Whose fault was this one?

BertTheRaccoon

scotsman4th wrote: »

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

Indeed.

I have no connection what so ever with this firm, but this pretty much explains how outdated Powell -v- Moody is.


http://www.whitedalton.co.uk/Who-Is-To-Blame/overtaking-lines-of-traffic.html

brat

scotsman4th wrote: »

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

Actually, no there isn't. Powell v Moody is very persuasive case law on accidents involving filtering motorcycles in precisely these circumstances, and there are many of them. More recent case law of Davis v Schrogin 2006 seems on first read to contradict PvM but the circumstances are significantly different because the car driver was making a u-turn out of a queue. Both cases still stand on their discrete merits and will be the starting point (and usually the end point) for most minor civil cases involving filtering motorcyclists. As earlier said, insurers are lazy (circumspect) in their interpretation of an accident, and will avoid argument over minor issues if there is some off the shelf case law to use.
Looking at this vid, the main differences between this and the PvM case is that the motorcyclist in this video was more careless than in PvM, in that his speed was excessive for the circumstances. HC88 is very clear on the responsibilities of filtering riders - it says

"When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

The car driver was unable to do anything differently. He will have been encouraged out by the availability of a space. He may or may not have looked right for filtering bikes, but there is a reasonable expectation that if the carriage way is single lane either direction, there will only be one lane of traffic. His last look will be to the left to check that his lane is clear, which means that, had he looked right earlier, the motorcyclist would probably have been nowhere to be seen.

Motorcyclists need to understand that filtering through available space in a single lane requires them to be able to deal with every situation that may arise because of their unexpected position. It's their life and their no-claims on the line.

andygb

Arg wrote: »

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.

He did however maintain the same speed from the forecourt throughout the manouvre - so he did not stop to look before emerging from the line of traffic.

gpc273

Arg wrote: »

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.

From your comments I take it you don't ride a motorbike, how could he possible jump over the bike??
A simple swerve and back onto the riding line, job done, albeit with a lot of swearing.
There are no oncoming vehicles and its a wide road.

Lum

Looking at that stretch of road, is it one of those stretches that are marked as one lane but a majority of road users treat it as two?

mikey72

Judging by the car following the bike, I'd say yes.

Lum

It makes no legal difference, if it's one lane then the bike is probably in the wrong, but I'm just curious, and the OPs local knowledge is the definitive answer here.

I'm always interested in why people make mistakes, and what can be done to address that. It's a lot more interesting than a bunch of overpaid suits deciding liability and profiting either way.

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

Indeed.

I have no connection what so ever with this firm, but this pretty much explains how outdated Powell -v- Moody is.

link deleted

I'm afraid that the only people you'll find trying to devalue Powell v Moody are those who stand to gain from it.

It's old case law, which has stood the test of time, and is more persuasive because of that. I don't get why you think a manner of driving that was considered blameworthy 50 years ago shouldn't be blameworthy now.

BertTheRaccoon

brat wrote: »

I'm afraid that the only people you'll find trying to devalue Powell v Moody are those who stand to gain from it.

It's old case law, which has stood the test of time, and is more persuasive because of that. I don't get why you think a manner of driving that was considered blameworthy 50 years ago shouldn't be blameworthy now.

So if you were acting for the biker in that collision, would you recommend he takes 80% contrib as professional advice?

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

It makes no legal difference, if it's one lane then the bike is probably in the wrong, but I'm just curious, and the OPs local knowledge is the definitive answer here.

I'm always interested in why people make mistakes, and what can be done to address that. It's a lot more interesting than a bunch of overpaid suits deciding liability and profiting either way.

I'd have done the same.
Traffic to the right stopped, good clear view of the road to the left, pull out of the garage, and be more interested in getting over the road before anything came from the island on the left, and just as you clear the cars on the right, that's when you can see the motorcyclist for the first time.
Side windows covered in rain, poor visibility and it's happened before you know it.