Whose fault was this one?

Jamie_Carter

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

Ok ,whatever!

Stll cant figure out how you are coming to that conclusion though as both the OP accident and my Dads accident involve a car pulling out of a junction and a motorcyclist being smacked whilst there is a line of traffic STOPPED (but I dont argue with idiots so will leave you to it)

Because the exact circumstances are very different. And it's those circumstances that determine liability.

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

So if that Scania truck was parked up, at night, in such a location that it needed to have it's positional lamps lit, which ones would be lit.

And you're saying they would be insufficient for it to be seen at night?

It wouldn't be moving would it. So it isn't as if someone isn't going to see it coming due to it's poor visibility.

Now can we stop going off topic.

Wongsky

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It wouldn't be moving would it. So it isn't as if someone isn't going to see it coming due to it's poor visibility.

It would still have to be SEEN though.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Now can we stop going off topic.

You can do whatever you like, you chose to respond to the point.

Uncannily, I also have such choice, too.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

I remember when the sidelights on pretty much all vehicles were at about the same level of brightness as on the trucks you are complaining about.

There were no visibility issues then as people's lights weren't getting drowned out by the Corsa in front with misaligned eBay HIDs from China.

The reason you don't see the enormous truck now is because you are used to modern cars with obnoxiously bright lights and are not looking for or at least not noticing anything dimmer.

And if you can't see a truck with normal lights, bikers (pedal and motor) have absolutely no chance!

Motorbikers have clearly joined the arms race, hence that BMW bike mentioned that people keep thinking is on full beams, cyclists have responded with those horrible flashing lights that come with their own unique problems. Pedestrians are still unlit and are becoming less and less visible as a result.

Many side light are just as dim on many other vehicles.

no-oneknowsme

Lum wrote: »

. If you enter that area and it's intended for people coming the other way to turn right, and then someone actually pulls into the right turn area and you have a head on collision, it should go down as your fault in any civil matter that follows.

So in this case I think nooneknowsme's dad actually got a pretty poor deal, probably has a lazy insurance company that couldn't be bothered to fight it.

See this is what my Dad thought too Lum.

The motorcyclist was in too much of a hurry to wait in the line of traffic (which had come to a complete standstill as it was a very busy time of day) and had crossed over into an area which is actually for traffic coming in the other direction who are turning right.

The biker was risking an accident by going into this part of the road as he was at risk of being hit by someone wanting to turn right.

Lum

Which insurance company was it so that I can avoid them?

Someone needs to maintain a list of insurance companies that will actually fight for you rather than just defaulting to 50/50 so they can stiff both of you.

The fact that they don't is another reason why people are flocking to the claim management companies.

telboyo

This is an easy one THE CAR PULLED OUT INTO MOVING TRAFFIC WITHOUT LOOKING FOR ON COMING TRAFFIC. Such blatant disregard for other road users indicates to me that he was on the phone rolling a fag and shooting up heroin whilst snorting cocaine after drinking 500 pints of beer.
Seriously now, it is morning rush hour pi55ing down with rain in half light and the driverdoes not look for a Bike,
Stop bloody rushing, I bet he was late
for work

no-oneknowsme

Lum wrote: »

Which insurance company was it so that I can avoid them?

Someone needs to maintain a list of insurance companies that will actually fight for you rather than just defaulting to 50/50 so they can stiff both of you.

The fact that they don't is another reason why people are flocking to the claim management companies.

To be honest I am not sure who insurered him at the time of the accident. He was driving a mobility car at the time (the mobility car was actually my Mums but Dad is the driver) and the insurance company actually very quickly took full responsibility for the accident.

It was at that point that my Dad voiced his concerns over the fact that the motorcysclist should be taking his share of responsibility as he was on the wrong side of the road when the impact occurred.

It took a long time but was eventually settled 50/50.

My Dad never disputed that he held some responsibility , he just didnt think the cyclist was totally blameless.

pendulum

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

... as he was on the wrong side of the road when the impact occurred.

There's no such thing as the wrong side of the road, you can use the opposite lane if nobody else is using it ie when overtaking, that's perfectly legal and it says so in the HC, and it does Not mean that you are at fault if someone pulls out from a junction in front of you - they should be looking both ways. The insurers initially wanted to settle 100% against your dad because he was the one to blame, he kicked up a fuss and then the insurers went 50/50 to avoid the hassle (as all too many insurance companies do).

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

It would still have to be SEEN though.

Rear reflectors are enough for a vehicle to be seen at night, as long as they are facing the right direction.