Whose fault was this one?

Lum

Is it really reasonable to expect someone to create a second lane where none actually exists?

It's fine to do that if you can get away with it, but the onus is on you to ensure your own safety as per the many HC rules and court cases that have been posted in previous pages.

If this collision had happened after the point where this road officially becomes two lanes in that direction then I would, of course, place 100% of the blame on the Passat driver. But it did not, it happened in the one lane section.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

Is it really reasonable to expect someone to create a second lane where none actually exists?

It's fine to do that if you can get away with it, but the onus is on you to ensure your own safety as per the many HC rules and court cases that have been posted in previous pages.

If this collision had happened after the point where this road officially becomes two lanes in that direction then I would, of course, place 100% of the blame on the Passat driver. But it did not, it happened in the one lane section.

It is quite legal for two vehicles to drive side by side as long as there is room to do so. In this case there was plenty of room to do so.

The onus is not on the motorcyclist, it is on the car pulling out to take due care and attention for other road users....he didn't!

Lum

I didn't ask if it was legal, in fact I agreed that it was.

I asked if it was reasonable to anticipate someone actually doing that. The HC and case law in this thread would seem to imply that anticipating this is not reasonable and that if you go ahead and do it anyway, the onus is on you to avoid people who won't expect you to be there.

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

brat wrote: »

You might choose to counter my points rather than take a sideswipe. Perhaps you could do so in the context of the advice provided to riders about filtering that I've given in this page from the Motorcycle News
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/July/jul2911-mcn-iam-better-riding-guide-filtering/

I'll answer your posts in my own time thankyou very much!

Advice in MCN is not the law!!!!!!

It's advice provided by the IAM, but if you know better. :whistle:

The biker in the video thought he knew better.

I would put significant parameters on any proper analysis of this video, and I would use better equipment to do it. But speed calcs based on time and distance are remarkably easy to work out on video these days, and in terms of collision investigation, calculations of speed based on video evidence are generally recognised to be very accurate.

For a biker braking at 0.5g

• If the rider was doing 15 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 7 mph and have braked for 3.5 metres
• If the rider was doing 20 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 12 mph and have braked for 5.1 metres
• If the rider was doing 25 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 17 mph and have braked for 6.7 metres
• If the rider was doing 30 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 22 mph and have braked for 8.6 metres

My best analysis would suggest that he brakes for about 7 metres over 18 frames of braking (0.72 secs) which ties in with a pre-braking speed of over 25 mph and less than 30mph, although looking again at the vid it would appear he has his brakes on even earlier in the frame which may suggest he was braking for even longer.

Jamie, you really mustn't stick your head in the sand with the advice on filtering. It's life saving advice, so much so that it would be deemed careless to ignore it by any significant margin. This rider was out of the zone by a large margin, but more than that, he was taking no account of his own self preservation. As Lum has said, the courts will side with the car driver if the biker's careless riding makes the car driver's driving have to be perfect every time.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

I didn't ask if it was legal, in fact I agreed that it was.

I asked if it was reasonable to anticipate someone actually doing that. The HC and case law in this thread would seem to imply that anticipating this is not reasonable and that if you go ahead and do it anyway, the onus is on you to avoid people who won't expect you to be there.

Not at all. The law comes first.

You can't use case law, as all cases are different (as proved earlier in the thread when someone thought their father's case was the same).

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

It's advice provided by the IAM, but if you know better. :whistle:

The biker in the video thought he knew better.

I would put significant parameters on any proper analysis of this video, and I would use better equipment to do it. But speed calcs based on time and distance are remarkably easy to work out on video these days, and in terms of collision investigation, calculations of speed based on video evidence are generally recognised to be very accurate.



For a biker braking at 0.5g

• If the rider was doing 15 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 7 mph and have braked for 3.5 metres
• If the rider was doing 20 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 12 mph and have braked for 5.1 metres
• If the rider was doing 25 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 17 mph and have braked for 6.7 metres
• If the rider was doing 30 mph when he started braking he would have hit the car at 22 mph and have braked for 8.6 metres

My best analysis would suggest that he brakes for about 7 metres over 18 frames of braking (0.72 secs) which ties in with a pre-braking speed of over 25 mph and less than 30mph, although looking again at the vid it would appear he has his brakes on even earlier in the frame which may suggest he was braking for even longer.

Jamie, you really mustn't stick your head in the sand with the advice on filtering. It's life saving advice, so much so that it would be deemed careless to ignore it by any significant margin. This rider was out of the zone by a large margin, but more than that, he was taking no account of his own self preservation. As Lum has said, the courts will side with the car driver if the biker's careless riding makes the car driver's driving have to be perfect every time.

You have already proven that you don't have a clue what you are talking about, and that you certainly have nothing to do with collision investigation. So give up looking things up on the net, and then thinking that you are an expert.

There is nothing worse than armchair experts.

From your comments it appears that you don't even drive.

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Not at all. The law comes first.

You can't use case law, as all cases are different (as proved earlier in the thread when someone thought their father's case was the same).

That particular incident never went to court.

When it's purely between insurance companies then it comes down to whether the insurance company can be bothered to fight on behalf of their insured. It's often more cost effective for them to just pay out.

And given that the law just uses vague terms like "a reasonable person". Then the only thing that can define this is case law.

Rolandtheroadie

Is the IAM braking thingiemebob in the wet or dry?

And how far would the bike have skidded if it hadnt been hit by the car.

brat

scotsman4th wrote: »

Is the IAM braking thingiemebob in the wet or dry?

Not IAM braking, it's simple physics. A normal coefficient of sliding friction on a well used road would be about 0.7 in the dry, ~0.5 in the wet.

And how far would the bike have skidded if it hadnt been hit by the car.

Obviously depends on its impact speed. The equation is s=u²/2μg where s= distance, u = speed, μ = coefficient of friction and g= acceleration due to gravity.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

That particular incident never went to court.

When it's purely between insurance companies then it comes down to whether the insurance company can be bothered to fight on behalf of their insured. It's often more cost effective for them to just pay out.

And given that the law just uses vague terms like "a reasonable person". Then the only thing that can define this is case law.

Case law doesn't apply to insurance claims that haven't gone to court. As you say it's a case of if they can be bothered to fight it.

In the case in the video, it would be a lot more cut and dry in the favour of the motorcyclist.