Whose fault was this one?

Tazni

The car... Although the bike was potentially going a little fast for the conditions, the car is pulling onto the road and therefore must give way.

Although I think it was a genuine accident, on paper it will be the car.

almillar

brat - without watching the video again - doesn't the black car fit in just fine? This would indicate that there is enough room for a car, not just a bike.
I was making a tongue in cheek point that people might think the biker is more reckless than a car driver would be.
This bit:

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.

I can certainly agree with. I don't know when the motorcyclist would have been able to see the Passat, but as soon as any driver sees the nose of a car, they should be slowing down and prepared to stop. He certainly didn't do that, but then, neither was the Passat 'nosing out'. It just 'pulled out' without looking right.
I understand that you're quoting results of similar court cases, and I'm just giving my opinion.
I also don't think we should be referring to the motorcyclist as filtering. In my book, filtering is riding between 2 lanes or cars (or outside them) where there's no room for a car, there's plenty of space for a car in the video.

Lum

The Passat didn't seem to pull out particularly quickly. I personally would have come out a bit slower but it doesn't seem too excessive to me.. I've certainly seen worse!

At what speed exactly does it stop being "nosing out". Is there any case law on this one?

I have to nose out every bloody morning as the single track road to where I live ends on the corner of an SC A-road and my car has a long bonnet. I also have to swan-neck a bit in order to not clip the kerb when I turn left. I regularly get flashed by people who come hooning around the corner and come into view from behind the trees when I'm already half way out.

brat

almillar wrote: »

brat - without watching the video again - doesn't the black car fit in just fine? This would indicate that there is enough room for a car, not just a bike.

I don't think so. The lens of the camera exaggerates the available width. This is a pic of the road in question. The blue line is 5 metres, which would indicate that the lane is about 4.5 metres wide. The average car including mirrors is 2.0 to 2.1 metres wide, which only allows max 0.5 metres or 20 inches of spare width. There is about that distance between the left hand Skoda? and the kerb, which would suggest that the black car would be over the centre line by the same distance as the gap between it and the Skoda.

This bit:
I can certainly agree with. I don't know when the motorcyclist would have been able to see the Passat, but as soon as any driver sees the nose of a car, they should be slowing down and prepared to stop. He certainly didn't do that, but then, neither was the Passat 'nosing out'. It just 'pulled out' without looking right.

It's difficult for the Passat driver, because he has a few things to consider. He doesn't want to hold up the queue by getting stuck with traffic coming the other way, he needs to pull out so that he doesn't affect other motorists in the opposite lane but he needs to be careful that he doesn't conflict with filtering bikers . The fact that he has only pulled out at ~2mph strongly suggests that he has given thought to the possibility of a filtering or overtaking vehicle, otherwise he would probably have moved out more quickly. What we don't know is how much view the Passat driver has to the right. If he's looking over the low bonnet of a car while pulling out, he may be able to see a reasonable distance to the right. Unfortunately if his last relevant view to the right is two seconds before the collision, the bike will be 25 metres back and very likely to be out of his view, although the biker should clearly see the Passat by this point, and should have seen it moving much earlier. Total stopping time from 13m/s (29mph) (a thinking time 0.8 secs and stopping time at 0.5g) is 3.4 secs and would take 27 metres. If he was doing 15mph he would stop in 2.2 seconds and in 10 metres.

I also don't think we should be referring to the motorcyclist as filtering. In my book, filtering is riding between 2 lanes or cars (or outside them) where there's no room for a car, there's plenty of space for a car in the video.

There can only be two choices - overtaking or filtering. He mustn't overtake in these circumstances for numerous reasons I've outlined from the highway code. the Highway code says that you must filter very carefully and slowly, which he clearly didn't.

So whatever way you dress it up, the motorcyclist is riding without due care.
I think it's very important to drive the message home, that this type of riding will ultimately catch out those who see little fault in it, and they are very likely to be held mostly, if not completely liable for it. Filtering is more commonplace than before, but that doesn't grant it any more latitude in terms of strictures on care and speed.
The emerging motorist's liability will be proportional to their speed of emergence, along with other factors, but it's unlikely that this motorist's emergence speed will adversely affect their liability.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

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.

Yes, large vehicles, no, not always taking the full lane. A large vehicle blocks view for both parties, a factor which worked against the coach driver in Woodham v Turner. So, while the lack of a large vehicle may make it easier for the emerging car to see more (and perhaps did see more), it should grant the motorcyclist the ability to have a perfect view of the emerging motor vehicle for enough time and distance to be able to stop.

derrick

Lum wrote: »

Slightly OT, but when exactly did it become the norm to use headlights, rather than sidelights, in daytime rain.

I hate this trend. It makes it so much harder to see road users that are smaller than cars.

Years ago it became law, when visibility is "seriously reduced", IMO if the driver/rider decides lights should be used in bad daytime visibility, the law states dipped headlights, if driving on side lights, as well as stupid, it is against the law, don,t forget, in those circumstances it is to be seen not to see.

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).

[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]


From the introduction to the HC:-

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

almillar

Nosing out - edge forward, stop, look, edge forward, stop, look.
Passat didn't really do that, I only saw it stop once between the cars, then drive out. Looked like more than 2 mph to me too, but again I've no evidence.
I agreee with brat - bike WAS going too fast, too fast to cope with the unexpected. You could argue that a queue outside a petrol station means that a car popping out is expected.

pendulum

Haven't read the replies but absolutely no doubt about it, car driver for emerging without giving way. I knew exactly what was going to happen as soon as I saw the garage forecourt.

Lum

derrick wrote: »

Years ago it became law, when visibility is "seriously reduced", IMO if the driver/rider decides lights should be used in bad daytime visibility, the law states dipped headlights, if driving on side lights, as well as stupid, it is against the law, don,t forget, in those circumstances it is to be seen not to see.

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).

It' very very rare for rain to drop visibility to below 100 meters though. Usually takes fog to do that.

All that really happens is your light gets refracted through the raindrops making it harder to tell where you are.

The purpose of sidelights is to be seen

brat

pendulum wrote: »

I knew exactly what was going to happen as soon as I saw the garage forecourt.

It was so expected wasn't it? It's a wonder the motorcyclist chose not to see the danger his carelessness was placing him in.