Quick Help - Scooter Car Accident

justcat

Hi All,

My workmate had an accident a couple of weeks ago and would like to know where he stands.
Here's a picture to start off with: I apologise it's so small... you'll have to zoom in if you can't see it.

So basically he's the red thing and he was filtering through stationary traffic. The car (the blue thing) was pulling out onto the main road. She pulled out and he tried to avoid collision by going in the direction of the arrow. They obviously had an accident, he flew off his bike and got taken away in an ambulance. The police were called. The driver drove off without stopping. The police have decided not to press charges for fleeing the scene of an accident.
Anyway, his scooter has now been written off and she is counter-claiming for damage to her car (which couldn't have been much as she says she left the scene as she didn't notice the collision).

Anyway, I have my own opinion on the matter but I'd like to here everyone elses thoughts.

BTW, apologies for the shocking attempt at a picture!:o

boyse7en

Her fault - failure to do sufficient observation. Unless he was crossing a solid line, in a hatched area or was wearing a cloak of invisibility.

Her view of the road would have been impaired by the stationary traffic, but that is all the more reason for pulling out carefully.
If she's claiming that she didn't know that she'd hit the scooter, then that may be why they're not prosecuting for failure to stop (did they actually collide? or did he fall of due to swerving to avoid the car?) but that doesn't mean that he can't claim of her insurance for damage to scooter, a new helmet (if that hit the floor, even if it doesn't look damaged) and any other damage to person or property.


It's not his fault at all, but it should be a lesson to him to filter slowly and carefully, and to apply really good observation of all the traffic, as many drivers in stationary traffic mentally 'switch off' and don't look properly before changing direction (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone).

justcat

They did actually collide. He said that he was going at about 20mph 25mph max.

harveybobbles

20/25 past stationary traffic with side streets? Eek...

Happychappy

justcat wrote: »

They did actually collide. He said that he was going at about 20mph 25mph max.

Filtering is one thing, but not the thing he was doing, he should have seen the junction and taken the appropriate care, and likewise she should have emerged slowly looking for possible suicide jockeys, I don't understand the fail to stop bit and why the police are not taking action ? I would have dealt with the 50/50 knock for knock as both have responsibility, but the fail to stop would need looking at further.

harveybobbles

Wonder if the problem was the size of the scooters windscreen...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2673951

Keith

If he's passing a line of traffic at that speed, I would hope he knew the road, if he knew the road I.would expect him to slow for the junctions. Because of that I would expect him to accept a portion of the blame.

boyse7en

Why would it be 50/50? He was filtering legally, at below the speed limit and she pulled out in front of him. Unless she can prove that he was riding without due care I can't see that she's got a leg to stand on. Mind you, considering how anti-bike the courts seem to be the result could be anything!

Section 211 Motorcyclists and cyclists: Quote:
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, overtaking you or filtering through traffic Always look out for them............

So the new Highway Code does recognise filtering and presumably failure to comply with Section 211 by a driver that takes out a biker could influence a claim.

Keith

Due care = Him going slower and accounting for the fact a car could emerge.

50/50 = She has to edge out to see round the traffic, his speed makes the accident happen, not her popping out.

mikey72

http://www.mcnninjas.co.uk/docs/Filtering

justcat

To be honest, he doesn't really feel that he is to blame at all but I thought that he should have been going slower. It's his route into work so he definately does know the road.
My problem is the direction he went to try and avoid the accident because, rather than slow down, he drove onto the opposite side of the road and basically in the direction he knew she was going.

I have no idea why this woman isn't being done for leaving the scene. There were witnesses who saw the accident too. The police found her on the same day and she was actually pulling out of her own road when it happened. Everyone seems to be thinking that because she "didn't notice" she was able to get away with it. Surely that can't be right? Wouldn't she be in trouble for something?

I think they both could have done things to avoid the accident.