Whose fault was this one?

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

Thing is, even if local custom is to create two lanes, that doesn't automatically mean that the Passat driver should or would be aware of this. They might not be local.

"Everyone does it" is not a valid excuse, otherwise nobody would have any speeding points on their licenses.

Many of these local customs are useful, and should continue, but if you're going to deviate from the normal rules of the road then you need to be aware that not everyone will expect it and be prepared for the consequences of that.

Local customs or not, the simple fact remains that the Passat driver pulled out and accelerated without paying due care to other road users.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

One lane = one lane yes, we're agreed on that point.

Using the road available to make progress. Yes I agree with you on this point too. If I were turning right ahead I'd have done the same even in my car.

However where I disagree on is where liability lies. If I were to create that extra line, be I on a bike, driving a car, whatever. I need to take responsibility for my unexpected position and be aware that people will not expect that space to be used and thus pull out. I certainly wouldn't be going at that speed.

But you are still missing the point...whatever your view on filtering being right or wrong, the fact remains that the Passat driver didn't take enough care to make sure he could see clearly, before pulling out. So that's where the liability lies.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

It's not wrong to filter, but it must be done carefully.
It's wrong to "squeeze" through - that implies passing too closely.
It's wrong to pass too quickly or try to make too much progress. IAM condone making legal progress, but one of their buzz phrases is "never sacrifice safety for any other advantage".
IAM and HC offer clear advice on filtering, that it must be done safely and slowly. If not, this type of collision will result.


With respect, those are not the only options. As the Passat was pulling out, he could probably see 30 to 35 metres past the Octavia before deciding to pull out past the Octavia. That distance takes 4 to 5 seconds to cover at the highest advised filtering speeds for good conditions, 6 to 8 seconds at the highest advised filtering speed for less good conditions. So it could be reasonable for the Passat driver to assume he has given all reasonable consideration to filtering bikes. Remember also, the Passat's movement should have been obvious to the bike rider for a much greater time and distance, and the onus is on him (as a filterer) to accommodate that movement, if need be by slowing down and letting the Passat move out.

You obviously don't drive!

You have to understand that advice is NOT the law. It is good practice.

The Passat was clearly accelerating from the point just after they entered the road, and long before they had a clear view to the right. SO IT IS THEIR FAULT!!!!!!!!

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

But you are still missing the point...whatever your view on filtering being right or wrong, the fact remains that the Passat driver didn't take enough care to make sure he could see clearly, before pulling out. So that's where the liability lies.

We don't know whether, when and for how much the Passat driver looked. If he claims to have looked during his pulling out, but the motorbike wasn't visible then, because it was too far back and going too fast, that is hard to argue against.

And when do you draw the line? Recommended filtering speed is 10-15mph. Most of the folk in this thread seem to agree that the biker was doing around 25mph.

What if the biker was a power ranger on an R1 overtaking/filtering at 60, would the Passat driver reasonably expected to anticipate that before pulling out?

I'd draw the line somewhere below 20mph*. Where would you put it?

* By this I mean the line for legal liability to switch to the biker. I personally aim for higher when doing my own observations in this sort of situation.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

We don't know whether, when and for how much the Passat driver looked. If he claims to have looked during his pulling out, but the motorbike wasn't visible then, because it was too far back and going too fast, that is hard to argue against.

And when do you draw the line? Recommended filtering speed is 10-15mph. Most of the folk in this thread seem to agree that the biker was doing around 25mph.

What if the biker was a power ranger on an R1 overtaking/filtering at 60, would the Passat driver reasonably expected to anticipate that before pulling out?

I'd draw the line somewhere below 20mph*. Where would you put it?

* By this I mean the line for legal liability to switch to the biker. I personally aim for higher when doing my own observations in this sort of situation.

You seem to be confusing your personal views with the law.

Nobody knows how fast the motorcyclist was doing. But the general consensus is that he wasn't breaking the speed limit.

It is also very clear to see from the video that the Passat started to accelerate before he could possibly have ad a good view past the line of traffic. Now I don't know who taught you to drive, but as I said earlier I am qualified far higher than IAM or ROSPA. And I can tell you that under no circumstances do you acccelerate across a road without good visibility in both directions. And that you NEVER accept someone waving you out as meaning that the road is clear.

It doesn't matter if the Passat driver said that he looked. The fact is that he didn't take the time to look properly before he pulled out. If he had edged out very slowly, then he wouldn't have caused a collision.

So it doesn't matter if you think what the motorcyclist was doing was wrong in your opinion. The fact remains that the Passat driver blatantly broke a serious road traffic law. And that if the motorcyclist had been killed, the Passat driver would have most likely served time.

Lum

You can be going too fast for the conditions without breaking the speed limit, though I'm sure you're well aware of that.

And again what speed, in your view, would the biker have to be doing before their speed is such that no driver could be reasonably expected to have seen them before pulling out? 30? 60? 100?

Remember that they're filtering past stop/start traffic and it's chucking it down, reducing visibility.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

You can be going too fast for the conditions without breaking the speed limit, though I'm sure you're well aware of that.

And again what speed, in your view, would the biker have to be doing before their speed is such that no driver could be reasonably expected to have seen them before pulling out? 30? 60? 100?

Remember that they're filtering past stop/start traffic and it's chucking it down, reducing visibility.

The way the Passat accelerated across the road, the bike would probably have still collided with it at 10 or 15mph.

But the question should be 'how slowly should the passat have been travelling to ensure that he wouldn't cause a collision'?

TKA25

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Personally I am qualified to far higher level than IAM or ROSPA.

Oh right. What level is that?

I have an IAM certificate, ROSPA Gold award, full HGV & PCV entitlement, various emergency response qualifications from an emergency services career, and I'm now qualified to teach emergency response driving to current 999 responders.

But I'd say neither of that is a 'far higher level' than ROSPA Gold.

If somebody has an excellent standard of 'normal driving' (i.e. ROSPA Gold), then 95% of the time, they will pass the emergency response and pursuit elements of advanced courses. Everything taught is just building on good basic driving skills.

Jamie_Carter

TKA25 wrote: »

Oh right. What level is that?

I have an IAM certificate, ROSPA Gold award, full HGV & PCV entitlement, various emergency response qualifications from an emergency services career, and I'm now qualified to teach emergency response driving to current 999 responders.

But I'd say neither of that is a 'far higher level' than ROSPA Gold.

If somebody has an excellent standard of 'normal driving' (i.e. ROSPA Gold), then 95% of the time, they will pass the emergency response and pursuit elements of advanced courses. Everything taught is just building on good basic driving skills.

What a load of rubbish :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's the worst trolling I have seen so far on here. Anyone who was as qualified as you claim to be, would never make a statement like that. Driving to ROSPA gold standard, and driving emergency vehicles are a world apart.

TKA25

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

What a load of rubbish :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's the worst trolling I have seen so far on here. Anyone who was as qualified as you claim to be, would never make a statement like that. Driving to ROSPA gold standard, and driving emergency vehicles are a world apart.

Sounds like a post made by somebody who hasn't got a valid argument to reply with.

The local NHS ambulance service have a 4 week driving course. The first 3 weeks are spent getting the driver up to ROSPA Gold level, and only the final week is spent driving under emergency conditions. Most of the failures occur in the first 3 weeks. It is very rare to have a student pass the first 3 weeks and then fail on the emergency driving module. When they do, it is normally a confidence issue of driving on blues rather than a core driving problem such as anticipation.

Emergency driving is anticipating, planning, spotting hazards, all round good observations, looking to make progress, reading road conditions etc. There are extra skills in addition to those taught on ROSPA courses, but to make out that emergency driving is a world apart is well off the mark.

Those who come on the course thinking they're going to be invisible drivers who are suddenly able to do rocket speeds through a busy town centre under some strange pretense that a few small LED blue lights in the grille are going to alert every motorist and pedestrian, are usually the ones who fail...