Whose fault was this one?

pacific4130

Car drivers fault. Obvious. With a little bit of lesson learnt for the biker.

Classic case of the car looking left and pulling out to hit a biker. Yes, the biker could have been a bit more defensive but that doesn't make him/her to blame. He/She was actually filtering pretty sensibly - they just failed to spot the potential of a car pulling out.

You can see the bikes brake light come on when he/she notices the car - split seconds from impact. Very little time to react. It also generates daft 'why didn't the slam the brakes on?' comments from non-bikers. Sorry, it doesn't work like that! So at that point there was nothing the bike could do to avoid hitting the car.

I ride daily, and there's always plenty of 'almost' moments. Ones like the vid, or people cutting lanes at roundabouts. As bikers we look out for them, but we're human, we can't spot every idiot pulling out on us.

Norman_Castle

Car driver should have checked the lane he was crossing was clear properly before moving across it. The bike was very wide of the stationary cars and would have been visible long before the car driver saw him if he had checked.

YoungBusinessman

Insurers would blame car. Both are travelling way to fast.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

your all going in swings and roundabouts as we'll never know the outcome of the insurers decision.

i dont think the driver was driving too fast, he just didnt pause long enough to look a few milli seconds more.

i believe the biker was travelling way too fast for filtering braked that little too late.

doesnt matter what the locals use it for it boils down to what its classed as and it intended purpose.

Hoonercat

Arg wrote: »

What about the black car behind him?

He could have easily done it and avoided the risk of going into oncoming traffic or whatever damage he took from smashing straight into the bonnet.

I had an accident a few weeks ago when a car driver decided to do a left turn from the right hand lane directly across my path. In the 2 seconds I had before impact, I didn't manage to consider a stuntman style departure from the bike, the only thing going through my head was 'Sh*t Sh*t Sh*t' as I instinctively grabbed the brakes (and locked the back wheel despite being a very experienced rider). What you think you'd do, and what you are actually capable of doing in these situations tends to be very different. I was lucky not to have any injuries as the bike absorbed most of the impact before falling on its side along with me, had I jumped I'd have absorbed the impact when I hit the ground so I'm thankful that I didn't.

almillar

As has been said by some, it's not clear cut, but I think it's the car's fault.
I also think you should consider if the bike hadn't existed, and if it was the black car that had hit the Passat (coming out of the garage)- would your opinion change? It shouldn't.
Passat's nose is blocking what he can't see. I'm sure you've been in this situation - and you'd be slowly creeping, looking, creeping, looking. This guy just drove. You can't do that on a big wide lane like that, as a bike, or car could (and in this case were) be coming.
I do understand the argument that the bike was going too fast, but I think that if the bike was doing 10mph, the Passat would still have done the same thing, and the hit would just be slower.
Off Topic - Lum, I hate sidelights. They're so dim, they're next to pointless, yet the drivers inside the car have a lovely lit up dashboard and think the world can see them. I never use just sidelights.

brat

almillar wrote: »

As has been said by some, it's not clear cut, but I think it's the car's fault.

This is worth a read Filtering - the legal pitfalls.

The insurers will start from the prevalent case law for the circumstance, usually that of Powell v Moody 1966. The case of Farley v Buckley 2007 is probably more persuasive, because the speed of the overtaking bike was similar to this case, but the car in FvB was pulling out at a reported speed of 2 to 3 times the speed of the Passat in the video. Despite this, in Farley and Buckley the court found the overtaking scooter rider 100% liable.

almillar wrote: »

I also think you should consider if the bike hadn't existed, and if it was the black car that had hit the Passat (coming out of the garage)- would your opinion change? It shouldn't.

Why would it? In fact the car driver's offside wheels would have been well over the centre line. Clear indication that this is not an easily defendable manoeuvre.

almillar wrote: »

Passat's nose is blocking what he can't see. I'm sure you've been in this situation - and you'd be slowly creeping, looking, creeping, looking. This guy just drove. You can't do that on a big wide lane like that, as a bike, or car could (and in this case were) be coming.
I do understand the argument that the bike was going too fast, but I think that if the bike was doing 10mph, the Passat would still have done the same thing, and the hit would just be slower.

The important point that comes up in all of these cases is that 'nosing out' should be the sign for the filtering motorcyclist to stop. The motorist is much less likely to see the filtering cyclist first, and the duty of care and responsibility therefore necessarily falls on the motorcyclist.

Interestingly a more recent case, that of Ben Woodham v Turner [2011] found 70/30 in favour of the motorcyclist. In this case however, the judge found several material differences to this case, namely

• that the coach which pulled out from the minor junction did so at a quicker speed,
• the coach pulled out in front of a tractor, hence blocking the motorcyclists view of it,
• the full height of the coach pulled into the path of the motorcyclist, hence aggravating injuries,
• there was a likelihood that the coach could have waited until the traffic was quieter,
• the motorcycle speed was less than this motorcyclist.
• the 'DSA Guide to Driving' clearly states that a large vehicle such as a coach or lorry (or tractor) may block the view of an overtaking vehicle. Had the coach pulled out in front of a couple of cars, the driver would clearly have been able to see the road to her right, and the motorcyclist would have seen her.

In this case, the motorcyclist's team played the strongest possible hand, because the claimant had been seriously injured. The defendant, the coach company, rolled over with over-reliance on Farley and Buckley to provide them with their get out without examining the specifics of the case.

Off Topic - Lum, I hate sidelights. They're so dim, they're next to pointless, yet the drivers inside the car have a lovely lit up dashboard and think the world can see them. I never use just sidelights.

They're fine in the appropriate circumstance. Arguably this driver should have had his headlights on, perhaps he did; but he still wasn't hard to see. Driver had flashing indicators and was slowly moving out for 5 seconds all of which should have been clearly visible to an observant biker.

BertTheRaccoon

The car driver in this incident did not "nose out", he just set off before he had any view to his right and continued at the same pace until he drove into the motorcyclist.

Come on, you've got to take your insurer hat off.

Norman_Castle

This is worth a read Filtering - the legal pitfalls.

The relevant accidents all involve large vehicles presumably using the full width of the lane. In the video the stationary traffic is clearly on one side allowing vehicles to pass and leaving a large proportion of the lane clear. While it is a single lane, the car driver should have been more aware of the likelyhood of overtaking vehicles. The motorcyclist would also have had a greater expectation to be seen than if overtaking closer to stationary cars in a narrower lane or if travelling in the opposite carriageway.

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

The car driver in this incident did not "nose out", he just set off before he had any view to his right and continued at the same pace until he drove into the motorcyclist.

Come on, you've got to take your insurer hat off.

The Passat was doing about a third of the evidenced speed of the emerging car in Farley v Buckley, yet the Judge found 100% in favour of that car driver.

We'll never agree, which is fine. Perhaps one day you'll get to argue the respective liabilities of a similar case in court. I agree with you that making a good case can make a difference to the court's perception of liability.