Motorcycle accident claim

rs65

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

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.

You mentioned this on 8th August in this thread. A U-turn is unexpected. A lorry turning into a side road is foreseeable.

UncleBucket54

While I was away in North Yorks and County Durham last week, I saw many road signs warning drivers to be aware of traffic around them, and to check their mirrors before turning. Sound advice indeed. The signs took the form "Turning? <pic> Check your mirrors", where the picture showed a mirror, in which could be seen a motorcyclist coming up from behind.

However, I saw NO signs which said "Motorcyclists - thinking of passing a stationary lorry parked at the roadside with its wheels hard against the kerb? Stop and consult lorry driver before proceeding".

A U-turn is unexpected. A lorry turning into a side road is foreseeable.

A sudden right turn by a parked lorry, which could have executed his turn at any time in the 30 seconds before he actually did is certainly unexpected. I wonder if the route taken by Eric Davis at 40-45mph was completely devoid of minor side turnings in the time he was overtaking. I know the A40 where he was riding, and I'm sure there are small entrances to fields, gated entrances etc. along that route.

bazzyb

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

A sudden right turn by a parked lorry

The lorry had stopped, not parked. I'm curious as to why you have added emphasis on the word parked?

Manxman_in_exile

I think this question has already been asked but I must have missed your reply:


If you thought (mistakenly as it turned out) that the lorry was parked (your emphasis) did it not cross your mind to wonder why none of the cars behind had overtaken it? Not knowing what was actually causing the stoppage might you have been better waiting a few moments to assess what was happening?


I don't know the facts of the decided case you've found but they may be significantly different from your situation. (eg long line of stationary traffic for several minutes or longer due clearly to congestion with long visibility for the overtaking motorcyclist showing that traffic wasn't moving). All cases stand or fall on their individual facts and they are seldom identical.


I'm not saying the lorry driver was blameless, but I'm not sure that you may not have contributed to the accident by deciding to overtake in those circumstances.


BTW, although not a motorcyclist myself I do tend to be pro-motorcyclist as I was born in a place where motorcycling is the prevailing religion.

UncleBucket54

The lorry had stopped, not parked. I'm curious as to why you have added emphasis on the word parked?

How do you know? You weren't there. It appeared to be parked, because its wheels were hard against the kerb, and it did not move or make its turn into the farm entrance between the time I first saw it, 500 yards ahead, and as I approached the rear of its trailer - even though it could have begun and completed its turn within that time. I'm happy to say that the police had no problem understanding this, which is why I have not been prosecuted for any offence.

If you thought (mistakenly as it turned out) that the lorry was parked (your emphasis) did it not cross your mind to wonder why none of the cars behind had overtaken it? Not knowing what was actually causing the stoppage might you have been better waiting a few moments to assess what was happening?

Well that's a good point - I did indeed wonder why none of the cars had passed it, but they had clearly been there for some time. In the time it took me to travel the 500 yards from the previous roundabout to where these stationary vehicles were, none of them was seen to move at all, even though the lorry COULD have made its right turn at any time from the moment I first saw it - there was no oncoming traffic at all, which is why it appeared to be parked. Did it not cross YOUR mind to consider why the lorry waited at the roadside for that length of time, before moving off from the kerb without checking behind? Distracted by a phone call, perhaps?

Sometimes incidents/conditions are "foreseeable". But just because a driver commits a serious error which was arguably "foreseeable" does not automatically put the fault with the other driver. For example, I never go out in/on any vehicle after around 10pm on a Friday night. There are too many drivers out there who will have had a drink. Dividing the blame for what happened in my accident would be like blaming YOU if YOU went out in your car after 11pm on a Friday and got hit by a drunk driver, because the presence of drunk drivers at that time is "foreseeable".

But come to think of it, my dad would use logic like that. He once backed his car into a concrete pillar in an underground car park, and blamed my mother, who was sitting in the back seat at the time! His argument was that at Mum's request, he was picking her up from a shopping trip, and otherwise would not have been in that car park in the first place!

bazzyb

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

How do you know? You weren't there. It appeared to be parked, because its wheels were hard against the kerb, and it did not move or make its turn into the farm entrance between the time I first saw it, 500 yards ahead, and as I approached the rear of its trailer - even though it could have begun and completed its turn within that time.

Because you said it made a sudden movement, not that the driver started up the engine, released the brakes, pulled off, turned, etc. An articulated lorry doesn't 'suddenly' move from parked with engine switched off and brakes applied to cutting across the road.

If you are convinced he was parked then did you hear the engine start up, for example? If so, didn't that alert you that he may be about to manoeuvre?

From all the information you have given thus far you have made it clear that the vehicle had stopped, rather than being parked.

UncleBucket54

How the hell would I know if the engine was running? And of course I wouldn't have heard it start up. Like many motorcyclists, I wear ear plugs when riding.



Now here's one for you. I saw this van in Slough this afternoon. Look carefully. Was it...

• stopped
• parked
• about to execute a U turn
• about to turn left or right
• or was it about to do something else...?

When answering, you have to say WHY you gave the answer you did.

OnanTheBarbarian

Answer - you could not be certain what intentions the driver (if there even was a driver in it) were to be and whether it would move from it's current position or not or give any indication before doing so. Therefore you would move into the adjacent lane if possible to give yourself as much clearance from the potential hazard and also make yourself as visible as possible.

As would be the case with your own "incident", when you cannot be certain of the intentions of the other party, you must proceed with maxium caution. Riding past at 30mph was not that.

Davis -v Scrogin is not diretly comparable to your circumstances as the offending motorist pulled form a line of queued traffic to make an impulsive u-turn, not turn into a road or track entrance on the right when being the lead vehicle - like the HGV was.

You will get potted for a degree of contributory negligence on your claim.

Again, I repeat I am a biker and also argue about RTA liability all day every day for a living.

bazzyb

UncleBucket54 wrote: »

How the hell would I know if the engine was running? And of course I wouldn't have heard it start up. Like many motorcyclists, I wear ear plugs when riding.



Now here's one for you. I saw this van in Slough this afternoon. Look carefully. Was it...

• stopped
• parked
• about to execute a U turn
• about to turn left or right
• or was it about to do something else...?

When answering, you have to say WHY you gave the answer you did.

I think you've proved my point here. You stated the vehicle was parked, placing particular emphasis on the word parked - but you have just admitted that you had no way of knowing if that was the case, despite being adamant of the fact earlier.

By the subsequent actions which took place, ie the sudden manoeuvre as you describe it, then the vehicle could not have been parked and making movements at the same time (perhaps it's Schrodinger's lorry??).

With regards to your question regarding the photograph, it is unclear as to what the vehicle is doing in that picture - therefore it would make sense to proceed with caution at a very slow speed, not to simply assume it is parked and go flying past at 30mph.

Although you don't seem to like the answers given here, you have to be prepared to take some of the blame for yourself as if you had proceeded with more caution you would not have struck the vehicle.

huckster

When i was riding motorcycles along time ago, i would not have thought wearing earplugs was a good idea. Having one of the most important senses impaired, would increase the risk. With a tight fitting helmet, sound is reduced a little bit already.