Interesting accident, whose fault should this be?

sh0597

photome wrote: »

I think you are implying that if it had been a car overtaking it would be the cars fault, but because it is a bike its 50/50

Or are you just shirking the question

still 80/20 IMO

It really is a pointless question though. For a start, it works on the basis of somehow suggesting the biker should not be overtaking when it is established that a bike is entitled to do so.


A car would not overtake as they would be unable to guarantee getting out of the opposing traffic lane without coming in to conflict with the traffic they are overtaking. A bike can see there is space to filter.


Despite this, if someone was overtaking at a similar speed to this bike (appears to be around 20mph), the emerging car would still have to give way to them and would be found partly liable. They would have a hard time explaining why they failed to see a car so would actually be in a harder position to defend.


In truth though the only "you MUST" rule being broken is by the car failing to give way to traffic on the main road. In the Powell - Moody case it is accepted the driver proceeded with care.

DoctorFoster

sh0597 wrote: »

It really is a pointless question though. For a start, it works on the basis of somehow suggesting the biker should not be overtaking when it is established that a bike is entitled to do so.


A car would not overtake as they would be unable to guarantee getting out of the opposing traffic lane without coming in to conflict with the traffic they are overtaking. A bike can see there is space to filter.


Despite this, if someone was overtaking at a similar speed to this bike (appears to be around 20mph), the emerging car would still have to give way to them and would be found partly liable. They would have a hard time explaining why they failed to see a car so would actually be in a harder position to defend.


In truth though the only "you MUST" rule being broken is by the car failing to give way to traffic on the main road. In the Powell - Moody case it is accepted the driver proceeded with care.

And a bike is guaranteed to?

JustinR1979

If that bike was doing 20mph then my cock's a kipper.


If you can quote part of the highway code to substantiate what doctorfoster has highlighted I'll concede that point. Although a car could equally see if road ahead was clear.


To carry out a safe overtake you need to satisfy SLN - Safe Legal and Necessary.
That manoeuvre qualifies 1, maybe 2 of those at a push.


But I still say would you do that on a bike test?
Would you do what car did on car test?


In those circumstances at that speed it is fraught with danger.
Take heed in what a biker with 40 years experience has to say on the matter

DoctorFoster

JustinR1979 wrote: »

If that bike was doing 20mph then my cock's a kipper.


If you can quote part of the highway code to substantiate what doctorfoster has highlighted I'll concede that point. Although a car could equally see if road ahead was clear.


To carry out a safe overtake you need to satisfy SLN - Safe Legal and Necessary.
That manoeuvre qualifies 1, maybe 2 of those at a push.


But I still say would you do that on a bike test?
Would you do what car did on car test?


In those circumstances at that speed it is fraught with danger.
Take heed in what a biker with 40 years experience has to say on the matter

Tell your missus she can have it nosh on it for breakfast.

JustinR1979

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Tell your missus she can have it nosh on it for breakfast.

You think it was doing 20mph then??


Don't have a missus, have a cat. Much less hassle

DoctorFoster

JustinR1979 wrote: »

You think it was doing 20mph then??


Don't have a missus, have a cat. Much less hassle

Hard to say from that clip,I've just watched again on a bigger screen. I'd say he was probably doing something like 30 if that was the limit.

I still stand by split liability but seeing it again he's an accident waiting to happen. Split liability for insurance only, if it came down to prosecution you couldn't convict the driver.

The bikers observations were poor. See the opposing vehicles, where was he going if traffic started to move again?

For those that say in front of the camera car if he could even see the gap, then he should have considered why has that traffic stopped.

sparky260500

the biker was braking when he hit the car so proves he was going to fast to stop in case of a emergency and also he wasn't in the right lane he was in the on coming traffic lane totally the bikes fault

Captaincodpiece

sparky260500 wrote: »

the biker was braking when he hit the car so proves he was going to fast to stop in case of a emergency and also he wasn't in the right lane he was in the on coming traffic lane totally the bikes fault

The fact he was braking doesn't prove anything.

The fact he was unable to stop in the space he could see to be clear evidences his speed was inappropriate for the conditions.

Splitting hair with you he was in the right lane but the jury appears to be out on whether he was filtering or overtaking.

I've studied this at work since a colleague showed me but didn't want to join up on their system. I'd say there is blame on both sides and very similar to the stated case.

JustinR1979

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

The fact he was unable to stop in the space he could see to be clear evidences his speed was inappropriate for the conditions.

I'm presuming you've trained as an ADI or done an IAM course to have said this?
Never heard anyone away from these say this.
Is best way to keep yourself out of trouble

Captaincodpiece

JustinR1979 wrote: »

I'm presuming you've trained as an ADI or done an IAM course to have said this?
Never heard anyone away from these say this.
Is best way to keep yourself out of trouble

What if I were to say

And the sole responsibility for this rests with the driver?