Whose fault was this one?

BertTheRaccoon

Not really though is it?

A bit of lively debate. There's no name calling.

Brat is wrong, but we all know that

no-oneknowsme

My Dad had an accident exactly like this one , he fought it all the way as his insurance company wanted to settle in the bikers favour. In the end it was settled 50/50.

pendulum

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

My Dad had an accident exactly like this one , he fought it all the way as his insurance company wanted to settle in the bikers favour. In the end it was settled 50/50.

So your dad still lost his no claims bonus / had to declare a fault accident for 5 years, the only thing he achieved was to further punish the biker who he'd already injured whilst negligently pulling out, yet further.

Nice person your dad, eh?

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

It's not about buying it, it's not about there being some variance which is fact, it's about the absolutes.

5W sidelight bulbs, and 5W taillight bulbs both serve the same purpose - so that the vehicle can be seen. There are times when you need to leave your lights on, when your car is parked on some roads - and those are the lights and level of lighting that would be required (tail and side lights on).

So I'm not disputing that there may be some variance in how compelling different colours are, or the lens or refractors - all the same, those minimum lighting levels are there so that your vehicle can be SEEN.

THAT'S why I remain unconvinced that the difference between red and white, and front and back lighting housings are THAT significant.

Go out and do some practical research!
This is getting way off topic

Wongsky

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Go out and do some practical research!
This is getting way off topic

It's my practical research that's made me convinced of it.

There's plenty of instances I've seen, where drivers are using sidelights on dull and rainy days, and they're perfectly visible on sidelights, and don't NEED their dipped beams just to be SEEN.

And point remains, when you need parking lights switched on, they're sidelights and taillights - that's right, the same 5W bulbs used, at night, so that your car can be SEEN.

no-oneknowsme

pendulum wrote: »

So your dad still lost his no claims bonus / had to declare a fault accident for 5 years, the only thing he achieved was to further punish the biker who he'd already injured whilst negligently pulling out, yet further.

Nice person your dad, eh?

Well , seeing that a whole long line of traffic had stopped in both directions to allow my dad to pull out of a junction and the biker CHOSE to try to overtake crossing over onto the wrong side of the road I think the biker held some responsibility for the accident dont you?

The biker drove up the cross hatching lines that were designed for drivers coming in the opposite direction to turn right!

If he had stayed on his own side of the road and obeyed the road markings then he wouldnt have been involved in an accident at all! The simple fact is he shouldnt have been driving over an area of the road which was designed for drivers coming in the opposite direction. Was the biker not risking an accident by being here? Was he not considering that oncoming traffic could hit him?

As it were my Father was driving his mobility car so the loss of ncb wasnt an issue to my Dad and even if he HAD been driving a car of his own , he still would have fought the matter and took the hit to his NCB and the increased premium which went along with it as my DAD has PRINCIPLES!

The biker contributed to the accident and so it was only fair he took his share of blame!

You have no idea what kind of man my Dad is so please refrain from making such comments about him.

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

It's my practical research that's made me convinced of it.

There's plenty of instances I've seen, where drivers are using sidelights on dull and rainy days, and they're perfectly visible on sidelights, and don't NEED their dipped beams just to be SEEN.

And point remains, when you need parking lights switched on, they're sidelights and taillights - that's right, the same 5W bulbs used, at night, so that your car can be SEEN.

Well you need to do far more in depth research if that is your conclusion. For example, try looking at the sidelights on a Scania truck on a dull wet day (like in the video), and it will be quite plain to see that they do not make the vehicle more visible at all. But the dipped beam headlights do.

Jamie_Carter

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

Well , seeing that a whole long line of traffic had stopped in both directions to allow my dad to pull out of a junction and the biker CHOSE to try to overtake crossing over onto the wrong side of the road I think the biker held some responsibility for the accident dont you?

The biker drove up the cross hatching lines that were designed for drivers coming in the opposite direction to turn right!

If he had stayed on his own side of the road and obeyed the road markings then he wouldnt have been involved in an accident at all! The simple fact is he shouldnt have been driving over an area of the road which was designed for drivers coming in the opposite direction. Was the biker not risking an accident by being here? Was he not considering that oncoming traffic could hit him?

As it were my Father was driving his mobility car so the loss of ncb wasnt an issue to my Dad and even if he HAD been driving a car of his own , he still would have fought the matter and took the hit to his NCB and the increased premium which went along with it as my DAD has PRINCIPLES!

The biker contributed to the accident and so it was only fair he took his share of blame!

You have no idea what kind of man my Dad is so please refrain from making such comments about him.

So from what you are saying, it was nothing like the collision in the video???

no-oneknowsme

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So from what you are saying, it was nothing like the collision in the video???

How the heck did you come to THAT conclusion???

Line of traffic stops to let a car pull out of a junction...CHECK

Mortorcyclist overtakes line of traffic which is stopped... CHECK

Motorcyclist gets knocked off his bike.... CHECK

Liabitity is being discussed...CHECK

To me that seems pretty darn similar wouldnt you say???

Buellguy

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

Well , seeing that a whole long line of traffic had stopped in both directions to allow my dad to pull out of a junction and the biker CHOSE to try to overtake crossing over onto the wrong side of the road I think the biker held some responsibility for the accident dont you?

The biker drove up the cross hatching lines that were designed for drivers coming in the opposite direction to turn right!

If he had stayed on his own side of the road and obeyed the road markings then he wouldnt have been involved in an accident at all! The simple fact is he shouldnt have been driving over an area of the road which was designed for drivers coming in the opposite direction. Was the biker not risking an accident by being here? Was he not considering that oncoming traffic could hit him?

As it were my Father was driving his mobility car so the loss of ncb wasnt an issue to my Dad and even if he HAD been driving a car of his own , he still would have fought the matter and took the hit to his NCB and the increased premium which went along with it as my DAD has PRINCIPLES!

The biker contributed to the accident and so it was only fair he took his share of blame!

You have no idea what kind of man my Dad is so please refrain from making such comments about him.

I'll add a couple more - NOTHING like the accident in the OP