Motorcycle accident - should I search for solicitor?

AdrianC

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The majority sits with the TP not the OP but the OP will almost certainly not be considered blameless. As per http://www.motorcyclenews.com/mcn/ridingevents/ridingeventsresults/riding-skills/2010/may/may0710-am-i-to-blame-for-overtaking-crash/ it can go as far as 50/50 but in this case its more likely 67/33 or 70/30 in the OPs favour.

The precise split's irrelevant to anybody but the insurers. The only thing that really matters to the OP is whether they carry _any_ fault (and therefore lose excess/NCB) or if they're held to be partially at fault.

OP - one thought... I presume the bike was on UK plates, UK insurance? If it's on foreign plates/paperwork, then that'll complicate matters, especially if you're now a UK resident.

Inch_High_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Another vote for 50/50, assuming the Merc can be traced (which sounds unlikely). The Merc driver will claim he DID indicate, and was already overtaking when this eejit on a bike came tarting out of nowhere straight up his chuff... Without an independent witness, the OP is unlikely to have it go in his favour. Did the car being overtaken not stop and give details?

Unless somebody can trace that Merc, then it's all going to be off the OP's insurance, though.

At the end of the day, if you're overtaking a string of vehicles, you HAVE to expect them to pull out without warning. It's a VERY high risk manouvre.

Did you not read the OP?

He was knocked unconscious and came round in an ambulance, the police officer dealing isn't back on duty for another two days.

im-lost

Session wrote: »

I am not sort of person that claims for anything, however I don't think it's easy to determine the actual losses. It could be potenially everything, not only material things like bike, motorcycle jacket etc.
... from the other point even if I get few grands for the personal injuries I can not buy new left arm and it won't start work faster... it needs time and rehabilitation. I think it's not a easy topic and border is very thin, between: "expecting the world" and "actual losses".

I'd be surprised if you get a few grand for 'minor injures' the payment for injuries themselves are fairly low, unless you have permanent scarring as part of the 'minor injuries' then a few bumps and bruises will be a low payout.

It's the other losses that bump up the actual claim, loss of earnings, psychological issues, having people help you (going rate is £10ph for things like family doing things for you) etc etc

I won't go in to details of mine, at the tail end of recovering after 9 months, and the claim is ongoing, but my injuries that were slightly more than 'minor' im looking at 10 - 15k, it's the other stuff that bumps it up to a larger claim, a year's loss year of earnings etc

'actual losses' are actually easy to quantify, but it's best to ask whoever handles your claim to go through it with you.

To put it bluntly, if your injury hasn't prevented you from working, or doing your usual activities, then your actual losses will be pretty low.

InsideInsurance

fivetide wrote: »

Helpful but is essentially what I was thinking. When you originally singled out my post to quote it came across as though you were giving the OP little chance when that isn't the case

Although if I wanted to perform a U turn from teh side of the road I'd need to check before I turned across traffic. Sticking my indicator on would not give me carte blanche to start my manouvre.

I think the likely one is the one molerat has hinted at. How fast was the OP going that they couldn't stop even if the car moved into their space?

Hence why I said to see about legal cover.

I picked up on your post as you were the only one to say you felt the OP wasnt to blame, hence just correcting that to say they will be held at least partially liable.

The key part is the "making your own lane", which includes driving in the wrong direction in an oncoming lane. Whenever this is done its considered very high risk and you are no longer "a correctly proceeding vehicle".

Putting your indicator on doesnt give you a carte blanche hence why the TP is at least 50% to blame but in the same vein, just because you've started a manover (like overtaking) doesnt give you carte blanche to continue it blindly come what may.

A lot of things will factor it in, speed of the OP, was there any side roads or driveways which would mean there is a heightened risk of someone wanting to turn the line of traffic into one of these meaning an overtaking vehicle has to be even more careful.

Ultimately you are at the mercy of a judge and typically these arent the sports biker types and possibly think they're predominately idiots that do stupid overtaking manovers at every opportunity with little consideration of other road users

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

The precise split's irrelevant to anybody but the insurers. The only thing that really matters to the OP is whether they carry _any_ fault (and therefore lose excess/NCB) or if they're held to be partially at fault.

It's quite relevant to the OP if he's claiming for uninsured losses (eg personal injury, time off work) rather than just the damage to his motorbike. If he's 10% liable it means he'll be able to claim 90% of his lost pay. If he's 50% liable, he'll only be able to claim half of it. Same with any award for pain and suffering caused by his injuries.

fivetide

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I picked up on your post as you were the only one to say you felt the OP wasnt to blame, hence just correcting that to say they will be held at least partially liable.

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I've shown why I think that is still the case (and your link also showed that the OP is unlikely to be found at fault even if they are found partly liable)

The key part is the "making your own lane", which includes driving in the wrong direction in an oncoming lane. Whenever this is done its considered very high risk and you are no longer "a correctly proceeding vehicle".

That's why I mentioned it didn't seemt he OP was filtering as for me, that is making your own lane i.e. one where there isn't one.

Overtaking isn't illegal but if that's the legal term for passing on the opposite carriageway then so be it.

Putting your indicator on doesnt give you a carte blanche hence why the TP is at least 50% to blame but in the same vein, just because you've started a manover (like overtaking) doesnt give you carte blanche to continue it blindly come what may.

Accepted. Your link does show that the majority verdict seems to be with the OP though in terms of carrying out a fairly normal move.

A lot of things will factor it in, speed of the OP, was there any side roads or driveways which would mean there is a heightened risk of someone wanting to turn the line of traffic into one of these meaning an overtaking vehicle has to be even more careful.

Totally agree. We only have one side of the story here.

Ultimately you are at the mercy of a judge and typically these arent the sports biker types and possibly think they're predominately idiots that do stupid overtaking manovers at every opportunity with little consideration of other road users

Agree with the bold bit. We can't say what the OP was riding though. He might be a wannabe Ewan on a BMW

Vectis

Isn't the usual protocol when there are several vehicles waiting to overtake (2 cars and a motorcycle in this instance) for the foremost vehicle (the Mercedes) to overtake first, not the vehicle furthest back? Not that excuses someone not looking in their mirror (if indeed they didn't), but I'd also question what speed the op was going - a motorcycle accelerating quickly past the rear vehicle could be upon the second vehicle in no time at all and might explain why the op admits to driving mainly into the rear of the Mercedes and not being sideswiped as you might expect.

Also, it's quite possible that the Mercedes driver WAS indicating but the op didn't notice it and that the Mercedes was already pulling out, indicating, to overtake when the op decided to overtake as well, which would again possibly explain why the op drove into the rear of the car.

Just playing devil's advocate as, we presume, there were no witnesses but - the car driver MAY have been indicating. The car driver MAY have already been pulling out to overtake after checking his rearview mirror and seeing it clear at that time. The op MAY have been going too fast and not noticed the car already pulling out.

I'm not saying the op's version of events is wrong, just that a lot of people don't always admit when they've perhaps made a mistake when driving - the same way that comments on here are already suggesting that the Mercedes driver will automatically say he was indicating.

And I'd certainly suggest that the op gets fully comprehensive insurance rather than third party in future.

tvstudent

Hello OP. My dad and I were in the same situation, except we were in a car. He over took a car and a learner driver who were going at about 20 mph below the speed limit. As he went to over take the first it pulled out right without looking to overtake the learner in front. It slammed into the side of our car and shot us over to the verge on the other side of the road. Turned out the driver was a police woman, and her car was totalled. She was liable though and we didn't have to pay a penny. She simply didnt look before she over took

InsideInsurance

fivetide wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I've shown why I think that is still the case (and your link also showed that the OP is unlikely to be found at fault even if they are found partly liable)

That's why I mentioned it didn't seemt he OP was filtering as for me, that is making your own lane i.e. one where there isn't one.

Overtaking isn't illegal but if that's the legal term for passing on the opposite carriageway then so be it.

Accepted. Your link does show that the majority verdict seems to be with the OP though in terms of carrying out a fairly normal move.

Totally agree. We only have one side of the story here.

Agree with the bold bit. We can't say what the OP was riding though. He might be a wannabe Ewan on a BMW

He is likely to be found partially at fault, though we are now potentially getting into semantics, and so is not "not at fault"


Saying its the "legal term" is probably too strong, its the normal term given to distinguish quickly between someone in a formal overtaking lane (like on a dual carriageway) -v- someone who is out of lane/ filtering or whatever else you want to call it.


As a non-biker, despite how much my colleague talks to me about his collection of bikes, there are only 3 classes - sports, scrambler or harley types. Other than Ducatti (thanks to my colleague) or Harleys (thanks to my uncle) I wouldnt have a clue about any other bike and whilst there are always exceptions I imagine many judges arent going to be much better than me

Stoke

If the car didn't stop then surely that is leaving the scene of an accident? That's a crime!