Whose fault was this one?

BertTheRaccoon

I've just had to go back and watch the video again.

The passat driver just continued at the same speed from when he drove from the forecourt into the gap and continued without stopping. It even looks like the car was just about starting to accelerate at the time the biker was infront of it.

So the car driver has not stopped before his bonnet starts to poke beyond the line of the queued vehicles, checked around, then moved forwards another foot or so and looked again.

He has just chugged out in 1st gear at engine idle speed without pausing on one single occasion.

I simply cannot agree with the opinion of Brat on this. I don't want to be rude, so I won't say any more other than, in my opinion, this just demonstrates why insurers get leathered in the courts. If you approach was making the calls on this case for the defence of the car driver.

pendulum

brat wrote: »

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.

It's expected when you are watching a video and you already know an accident is soon going to happen. It's not so expected when you're just riding down the road minding your own business and then a car just emerges without any care.

If you'd emerge in the same way then I suggest you think about your driving before you cause an accident!

brat

Lee, I've quoted several paragraphs of the highway code during this thread.

Can you tell me what answer the motorcyclist would have when asked why he chose to pay no heed to any of these HC instructions

1. Before overtaking you should make sure there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
2. Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.
3. You should stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.
4. DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.
5. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users.
6. DO NOT overtake when approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
7. DO NOT overtake where where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
8. DO NOT overtake when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
9. When in traffic queues look out for vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes.
10. when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

Clearly, the conscious disregard of all of these instructions categorises the motorcyclist's driving as careless and self-centered. It is below the standard of a careful competent driver, which is the definition of careless driving. That is self evident on the video.

The motorist has pulled out from the junction. He has bisected the eastbound lane, and for all we know has had a good look to the right for filtering bikers, and seen none. He then needs to move on out which he does at 2 to 3mph, and is clattered by the biker. It's worth noting that the recent case of Farley v Buckley, (which went to appeal) the biker was found 100% to blame, despite evidence that the car driver pulled out at 5 to 8 miles per hour.

I am not involved in insurance, although I am involved in collision investigation, and I would find it so much easier to defend the motorist than the motorcyclist in this case.

I would appeal to anyone who thinks the biker's riding is beyond reproach, or in any way defendable, to think again before they put themselves in that situation - so much of the highway code is pleading for you not to do it.

brat

pendulum wrote: »

It's not so expected when you're just riding down the road minding your own business and then a car just emerges without any care.

That's just the problem, you must mind other peoples business too. If you only mind your own business when driving, you will crash very quickly.
Can you not see how his riding was breaching the H/C advice, and why that advice is there? If not, perhaps you need to read the highway code, and review your own defensive driving skills.

pendulum wrote: »

If you'd emerge in the same way then I suggest you think about your driving before you cause an accident!

I believe I would have emerged slightly slower than the Passat, I'm not holding him entirely blameless, but I can understand why he wouldn't have seen the motorcyclist because the speed of the motorist would have brought him into the frame from nowhere.

BertTheRaccoon

brat wrote: »

Lee, I've quoted several paragraphs of the highway code during this thread.

Can you tell me what answer the motorcyclist would have when asked why he chose to pay no heed to any of these HC instructions

1. Before overtaking you should make sure there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
2. Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.
3. You should stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.
4. DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.
5. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users.
6. DO NOT overtake when approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
7. DO NOT overtake where where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
8. DO NOT overtake when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
9. When in traffic queues look out for vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes.
10. when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

Clearly, the conscious disregard of all of these instructions categorises the motorcyclist's driving as careless and self-centered. It is below the standard of a careful competent driver, which is the definition of careless driving. That is self evident on the video.

The motorist has pulled out from the junction. He has bisected the eastbound lane, and for all we know has had a good look to the right for filtering bikers, and seen none. He then needs to move on out which he does at 2 to 3mph, and is clattered by the biker. It's worth noting that the recent case of Farley v Buckley, (which went to appeal) the biker was found 100% to blame, despite evidence that the car driver pulled out at 5 to 8 miles per hour.

I am not involved in insurance, although I am involved in collision investigation, and I would find it so much easier to defend the motorist than the motorcyclist in this case.

I would appeal to anyone who thinks the biker's riding is beyond reproach, or in any way defendable, to think again before they put themselves in that situation - so much of the highway code is pleading for you not to do it.

1- He had about 200yds of clear roadspace in front of him with ample room to pass vehicles at a safe distance, whilst riding towards the centre of the road to give himself maximum visibility and also to expose himself as much as possible.

2- As above - he was overtaking in a legal fashion and not in breach of a reasonable duty of care.

3- He did stay in his lane, the only time he was in any other lane was when he was on his knees after the berk drove into him.

4- He could easily see far enough ahead, all the way to the roundabout.

5- Minimal risk of conflict with other road users. There is no "junction" there, no "keep clear" space. Again, look at the width of the road.

6- Traffic is queuing at the junction (roundabout) bit it is clearly evident from the manner in which all the cars hug into the kerb that it is local custom to expect vehicles to come past there when the left lane is queued up, otherwise why is EVERY vehicle less than a foot from the nearside kerb?

7- He is not causing any road user to swerve or slow down - that paragraph is clearly aimed at telling people not to overtake into oncoming traffic. Read the context.

8- I can't say if the biker was looking out for traffic emerging etc (I am not him) , but self preservation would generally suggest that he would be. He wasn't presented with someone just edging a bonnet out to stop and have a look before proceeding. He was faced with a car that simply crawled through the gap left, at a constant speed, with no pause or hesitation to check. If the car driver did see the bike approaching as he cleared the line of sight of the queued vehicles, why did he simply keep on moving across the path of the biker? The car was still moving and about to accelerate at the point of impact. This is what nails the car driver in a civil court. End of.

9- Filtering - I do not deny the biker was travelling a little too quickly for the conditions and this is where he will take some contrib, but the degree of contrib will me no more than 20-30% absolute maximum in my opinion.

I think you are too focused on picking out sections of the highway code, which is not the be all in a civil court and being guilty of a motoring offence does not amount to negligence in civil liability.

I could drive at 120mph down a dual carriageway and have someone do a handbrake turn in front of me and smash into them. The fact I was speeding was not a causative factor and many cases have succeeded in the civil court where allegations of speed are made. Often in cases where people have pulled out of junctions.

"Oh the biker was speeding" comes the Defence. Well so what, when the moron pulls out at an interval that makes no difference because of the proximity of the biker would have made it impossible to stop even if he was travelling below the speed limit, equals negligence for the party pulling out. regardless of the bike or any vehicle established with right of way travelling in excess of the speed limit.

You are correct in your interpretation of Farley -v- Buckley, but in Farley the Defendant car driver was pulling out of a side road, not a petrol station. Also the motorcyclist was driving past a large HGV which was waiting to turn left into the junction the Defendant pulled out from. I'd wager that the motorcyclist was probably on the wrong side of the road. The evidence against the biker (or moped rider) in Farley was that he was riding in a truly reckless fashion. I'd submit that was not the case here.

You either do work for the CPS and/or are ex plod. Or the vast bulk of your instructions come from insurers/ Defendant solicitors as you are not taking a sufficiently balanced view on this.

Tazni

You can see the car does not stop to check for vehicles and just keeps on rolling out slowly. It seems likely they were looking in the opposite direction for traffic and ignoring traffic from the nearside lane as traffic had already stopped. He should have stopped to double check the nearside lane before continuing to move outwards. The bike was going slightly too fast for the conditions yes, maybe, but there was a wide enough birth between the cars and the bike to warrant him overtaking in this case. The car driver did not 'check again' and did not edge out slowly. They're both at fault but more the car driver for not being more observant. Judging from the angle of the camera position the car should have been able to see properly way before he stopped. Traffic ahead would have meant that any time the car 'held up' others would be made up by the time you caught up to the traffic further up.

pendulum

brat wrote: »

If not, perhaps you need to read the highway code, and review your own defensive driving skills.

Highway code endorses filtering, it also says watch out for motorcyclists and take care when carrying out manoeuvres so that you do not come in to conflict with any other road user, that right turn from the petrol station was an inherently dangerous manoeuvre and you yourself have admitted you would have taken extra care by emerging slower. Had the car driver, the one carrying out the manoeuvre, taken more care then the accident would never have happened.

The motorcyclist was correctly proceeding along a public highway, well positioned, illuminated, and not exceeding the speed limit. He was riding in a reasonable manner and paying suitable attention bearing in mind he was not performing a manoeuvre at the time. The emerging vehicle has the duty to ensure it is clear before emerging, and the way the car emerged was wrong, therefore the blame is with the car driver.

Had it been another car that the Passat had hit, I wonder if your opinion of who is at fault would change, as you appear to be very much anti-biker.

Lum

If it had been another car I would have blamed that other car. That is a one lane section and therefore this was an overtake.

The reason everybody is keeping left is that up ahead it becomes a two lane section and presumably those people all want the left lane.

Norman_Castle

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.

If the lane is 4.5 metres wide, a car 2 metres, and a 0.5 metre gap between the car and kerb, there are 2 metres of empty lane next to the stationary cars. The cars in the above picture illustrates this. At the point of impact the car is at the centre line, 2 metres past any obstruction, and still moving. If the driver had looked the bike would have been clearly visible.

The average car width is 1.8 metres including mirrors. Average mirrors are approx 6"/150mm x2. 300mm. Average car width excluding mirrors, as they would not obstruct the drivers view in this instance, is 1.5 metres.

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

1- He had about 200yds of clear roadspace in front of him with ample room to pass vehicles at a safe distance, whilst riding towards the centre of the road to give himself maximum visibility and also to expose himself as much as possible.

2- As above - he was overtaking in a legal fashion and not in breach of a reasonable duty of care.

3- He did stay in his lane, the only time he was in any other lane was when he was on his knees after the berk drove into him.

4- He could easily see far enough ahead, all the way to the roundabout.

5- Minimal risk of conflict with other road users. There is no "junction" there, no "keep clear" space. Again, look at the width of the road.

6- Traffic is queuing at the junction (roundabout) bit it is clearly evident from the manner in which all the cars hug into the kerb that it is local custom to expect vehicles to come past there when the left lane is queued up, otherwise why is EVERY vehicle less than a foot from the nearside kerb?

7- He is not causing any road user to swerve or slow down - that paragraph is clearly aimed at telling people not to overtake into oncoming traffic. Read the context.

8- I can't say if the biker was looking out for traffic emerging etc (I am not him) , but self preservation would generally suggest that he would be. He wasn't presented with someone just edging a bonnet out to stop and have a look before proceeding. He was faced with a car that simply crawled through the gap left, at a constant speed, with no pause or hesitation to check. If the car driver did see the bike approaching as he cleared the line of sight of the queued vehicles, why did he simply keep on moving across the path of the biker? The car was still moving and about to accelerate at the point of impact. This is what nails the car driver in a civil court. End of.

9- Filtering - I do not deny the biker was travelling a little too quickly for the conditions and this is where he will take some contrib, but the degree of contrib will me no more than 20-30% absolute maximum in my opinion.

I think you are too focused on picking out sections of the highway code, which is not the be all in a civil court and being guilty of a motoring offence does not amount to negligence in civil liability.

As I thought, you're considering this manoeuvre in the context of a second lane which isn't there. This is one lane which on occasions is unilaterally considered by some to be two lane, to gain advantage over others. However, it is only one lane, and needs to be considered as such, which is why your defence of the biker's 'overtaking' is moot, because you are considering it in the context of two lanes, as though every other road user must think of it that way. It is a 4.5 metre lane, designed for one lane of traffic.

This entire overtaking manoeuvre must therefore be seen to be completely within the subset of 'filtering', which is moving slowly past a queue of stationary traffic within that lane. I shouldn't have to explain the reasons why a slow speed is so important in this context, the video itself explains that, but there are so many other things to consider within queuing traffic, pedestrians crossing, other cyclists filtering, moving from inside the queue to outside, cars emerging from driveways and other road junctions. In this case some traffic in the queue will eventually, when appropriate, want to pull out towards the centre line of the lane to move into the outside lane at the roundabout. It is your duty, as a filtering biker to ensure that you can cater for your own and other's safety primarily because you are the one who has unilaterally chosen to engage in the unexpected manoeuvre of filtering through or past the primary lane of traffic, a manoeuvre already described in case law as "an operation fraught with great hazard". That manoeuvre demands low speed to allow the rider and other road users more time to react. 15mph would have prevented this accident at whatever speed the Passat driver pulled out, because the rider could have reacted and stopped in 10 metres. 25 to 29 mph is just too fast, especially when obviously combined with poor observational and anticipatory skills. That extra speed is also likely to have mixed a bottle for the passat driver, who won't have had the opportunity to see the biker until too late.

FWIW, I have a bike licence, although I haven't used one in 30 years. I commute by pedal cycle to work, through queues of traffic, filtering on a daily basis, so I am completely familiar with the potential risks of the art.

I could drive at 120mph down a dual carriageway and have someone do a handbrake turn in front of me and smash into them. The fact I was speeding was not a causative factor and many cases have succeeded in the civil court where allegations of speed are made. Often in cases where people have pulled out of junctions.

It has much more to do with what you could reasonably expect to happen. If you were doing 120mph along a nice straight 40mph s/c road, and someone pulled out from a junction without seeing you way in the distance, and your speed either carried you into a crash or caused you to brake and come off, you would have to accept a fair proportion of liability.

"Oh the biker was speeding" comes the Defence. Well so what, when the moron pulls out at an interval that makes no difference because of the proximity of the biker would have made it impossible to stop even if he was travelling below the speed limit, equals negligence for the party pulling out. regardless of the bike or any vehicle established with right of way travelling in excess of the speed limit.

This paragraph says a lot about your argument, as with previous posts you tarnish your desire to remain unbiased by using words such as "moron", to add to "deluded idiot, bulldozing". I'm afraid a case requiring such character denigration would probably work against the claimant.

The speed of both parties in this case is vital to liability. If you choose to filter, fine, if you do so without recognising the risk, then you are (one is) a fool. If you add an aggravator such as inappropriate speed without anticipating the potential hazards then you are being supremely careless.

You are correct in your interpretation of Farley -v- Buckley, but in Farley the Defendant car driver was pulling out of a side road, not a petrol station. Also the motorcyclist was driving past a large HGV which was waiting to turn left into the junction the Defendant pulled out from. I'd wager that the motorcyclist was probably on the wrong side of the road. The evidence against the biker (or moped rider) in Farley was that he was riding in a truly reckless fashion. I'd submit that was not the case here.

In both cases, the vehicles were moving out from a junction. The motorcyclist was judged to be on the centre line.
Submission was made on behalf of the motorcyclist that the car driver should inch slowly out past the vehicle in the lane, despite having little or no view, to allow the motorcyclist to see the protruding nose of the car so that he could stop, but this was rejected by the judge to be a "counsel of perfection" in other words, excellent, but unrealisable impractical advice.

You either do work for the CPS and/or are ex plod. Or the vast bulk of your instructions come from insurers/ Defendant solicitors as you are not taking a sufficiently balanced view on this.

My work causes me to look at the balance of criminal liabilities in road traffic collisions.