a sign that you are letting them know that you are there.

Example..

I could flash you to pull out of a junction into my path, then crash into you. It would be your fault as you assumed that i flashed you to let you out, but the highway code states that its to let somone know that you are there..

A common mistake..

But sequence was saying the Police wouldn't prosecute for flashing his lights. He was saying it wasn't illegal, which is correct. Although I see what your getting at, it misses the point, I'd assume most people on here are aware of the highway code and the part you quoted. However, by definition this is just code, not law so it's still not illegal and the Police still wouldn't prosecute.

DaveMacD

Wig wrote: »

I don't agree, every road user has a responsibility to act with caution.

Your right, and I would agree with the rest of your statement, HOWEVER (and there's always one of those) while you are right in that the rider should be following rule 88 about taking care at junctions, and the general spirit of the HC, the vehicle that emerged and hit the OP broke considerably more of the HC rules including some that are covered by the RTA.

It's likely that because the OP wasn't hurt (and since they haven't mentioned it, I presume they're ok) the Police see no good reason to force the issue. The guy who hit the OP probably feels pretty lousy about it, and it's a fair bet they'll be a lot more observant at junctions now. That being the case it comes down to the insurance companies alone, and you know they'll never want to pay out if they can avoid it.

Alias_Omega

sebdangerfield wrote: »

But sequence was saying the Police wouldn't prosecute for flashing his lights. He was saying it wasn't illegal, which is correct. Although I see what your getting at, it misses the point, I'd assume most people on here are aware of the highway code and the part you quoted. However, by definition this is just code, not law so it's still not illegal and the Police still wouldn't prosecute.

I was replying to this comment made

sequence wrote: »

It was obviously the drivers fault, just because someone flashes/lets you out doesn't mean you can ignore the rules of the road. I doubt the police will prosecute anyone for flashing/letting someone out, because I don't think that's illegal...

redsclubbedup

this is the response I have gotten from my insurance - what are peoples views on this ?

I have been to see our bike team in respect of your claim and filtering
is perfectly legal but we are dealing with a civil mater here and not
criminal. A District Judge takes the view that filtering is a risk and
therefore the person filtering is taking the risk. The risk is actually
a lot higher when filtering at a junction. The split liability stance on
negligence should be split to take in to account the risk.

The Courts do actually take into account that filtering is not a
sensible thing to do (although it is legal).

Like I have said, I have spoken with people within Minster Law who
specialise in bike claims and who are obviously very knowledgeable in
this area. Please provide me with your instructions to put forward the
50/50 proposal.