Whose fault was this one?

BertTheRaccoon

Nothing personal against Brat, but his experience is far more orientated to criminal law/ prosecutions and that procedure, which does not follow the path that civil law takes.

We're discussing whose "fault" this collision was. There has been some breach of duty of care by both motorists in this accident, but I'd still wager the car driver would be the one going home with the lions share of blame after a day in the County Court (assuming the biker had competent representation and not some factory firm agreeing Powell v Moody is the don here)

Lum

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

They are a bit of a hero chariot. Assuming it's a turbo model, it must be fun taking people by surprise in a little know jap saloon :beer:

It's the SE-4 the 2.0T 4WD version. It's slowed down a little by the autobox but still more than enough for my needs. I mainly got it to avoid the attention from the local boy racers, thieves and police that I would have gotten with a Skyline.

Only problem is people assume it either belongs to my boyfriend (which I don't have) or my dad.

almillar

So, bike was filtering too fast (accepted) and Passat drove out of the junction too fast. Passat STILL has to give way to traffic on the road he is entering and failed to do so. Do them both for driving without due care and attention then, and additionally do the Passat for 'failing to give way' or similar.

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I have viewed the video over and over again. And from the point where the Passat leaves the garage forecourt, it is clearly accelerating. And this is clear to see.
The reason it seems like you don't drive, is because you seem to think that he would have had a clear view before he started to accelerate. Well this would be impossible, and if he had a clear view, then why did he pull out? Or was it that he didn't even look?

I don’t think you properly understand what I'm saying.

At the point the Passat driver could have seen a good distance down the road outside the established lane of cars he was travelling at about 2mph – a slow walking pace (You agreed with another poster a while ago about recognising and understanding the effects of the wide dashcam lens). This pace is a lot slower than evidenced in the Farley v Buckley case where the car emanating was reported to be travelling at a low speed - part of the evidence being that it was pulling out at between 5 to 8 miles per hour. In this case the judge and the appeal judges decided that to ask a driver to exhibit more care than this in the circumstances would have been asking too much for drivers – no one can drive perfectly all the time - and they found the bike rider 100% liable.

If, at a point during his emerge, the Passat believed he had adequate view to the right, then started to accelerate out to reduce his ‘time exposed to danger’ he hasn’t done wrong.

On the other hand, you have to ask, with all the Highway Code, IAM and other warnings on the additional responsibilities required when filtering, why did the motorcyclist ride like he had completely devolved the responsibility for his and others’ safety away from himself?

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Like Lum, you also seem to be confusing driving that in your view isn't perfect, with actually breaking the law. The only person who could be prosecuted would be the Passat driver. But then you would know that if you were anything to do with RTC investigation, as you claim.

Your view interests me, because I get the impression you think you know a bit about prosecuting standards for careless driving.

Quite often, and probably in this case, civil liability will probably be the only consideration, because the police may well decide not to prosecute, given that the rider may have suffered enough already. But please don’t think that there is no careless riding here. If that Passat had been a kid encouraged out through the traffic queue , or a cyclist, or a person pushing a pram, and the motorcyclist had collided with them and killed them, the rider would be charged and convicted of causing their death by careless driving. These road users may not have passed a driving test, so their likely response when walking through the queue of traffic may be to consider that their only remaining hazard should be traffic coming from the left.
The manner of driving of the motorcyclist is no different whether the object emerging is a car, a child, a pram or a cyclist. He has chosen not to look for them, not to consider them, and to drive so fast that if they do come into his unexpected path, he cannot avoid taking them out.

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

Nothing personal against Brat, but his experience is far more orientated to criminal law/ prosecutions and that procedure, which does not follow the path that civil law takes.

We're discussing whose "fault" this collision was. There has been some breach of duty of care by both motorists in this accident, but I'd still wager the car driver would be the one going home with the lions share of blame after a day in the County Court (assuming the biker had competent representation and not some factory firm agreeing Powell v Moody is the don here)

Much (not all) of the above reply is also my answer to your post Bert. The facts of this case are the same no matter whether viewed from a criminal law or civil law perspective.

The rules applied to filtering differentiate it from other road manoeuvres (like overtaking) in the sense that it is a more risky activity, more unexpected to other road users. It involves the requirement to accord a degree of compliance with the other road users you have unilaterally decided to share lane width with. This compliance is usually accorded passively through the low differential speed of the rider, but this accorded compliance diminishes quickly in proportion to that differential speed.

I believe that some filtering road users would like to see greater protection in law of their inappropriately fast filtering, a demand that is clearly incompatible with road safety, but it nevertheless covers many pages in message boards.

I believe that it is important to maintain the road safety ethos in respect of liabiliy/punishment that a conscious consideration to drive carelessly is always a more serious matter than an ‘understandable’ lapse by a compliant motorist. This is an ethos that was recognised in the Powell v Moody judgement, and has continued in court decisions to this day.

Jamie_Carter

almillar wrote: »

So, bike was filtering too fast (accepted) and Passat drove out of the junction too fast. Passat STILL has to give way to traffic on the road he is entering and failed to do so. Do them both for driving without due care and attention then, and additionally do the Passat for 'failing to give way' or similar.

But brat will never accept that. Either because he is just trolling, or because he hates motorcyclists.

Jamie_Carter

I wouldn't take any advice from brat. As you can see in this thread, his knowledge of the Highway Code is very poor. Yet in other threads he has claimed to be a traffic police officer, and a collision investigator. But his knowledge of road traffic collisions is also very poor.

Personally I think he is just a self proclaimed armchair expert, who gets all of his info from the internet.

Marvel1

Seems like a learning curve for us all - drivers and riders.