Car accident with motorbike - they say I'm 100% liable

neilmcl

jobdone1 wrote: »

You are 100% at fault no question. Sorry to be so harsh but you do not turn until it is safe to do so. Look at it this way if it was an emergancy service vehicle that passed the car that flashed you and you pulled across in their path no difference you was not paying attention I'm affraid imho

Presumably this "emergency vehicle" would be travelling on "blues & twos" for all to see and hear, bit different from a motorcycle suddenly appearing from behind the car.

Mumof490

Thank you for your replies everybody.

Mumof490

Much easier to see bigger brighter lights possibly flashing lights ?

The night it happened it was dark and raining

But can't the fact of me not seeing him be the same for not seeing me?

I don't think I should be fully liable as there's nothing I could of changed on the night had I of seen him of course I would not of gone to turn.

mark1959

I hope the biker's alright. Why weren't the police called? [or an ambulance]

Strider590

Mumof490 wrote: »

Much easier to see bigger brighter lights possibly flashing lights ?

The night it happened it was dark and raining

But can't the fact of me not seeing him be the same for not seeing me?

I don't think I should be fully liable as there's nothing I could of changed on the night had I of seen him of course I would not of gone to turn.

He was in his lane, you were crossing into his path, it is unfortunately that simple.

jobdone1

Get your highway code book out just because some flashes you does not give you right of way if is a warning they are their. Yawn

seatbeltnoob

sometimes you appear daft when a vehicle has right of way but they flash you or even stop to get you to move on.

But I never take heed of them. they confuse the hell out of other road users and as you've learnt the vehicle behind them does not know or care of what is going on and they will gladly overtake.

I was trying to turn right on a highway. The lane2 vehicle on the oncoming side was flashing me and waved me to come on. But I took no notice of that because he stopped so close to me that it would be a huge hazard as I couldnt see lane1 of my oncoming side at all.

it's just not worth the risk. You may take these chances are get away with it 20 times but then you will eventually get unlucky and will regret it.

lister

If you look at a cold hard analysis, the problem is clear.

How long does it take to cross a carriageway from stationary? Roughly 2-3 seconds - something I often get my learner drivers to work out to help them judge gaps.

The OP has stated that they had only just started to turn when the bike hit (consistent with where the impact was). Lets be really generous and say it was 2 seconds after they started to move (in reality probably more like a second).

At 30mph the bike would cover roughly 27m (5-6 car lengths) in 2 seconds, at 40mph it is 36m (7-8 car lengths), at 50mph it is 45m (9-10 car lengths). In practice, given the immediacy of the impact these distance can probably be halved.

If we assume that the car holding back was at least 2 car lengths away the rear of their car was at least 3 car lengths away. The bike would move offside no later than perhaps 2 car lengths back, so we are talking an absolute minimum of 5 car lengths, probably a good bit further.

In other words in all probability when the OP started to turn the bike would have already been offside of the car holding back with headlights on, even at 50mph. Why didn't the OP see it? Answer is they simply didn't look, not at the point they began to turn.

The likely scenario is that they had looked, realised the car was might be holding back, checked to make sure (all the while watching the car), decided they were holding back and moved. The trouble is that while the eyes focus on the foreground, they cannot see the background, so the bike wasn't seen.

So who is at fault? Is it reasonable to expect a driver behaving carefully and competently to anticipate a motorbike overtaking a turning car? In my book, yes it is. Should the biker have anticipated that overtaking a turning car represented a serious hazard and should be done with great care if at all? In my book, yes they should. There is a lot to say in what we know of the event that both the OP and the biker are notionally guilty of low-level careless driving.

What it does highlight, from the point of view of learning from the episode, is just how weak most drivers' observations are. It isn't a criticism of the OP, it is a natural function of our own physiological and neurological limitations. With care, thought and training it is possible to overide many of these limitations, but we all suffer the flaws to some degree or another.

BeenThroughItAll

Mumof490 wrote: »

Much easier to see bigger brighter lights possibly flashing lights ?

The night it happened it was dark and raining

But can't the fact of me not seeing him be the same for not seeing me?

I don't think I should be fully liable as there's nothing I could of changed on the night had I of seen him of course I would not of gone to turn.

What you could have changed was not to start the turn - as you say 'if I had of (sic) seen him' - what you're saying is you didn't see him; and if you can't see a hazard that doesn't mean it's not there. You should not have commenced your manoeuvre until you were certain the way was clear.

Yes, I'm a biker - but that's not why I'm saying this. I agree the motorcyclist may not have overtaken in a sensible place, and I wouldn't have done so in the same circumstances myself, but ultimately you did begin a manoeuvre when you weren't sure it was safe to do so as a result of poor observation.

NBLondon

Doesn't the original post (and clarified) version state that the overtaking biker had crossed the centre line? In which case - even of Mumof490 had not started the turn - the bike would have been heading directly at them? Sounds to me as if the biker had whipped quickly around the stopped, left-turning car and was starting to get back to their original lane when they discovered a car in the way.