Motorcycle accident claim

UncleBucket54

Most HGV drivers train their driver in how to gather evidence following an accident to assist them in defending a claim and also for them to pay a valid claim at the earliest opportunity.

This normally includes gathering the names and addresses of any witnesses which may be why their Insurers have statements.

I don't think this particular HGV driver would have received such training. He was a Bulgarian national, and didn't speak a word of English. When the police indicated that he might be dealt with by way of an awareness course, I remember thinking how pointless that would be.

The lorry was stationary on the left of the lane and you assumed it was parked. Didn't you wonder why the following cars hadn't overtaken it?
Did the witnesses in the cars say it was indicating?

I heard one witness tell the police it was NOT indicating. Yes I assumed it was parked because it was beside the kerb and had had ample opportunity to make that right turn if that's what was intended, given that there was no oncoming traffic at any time.Yes I did wonder why the other cars weren't trying to pass it, I sounded my horn in case any of them thought they might...

Is the bike ridden relevant to what is a safe speed to cautiously pass a stationary lorry?

No, but I would be interested to know if the person who raised that point actually had a bike. Car drivers often don't understand the special rules for motorcyclists, like filtering. Besides, the speed limit along this road is 60, so I approached the situation at half the speed limit.

So the five cars waiting figured out it was turning right and waited behind but you didn't. There may have been no oncoming traffic but the farm entrance could have been temporarily blocked.

I doubt it. Still no reason for the lorry not to get into a turning position and indicate.

OK, here's what I think happened. The driver arrived at the farm entrance. He wanted to confirm that he needed to enter the farm by this entrance in order to conduct his business, so he made a phone call to the farm. However, the person answering the phone did not speak Bulgarian, and they had to fetch someone who did. That would explain why the lorry was stopped at the side of the road for a minute or two instead of turning straight in.

While I am interested to discuss what happened, my real motive for posting this thread was to find out what I could do to obtain that police report. I think that has now been answered, and I thank you all for your posts.

missile

As a fellow biker I sympathise with you, but IMHO you are at least 50% to blame. You ought to have been driving at a more moderate speed so that you would be able to stop. An articulated lorry could not instantly turn across the road. It seems you made a split second decision and it turned out to be wrong.

Thankfully you were not seriously injured.

UncleBucket54

An articulated lorry could not instantly turn across the road.

That's what I thought, and I WAS wrong. The cab struck my bike, but the lorry trailer was still against the kerb. Even the front wheels had only just begun to leave the kerb, so quickly did that cab come round.

huckster

With accidents they happen so quickly, what you recall as having seen can prove to be unreliable. I have seen documentaries looking at accidents and other events, where people have been asked about what they thought happened. They are then shown a video showing exactly what happened and they are shocked at how wrong they were.

If i were the lorry driver, if had indicated right, then pulled over a little to enable a turn, waited for the entrance point to clear and then while turning being hit by a motorcycle overtaking a line of 6 vehicles, i think i might be annoyed about prosecution.

I just wonder whether the lorry driver is getting unfairly judged because of their poor English. Had they been able to explain themselves, perhaps this prosecution might not be happening. But that would be unfair questioning of the Police actions, who are trained and attended the accident scene.

I can't see the prosecution getting anywhere. Probably a 50/50 accident as others have said.

UncleBucket54

With accidents they happen so quickly, what you recall as having seen can prove to be unreliable. I have seen documentaries looking at accidents and other events, where people have been asked about what they thought happened. They are then shown a video showing exactly what happened and they are shocked at how wrong they were.

I am sure you are right about this.

If i were the lorry driver, if had indicated right, then pulled over a little to enable a turn, waited for the entrance point to clear and then while turning being hit by a motorcycle overtaking a line of 6 vehicles, i think i might be annoyed about prosecution.

But that's NOT what happened. As previously stated, the lorry was hard against the kerb. I first saw the stationary vehicles as I came off a roundabout and onto this stretch of road. I was about 500 yards away at that point. I continued on, slowing to 30mph as I began passing them, sounding my horn before I did. The lorry had had AMPLE time to have made that turn - there had been no oncoming traffic. I saw no indication, the entrance was not obstructed, and the first indication that he was turning into that farm came as the cab was yanked into a hard turn, such that the cab made an angle of about 60° with the trailer just as I came level with it. Clearly, the driver had not checked behind before moving off from the kerb. The police had this figured out within minutes.

I just wonder whether the lorry driver is getting unfairly judged because of their poor English. Had they been able to explain themselves, perhaps this prosecution might not be happening. But that would be unfair questioning of the Police actions, who are trained and attended the accident scene.

I doubt that. The police had an interpreter on the phone, and the driver had the opportunity to explain his version of what happened.

I can't see the prosecution getting anywhere. Probably a 50/50 accident as others have said.

I spoke to the police some weeks after the accident, with a view to getting a report. No record of any prosecution against the lorry driver could be found, or at least that's what I was told. But I was also told that in cases involving foreign drivers who are not UK residents, the police don't bother to prosecute because of the difficulties and costs of tracking the person down. Foreign drivers with prosecutions pending will sometimes beetle back to their home countries, rather than face the music.

The police report would have been pivotal to my case. They interviewed witnesses, some of who are saying that it was MY fault. But as you probably know, a lot of car drivers are anti-motorcyclist. I'm sure the police are fully aware of that too.

Quentin

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

The police report would have been pivotal to my case. They interviewed witnesses, some of who are saying that it was MY fault..

Witnesses opinions of who was to blame in an incident are irrelevant

UncleBucket54

Witnesses opinions of who was to blame in an incident are irrelevant

Yes, and with good reason. Most car drivers are unaware of the law(s) governing filtering and overtaking by motorcyclists.

I am getting ready to fire my erstwhile legal representatives. I have done some research on them and found that last year their business lost a staggering £35m. My research has also unearthed an account posted on PepiPoo by a motorcyclist who had an accident in almost identical circumstances to my own, who was using the same law firm which is currently acting for me (or so they claim) and who was able to use the Davis v Schrogin to support his case - a law which my legal representative hasn't even told me about.

Indeed, of this company, the person.who posted this transcript said

After a quick trawl of Google UK, I have learned that Davis v Schrogin seems to be the relevant case law for my case and that it would appear that, not withstanding any other relevant information, the car driver is 100% liable for the accident (which is true!). Google trawling has also led me to conclude that MLS do not work professionally for the client and are inclined to conclude cases as quickly as possible by suggesting their clients accept 50/50. Although I don't know for sure, I surmise this is so they can claim their fee as quickly as possible, as any marginal increase in profit decreases in cases like mine, the longer they spend on them. Indeed, after looking at Minster Law's terms, I see that they paid my insurance company £250 for the case and they will receive £874 once the case is concluded.

And now the transcript.

Davis v Schrogin

This article was published in The Road issue 7 in December 2006

Filtering through traffic has never been against the law and where accidents have occurred the biker has invariably had to bear some of the blame. A new landmark judgment shifts the onus of responsibility in the rider’s favour.

‘Filtering/overtaking considered by the Court of Appeal in Davis v Schrogin 27/06/2006’

In February 2006, the case of motorcyclist Jamie McColm provided hope for motorcyclists involved in accidents where they had been filtering. Whereas the usual outcome for such incidents was a division of blame between the parties, with the biker often coming off worst, in Mr McColm’s case he was found blameless. Lawyers were still left with some difficulty however, given that Mr McColm’s case only reached the lower County Court and was not formally reported in the legal press, in other words it did not set a precedent for future cases.

That situation has now been remedied. In June this year the senior Court of Appeal heard the case of Eric Davis. Mr Davis had been filtering along a straight section of the A40 in Oxfordshire, past a single lane of stationary traffic. His speed was 40-45 mph. He was 2/3rds into the opposite carriageway. His right indicator was flashing and his headlight was on dipped beam. Mr Schrogin was one of the drivers caught up in the stationary traffic, travelling in the same direction as Mr Davis. The opposite carriageway was completely clear and the level of visibility was excellent for Mr Davis to be safely overtaking. Mr Schrogin decided to perform a U-turn with inevitable consequences. The Appeal Court upheld the original trial Judge’s conclusion on the basis that Mr Davis could have done nothing to avoid the accident.

Key facts

Mr Davis had been overtaking for about half a mile, at a speed of about 45 mph. The Appeal Court concluded that even if he had been travelling slower, the accident would not have been avoidable and therefore his speed was not an issue.
Mr Schrogin’s lawyers argued that Mr Davis had a higher duty of care because he was overtaking and in the opposite carriageway. Although the positioning of Mr Davis was not commented on in the Judgment, during the hearing it was made very clear that there was no duty of ensure that you can be conveniently seen on the road by other users. The position adopted by Mr Davis was not causative of this accident.
Finally, and most notably Mr Davis had provided evidence during the trial that when he was about five car lengths away from Mr Schrogin’s car, he saw the car move towards the left causing “alarm bells” to ring in this mind. Again Mr Schrogin’s lawyer tried to argue that this movement to the left should have caused Mr Davis to act and to have braked. The Judges found that this movement did not equate with an expectation that Mr Schrogin was about to perform a U-turn. In short Mr Davis had too little time or distance to avoid the accident. He was right on top of Mr Schrogin’s vehicle when he emerged from a line of traffic without looking. The fact that he was overtaking at 45 mph did not contribute to the accident circumstances.
Mr Davis’ Solicitor, motorcycle claim specialist, Steve Trump, from the Bristol office of Clarke Willmott, made the following comments: “This decision from the second highest civil Court has now set a precedent that can be relied upon by those acting for bikers in the future. Whilst each case will turn on its own facts and upon the availability of independent evidence to corroborate what happened, there are some key points that need to be considered.

dacouch

Davis v Schrogin is generally perceived to assist overtaking motorcyclists providing they're not filtering close to a junction or entrance on the right.

This may be why you're legal representation have not used it.

Be aware that legal companies have a habit of telling you what you want to get you to sign on the dotted line. Any new legal representatives may tell you they will use Davis v Schrogin when in reality they won't.

Go in with your eyes open

rs65

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

by a motorcyclist who had an accident in almost identical circumstances to my own

Two big differences are that the lorry driver didn't emerge from a line of traffic and you were overtaking at a junction.

lisyloo

If you can accept you may ave made a mistake then I would suggest advance training. It might cost around £200 but would likely avoid this sort of accident.
I would personally not have proceeded where I wasn't sure what was happening (I've got off my bike to tell a Lorry driver I was passing before now).

We don't all think we're superior in fact we do if because we know we are fallible.