Interesting accident, whose fault should this be?

OnanTheBarbarian

I too am a biker and also a Claimant RTA lawyer. The car driver did seem to be proceeding with caution. The biker was filtering, which there is no problem with what so ever, but he was simply doing it far too fast to be able to deal with any hazard and therefore when he increased the risk and the duty of care to himself and other road users by deciding to filter, he should have done it at a speed that was appropriate.

Stationary traffic like that, should not have been doing more than 20mph max unless you like the taste of hospital food.

Strider590

bod1467 wrote: »

He didn't really accelerate though - he moved out slowly; the biker simply didn't see him until too late. The primary cause of this incident was lack of awareness by the biker.

As a biker myself I can hardly be classed as "jumping on the "queue jumping biker got what he deserved" bandwagon".

But he was looking left, not right. He just assumed the right was clear. Assumption is the mother of all f**k ups.

No offence, but every driver that gives abuse to a cyclist or biker ALWAYS claims to be one too. It's like being clearly racist and then saying "i've got black friends" or being homophobic and saying "my best friend is gay".

You say your a biker, but then you claim that filtering over hatch markings is not allowed, when clearly it is.

almillar

Hatch markings (with broken white lines) = you can drive/ride over perfectly legally.

Hmm, not quite the full story there - 'only enter if safe to do so' would be the more accurate phrase.
'Filtering' is a perfectly legitimate manouvre for motorcyclists if performed safely.

DoctorFoster

almillar wrote: »

Hmm, not quite the full story there - 'only enter if safe to do so' would be the more accurate phrase.
'Filtering' is a perfectly legitimate manouvre for motorcyclists if performed safely.

It actually says

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

I wish they would define what is necessary. It would go a little was to resolving the filtering argument

arcon5

A third lane? Get real. If a car jumped in it would you have the same view?

I suspect an insurance company wouldn't be throwing much weight behind the motorist - but imo the biker should be deemed equally responsible.

Strider590

DoctorFoster wrote: »

It actually says

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

I wish they would define what is necessary. It would go a little was to resolving the filtering argument

Not really......
When a driver fails to stop in time (usually messing with their phone) and lightly bumps the car in front, the biker that was originally in that gap, just saved himself from potential life threatening injury by filtering through.

One thing a biker never wants, is to be stuck between two cagers with no exit route.

I'd say safety made it perfectly "necessary".

sh0597

The car is at least partly at fault, either 100% the car or 50/50 but I'd tend towards 100% the car.

DoctorFoster

Strider590 wrote: »

Not really......
When a driver fails to stop in time (usually messing with their phone) and lightly bumps the car in front, the biker that was originally in that gap, just saved himself from potential life threatening injury by filtering through.

One thing a biker never wants, is to be stuck between two cagers with no exit route.

I'd say safety made it perfectly "necessary".

So if it necessary for them to queue jump or filter as that's their only safe method of travel then that would imply they are not a safe vehicle for the roads of today.

JustinR1979

Too much speed differential, biker should have been going slower.
Was it a junction or driveway? Nearly had a few over my bonnet overtaking at a junction.
If junction, shouldn't have been doing it. Cars are stopped for a reason, crawl past (if not a junction). If you're vulnerable you can rely on you alone, don't put your safety in the hands of strangers.
I'm not anti biker, let them get on with it their getting wet; but they often pass other vehicles with too much speed difference, not enough time to react to someone doing something to put them in harms way.

DoctorFoster

sh0597 wrote: »

The car is at least partly at fault, either 100% the car or 50/50 but I'd tend towards 100% the car.

I don't think you can say the car is 100% to blame just from the clip.

What if there were a transit van behind the car filming. What sort of view would the driver have of a motorcycle on its offside as he was pulling out?

None so should we ban turning right in heavy traffic incase a bike is filtering?
There is an inherent risk in what the bike is doing and therefore he should have exercised more caution.