Whose fault was this one?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

maninthestreet wrote: »

The motot cyclist would not be able to see the gap in the stationary traffic, as this was obscured by the traffic.

Rule 211 of the HW code states:

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

travelling down the middle of the road being and sat higher i would beg to differ on your opinion of not being able to see the gap. he had the best view of queing traffic.

mkirkby

maninthestreet wrote: »

The motorcyclist would not be able to see the gap in the stationary traffic, as this was obscured by the traffic.

Yes he would & he should have been going slower. My bandit is about the same height as his bike and I can assure you that a gap like that would be very noticeable from the line he was taking.

Having said that he was still within the law and the car driver is at fault.

Raksha

Why are so many saying 'the car' or 'the bike'? These are objects, they aren't capable of making any decision.

Hooloovoo

maninthestreet wrote: »

The motot cyclist would not be able to see the gap in the stationary traffic, as this was obscured by the traffic.

I disagree.

Rule 211 of the HW code states:

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

Agreed. Not sure how that helps your point. I have already said the driver of the car is at fault, or at worst mostly at fault.

You can’t control what other motorists do around you. However, by mastering what you can control, in many cases you will be able to either avoid or at least mitigate the mistakes of others. You must fully recognise what you can control and constantly exercise that control to the best of your ability. The rider of the motorbike did not do this.

Hooloovoo

Raksha wrote: »

Why are so many saying 'the car' or 'the bike'? These are objects, they aren't capable of making any decision.

Because it's more convenient than constantly typing "the driver of the car" and "the rider of the motorbike", and the abbreviation in no way reduces the clarity of the statement.

brat

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Agreed. Not sure how that helps your point. I have already said the driver of the car is at fault, or at worst mostly at fault.

No, the insurance company will settle this in favour of the car driver, as already stated, as per the Powell v Moody case law (80/20 in favour of the car driver).

Arg

gpc273 wrote: »

The car doesn't peep and creep, so IMHO a higher proportion of the blame goes to him. If he had it would have given vehicles using the right hand lane more warning.
That said the bike was too fast for those conditions, and that situation is entirely why the Hazard Avoidance exercise is in the revamped motorcycle test.

The car wasn't exactly going fast either.
Jumping over the motorbike would of been better then swerving and potentially putting him in front of an oncoming vehicle.

BertTheRaccoon

There's so much to distinguish from Powell v Moody, which is the lazy person's/ insurer's favourite in these circs.

I'd advocate getting 100% for the biker on this case, the car driver was clearly at fault for just making one continuous manoeuvre and was emerging at an angle which further prevented them for affording any sort of view until they have already put their car into the path of the bike. Most probably looking to their left at the time.

Hooloovoo

brat wrote: »

No, the insurance company will settle this in favour of the car driver, as already stated, as per the Powell v Moody case law (80/20 in favour of the car driver).

Possibly. But I was referring to my own opinion, which doesn't necessarily match anyone else's.

Rolandtheroadie

brat wrote: »

No, the insurance company will settle this in favour of the car driver, as already stated, as per the Powell v Moody case law (80/20 in favour of the car driver).

I'd imagine there will be other examples of case law out there that will be used by the bikers claims management team though.