Whose fault was this one?

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

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

The collision is clearly mostly his fault. He was filtering past stationary traffic in the same lane at an unreasonable speed, a speed from which he could do absolutely nothing should something happen that he should reasonably have foreseen. He was ignoring HC advice regarding overtaking around junctions and hazards, and filtering. He was ignoring the clarification provided in PvM case law that a rider "must be incredibly careful when overtaking when he cannot see what is in front of him."
The car driver in my view is mostly blameless, a victim of circumstance. Having been encouraged to make a normal manoeuvre, s/he appears to have taken reasonable care in the circumstances. I don't see how you can apportion anything other than minimal blame to the car driver.

IANAL, but I would advise the rider that he must shoulder the lion's share of blame. I couldn't see any way of improving that proportionality of liability.

Hoonercat

The car driver was unable to do anything differently.

He could have left the garage forecourt via what most would regard as the exit, rather than the entrance. Most people would see that part of the garage as an exit and so would not have expected a vehicle to emerge from it.
The car driver could also have turned left and used the roundabout which would have been a hell of a lot safer than turning right across traffic in those conditions.
Unlike the other cars, the car involved doesn't appear to have its headlights on, which could have given the bike rider an early warning of its presence due to the reflection on the wet surface.
And had the car driver been looking right, he should have seen the motorcycle's headlight through the windows of the car that had stopped. He doesn't appear to have even stopped to check, he pulls out in one continuous maneuver and only stops a split second before the impact. At the time of the impact the car has already reached the white lines in the middle of the road and even from the angle of the camera his windscreen is already visible. Pause the video just as they impact and you can see that had the car driver been looking to the right he would have had plenty of time to see the bike and stop, his side window was clear of obstruction from the traffic yet he still didn't stop in time.

BertTheRaccoon

brat wrote: »

The collision is clearly mostly his fault. He was filtering past stationary traffic in the same lane at an unreasonable speed, a speed from which he could do absolutely nothing should something happen that he should reasonably have foreseen. He was ignoring HC advice regarding overtaking around junctions and hazards, and filtering. He was ignoring the clarification provided in PvM case law that a rider "must be incredibly careful when overtaking when he cannot see what is in front of him."
The car driver in my view is mostly blameless, a victim of circumstance. Having been encouraged to make a normal manoeuvre, s/he appears to have taken reasonable care in the circumstances. I don't see how you can apportion anything other than minimal blame to the car driver.

IANAL, but I would advise the rider that he must shoulder the lion's share of blame. I couldn't see any way of improving that proportionality of liability.

I couldn't disagree with you more, if anything I'd advocate as a worst case scenario for the biker (with competent representation) a reversal of the P v M apportionment, with the car getting clobbered for 80% liability.

It would be interesting to learn how this one actually turns out.

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with you more, if anything I'd advocate as a worst case scenario for the biker (with competent representation) a reversal of the P v M apportionment, with the car getting clobbered for 80% liability.

It would be interesting to learn how this one actually turns out.

You're not actually saying why you disagree. Try to explain the specific reasons for your disagreement.

Unfortunately we'll not ever get to know how this pans out.

maninthestreet

brat wrote: »

The collision is clearly mostly his fault. He was filtering past stationary traffic in the same lane at an unreasonable speed, a speed from which he could do absolutely nothing should something happen that he should reasonably have foreseen. He was ignoring HC advice regarding overtaking around junctions and hazards, and filtering. He was ignoring the clarification provided in PvM case law that a rider "must be incredibly careful when overtaking when he cannot see what is in front of him."
The car driver in my view is mostly blameless, a victim of circumstance. Having been encouraged to make a normal manoeuvre, s/he appears to have taken reasonable care in the circumstances. I don't see how you can apportion anything other than minimal blame to the car driver.

What road junction? The exit/entrance to the petrol station is not a road junction. The car driver falied to follow rule 211 of the HW code, as stated in an earlier post.

brat

Hoonercat wrote: »

He could have left the garage forecourt via what most would regard as the exit, rather than the entrance. Most people would see that part of the garage as an exit and so would not have expected a vehicle to emerge from it.

It's a natural exit from the forecourt and from the car wash.

The car driver could also have turned left and used the roundabout which would have been a hell of a lot safer than turning right across traffic in those conditions.

Yes, you're right, but the last time I looked there's no law against turning right.

Unlike the other cars, the car involved doesn't appear to have its headlights on, which could have given the bike rider an early warning of its presence due to the reflection on the wet surface.

looks like at least sidelights, and indicators when he set off.

And had the car driver been looking right, he should have seen the motorcycle's headlight through the windows of the car that had stopped. He doesn't appear to have even stopped to check, he pulls out in one continuous maneuver and only stops a split second before the impact. At the time of the impact the car has already reached the white lines in the middle of the road and even from the angle of the camera his windscreen is already visible. Pause the video just as they impact and you can see that had the car driver been looking to the right he would have had plenty of time to see the bike and stop, his side window was clear of obstruction from the traffic yet he still didn't stop in time.

It's by no means a certainty that he would see the bike while looking to the right for a sensible proportion of his emergence time. It's much more likely that the rider should have seen the car move out, but he obviously didn't.

As I've said, car driver should not be expecting two lanes of traffic in one lane. If a vehicle does overtake, the HC and case law makes it clear that they must take the responsibility for placing their vehicle in an unexpected position.

pixwix

IMHO, it's the local council's fault for permitting a dangerous exit - all too common.

For years my local council disallowed a local store development, then suddenly changed their minds when the 'right candidate' showed up (presumably with the right kind of handshake.) With a store exit yards from a blind bend, there are at least a couple of shunts a week there - all of which could be avoided with a 'no right exit' sign given there's a roundbout 100 yards away for people to reverse direction.

But try telling the council - they deal with day-to-day problems on a year-to-year basis - if indeed they deal with them at all.

Hoonercat

Quote:
The car driver could also have turned left and used the roundabout which would have been a hell of a lot safer than turning right across traffic in those conditions.
Yes, you're right, but the last time I looked there's no law against turning right.

There isn't, but it would have been the sensible thing to do.

Quote:
Unlike the other cars, the car involved doesn't appear to have its headlights on, which could have given the bike rider an early warning of its presence due to the reflection on the wet surface.
looks like at least sidelights, and indicators when he set off.

Pretty much every other car had their full lights on. Sidelights would not have been powerful enough to shine a reflection on the wet road.

It's by no means a certainty that he would see the bike while looking to the right for a sensible proportion of his emergence time. It's much more likely that the rider should have seen the car move out, but he obviously didn't.

As I've said, car driver should not be expecting two lanes of traffic in one lane. If a vehicle does overtake, the HC and case law makes it clear that they must take the responsibility for placing their vehicle in an unexpected position.

The rider did see the car, certainly before the car saw the rider. The car driver's view was not obstructed, he had reached the middle of the road when the accident happened and should have looked right before that point. And if pulling out into a wide road then he should have been aware of the possibility that other vehicles could have been on the right, given that it's an approach to a roundabout.
The car driver doesn't appear to have the ability to anticipate hazards - no headlights, not using the safer route of the roundabout and not checking to the right before pulling out.

Lum

Slightly OT, but when exactly did it become the norm to use headlights, rather than sidelights, in daytime rain.

I hate this trend. It makes it so much harder to see road users that are smaller than cars.

brat

maninthestreet wrote: »

What road junction? The exit/entrance to the petrol station is not a road junction.

Eh!?
I mentioned 'junctions' and 'hazards'. Whether you like it or not, the merging of the route out of the petrol station with the A27 is both a junction and a hazard. Whether the garage exit route is a 'road' or not is another debate, although the A27 most certainly is.

You've quoted Rule 211 of HC which I will return to.

To quote some Highway Code advice for the motorcyclist to consider

On Overtaking
162. Before overtaking you should make sure

• the road is sufficiently clear ahead
• there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

163. Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.

166. DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.

167. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
• where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
• when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
  

Clearly all this advice makes 'filtering' an activity which shouldn't be carried out.
In recent years motorcycle filtering has increased exponentially, probably because of the increased volume of road traffic.
The HC has now officially recognised that this activity does happen, but offers clear advice in 88 which clearly shows how much care this activity requires, because the activity has the potential to put the motorcyclist in places where other motorists will reasonably not expect them to be.

HC Advice for motorcyclists

86. Be aware that other vehicle drivers may still not have seen you, or judged your distance or speed correctly, especially at junctions.

88. 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.

maninthestreet wrote: »

The car driver falied to follow rule 211 of the HW code, as stated in an earlier post.

Highway code rule 211 part 2 states "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."
This primarily refers to a motorist turning right into a side street, and asks them to consider those vulnerable road users who would be inside the dominant flow of traffic. The clear distinction here is that those in the inside are likely to have just been overtaken by the car on its outside, and therefore have a very definite right to maintain their course, and will likely be unaware that the car about to turn right has been allowed to do so by the car on his outside. This motorcyclist, in contrast, has placed himself in the unexpected overtaking position, and therefore must take ownership of the care to ensure that he doesn't conflict with anyone else. Highway Code rule 88 and the consistency of the 1966 case law advice should be a constant reminder to motorcyclists of the dangers and responsibilities inherent when filtering/overtaking.

Highway code rule 211 part 1 "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."
For a motorist to give consideration to the filtering biker as per HC211, the biker needs to be 'filtering', not 'overtaking'. Given the speed of the bike, the car driver may well have given the necessary consideration to 'filtering' bikes, yet had no chance of seeing this motorcyclist who was probably doing 20-25mph, a speed that takes him out of the scope of filtering, and into the speed differential more appropriately defined as dangerous overtaking.