Motorcycle accident claim

Norman_Castle

I wouldn't view this as filtering. Single lane in both directions with six vehicles stationary in the direction of travel and nothing in the oncoming lane. This is overtaking stationary vehicles presumably by using the empty oncoming lane.

A farm entrance isn't a road junction but with no other obvious reason for stopping where it did its safe to assume thats why the lorry had stopped there.

The op believed the lorry was parked. If it was parked they should have been more cautious as the lead car would be likely to pull out to overtake. The lorry driver should have checked his blind spot but the 30mph speed difference between the vehicles certainly contributed to the accident.

mattk_180

People aren't defending the indefensible, they are just giving their opinion. Just because it's not what you want to hear and you were hoping everyone was going to assure you that you were in the right doesn't mean people are out to get you.

swingaloo

It was a semi rural road. You could see far enough ahead to determine that nothing was coming the other way.

Yet 5 other cars had stopped behind the lorry and not made any effort to go past him. You said yourself they didnt look like they had been there long and you had been able to see them from 500 yards away.

How come the cars had stayed behind him if he looked as if he was parked. At some stage he must have indicated to turn or the other drivers would have done what you did.

lisyloo

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

Sorry for the late reply. I'm away on a trip.

I had already had advanced training - the Police Bike Safe Course. I got grade B in most areas (this was 6 years ago) but my assessment officer gave me an A for attitude.

I don't buy what some are suggesting - that a driveway or farm track counts as a "road junction". If that were true, then driving along a residential street would involve driving past dozens of junctions - the driveways to each of the houses. In this situation, is anybody seriously going to stop behind a car that might be parked at the side of the road and wait for the driver to return, because to do otherwise would be tantamount to "overtaking at a junction"? Come on, get real, guys.

6 years is ages ago.
How often would you expect paramedics, pilots, heart surgeons or hgv drivers to get retested?
You also need to practice it and not regard it as a one-off event.

If I wasn't sure if someone was turning (and a long line of cards is a big clue some thing is up) then yes I'd get further information. Often this can be done by looking through the back window with a car, butbobviously not with an hgv.

Yes I'm real and I don't have accidents or usually spend ages waiting around, but when something is up then I hesitate and investigate.
If you don't want to gave more accidents and more hassle then you are the one that needs to wise up.
If you don't believe us then fair enough - but for your own sake you owe it to yourself to get on the next bikesafe and and discuss it with a class 1 rider (copper).

rs65

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

Still does not relieve a driver from his duty of care of checking his mirrors before pulling away from the kerb, especially if making a hard right turn. You're trying to defend the indefensible. Why, I do not know. The lorry driver is the one to have exercised more caution. Doing what he did on a 60mph road is inexcusable. The A4 through Berkshire is not a quiet lane.

I don't see anyone defending the lorry driver. He made a mistake. So did you.

lisyloo

I never said the Lorry driver wasn't in the wrong.
But I am saying that you should try to protect yourself physically and financially from people who are in the wrong.

UncleBucket54

You were travelling too fast when you could not be certain of the possible movements of either the HGV or the vehicles which had come to a stop behind it.

The Police bike safe course said that an appropriate filtering speed was 25mph. I was doing about 30mph, but only had traffic on one side.

The op believed the lorry was parked. If it was parked they should have been more cautious as the lead car would be likely to pull out to overtake. The lorry driver should have checked his blind spot but the 30mph speed difference between the vehicles certainly contributed to the accident.

Oh I was cautious. I did not blast past this line of vehicles at the legal limit of 60mph. My speed was half that and, as previously stated, I sounded my horn before beginning to pass this line of stopped vehicles. As a motorcyclist, I am only too familiar with the scenario of car drivers not using their mirrors, or not seeing a motorcyclist for some other unspecified reason.

People aren't defending the indefensible, they are just giving their opinion. Just because it's not what you want to hear and you were hoping everyone was going to assure you that you were in the right doesn't mean people are out to get you.

That's fine. I already got the information I needed from Huckster, and the poster who said that Witness opinions are irrelevant. I shall be going to my own solicitor to reach closure on this matter, not the MLS appointed solicitor. In light of the posts in this thread, I can see why witness opinions are to be treated with a pinch of salt. The anti-motorcyclist feeling amongst car drivers is a major problem for motorcyclists, compounded by the ignorance that some car drivers exhibit with regard to special rules and considerations for motorcycles.

How come the cars had stayed behind him if he looked as if he was parked. At some stage he must have indicated to turn or the other drivers would have done what you did.

I can't answer. I can only tell you what I saw. If he gave some indication that he was about to turn, that was before I arrived on the scene.

Yes I'm real and I don't have accidents or usually spend ages waiting around, but when something is up then I hesitate and investigate.
If you don't want to gave more accidents and more hassle then you are the one that needs to wise up.
If you don't believe us then fair enough - but for your own sake you owe it to yourself to get on the next bikesafe and and discuss it with a class 1 rider (copper).

Don't you just love the sickening smugness of posts like this...

For your information, I have only had two other accidents besides this one in the last 40 years. One was when I came off a motorcycle, caused by spilt diesel oil on a roundabout, and the other was a low speed shunt at 5mph in a car, caused by black ice in the treachourous winter conditions of Dec. 2009. Oh, and I have NEVER had any penalty points or endorsements on my licence at any time in the past 40 years.

I have already discusses this with a class 1 police motorcyclist - he's retired now, but agreed that I was not at fault. He's into kitchen remodelling now, and built me a nice new kitchen.

I never said the Lorry driver wasn't in the wrong.
But I am saying that you should try to protect yourself physically and financially from people who are in the wrong.

I thought I already explained that I ALWAYS wear full leathers, top quality helmet, boots and gloves. That's why I suffered no serious injuries, instead of ending up as a bloody mess. I take these precautions because it is patently obvious to me that car drivers and other drivers of multi track vehicles simply do not see motorcyclists. You can wear a bright yellow vest (as I do) have a headlight permanently on (as I do) and sound your horn (as I did)... But it seems that this is not enough, and some car lorry drivers STILL don't see us.

Well, at least I agreed with the police assessment of this incident. Except that I think the lorry driver deserves rather more than an awareness course.

lisyloo

The anti-motorcyclist feeling amongst car drivers is a major problem for motorcyclists, compounded by the ignorance that some car drivers exhibit with regard to special rules and considerations for motorcycles.

I'm certainly not anti-motorcycle. I'm an advanced tutor which means I train tutors who teach advanced motorcycling.

Yes the police will tell you that you can have blues and twos blaring and people still won't see you.

I didn't see a bus coming once, so I don't claim any high ground.

dacouch

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107856

UncleBucket54

Good spot ^

I've used PepiPoo before - in 2006/07 as I was preparing to contest a speeding prosecution in Magistrates Court. I was well prepared, but the police had charged me with the wrong offence, and the portion of the law they had used did not apply on the type of road where the alleged offence occurred. The prosecution had no option but to drop the case, and I emerged from Court with my licence and wallet intact, and even got a cheque from the Court to cover my travel expenses.

Back to the motorcycle accident - I discovered an account on PepiPoo in which a motorcyclist had an accident in very similar circumstances to my own, so I did a little more digging and found that there is a landmark case covering this type of overtaking/filtering accident - Davis v Schrongin (2006).

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.

So there you have it. The rider was passing a line of stationary vehicles at 40-45mph, when one of them executed a U turn, with the obvious consequences. And the judge agreed that it was NOT the motorcyclist's fault. I know this will come as quite a surprise to some people in this thread.

What concerns me now is why my solicitor did not come up with this, and that I'm having to do all my own digging.