car/motorbike accident

Manxman_in_exile

donnie-cov wrote: »

I haven't got a witness i took pictures. he had a witness his mate trying to say i was speeding? but there lying because if i was speeding they wouldnt of pulled out?
they didnt see me as it was blindspot because of the cars waiting in the queue.

im third party fire theft. My access is 750. My bike is been valued at £2000.

So if i win i get 2000 for my bike and a claim compensation?
if i lose i get nothing and i pay nothing? do i get my bike back? so i can sell it for £1000? maybe
if its 50/50 i get 1000 from the 2000 from the bike and a claim comp 50 percent of what i get? and i have to pay 50 percent access which will be 375?

I know you've edited the OP to say you were not filtering, but how does a stationary queue of traffic mean that the car driver couldn't ("blind spot") see you? Were you "undertaking" a stationary queue in the direction you were going or was the stationary queue in lane 2 and you in lane 1?

DoaM

I read it as the stationary queue was in the opposing direction (other side), and the car exited from the right across the stationary traffic and in front of the OP.

But the OP hasn't clarified this as yet.

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM wrote: »

I read it as the stationary queue was in the opposing direction (other side), and the car exited from the right across the stationary traffic and in front of the OP.

But the OP hasn't clarified this as yet.

Yes. If the OP could explain clearly what has happened it might help him or her to get sensible advice.


Also, if the OP could say "have" instead of "of", might produce more helpful replies. (Apologies if that upsets some posters - but I've never understood how "of" equates to "have"?. Well actually, I do. "Could've" for example sounds a bit :rotfl:like "Could of"(!!!!!!!!) but shows an almost total ignorance of the English language.)


Sorry - I'm sure some other posters will find this offensive...but if you can't be bothered to post in proper English...you may not get the best advice.


Are we really saying "of" has replaced "have"?

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM wrote: »

I read it as the stationary queue was in the opposing direction (other side), and the car exited from the right across the stationary traffic and in front of the OP.

But the OP hasn't clarified this as yet.

I see what you mean, but if the stationary queue was coming from the opposite direction, then it wouldn't explain how the OP was in a "blind spot" going in their direction...


Makes no sense to me, even after I've edited this post...

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM wrote: »

I read it as the stationary queue was in the opposing direction (other side), and the car exited from the right across the stationary traffic and in front of the OP.

But the OP hasn't clarified this as yet.

But the stationary traffic to the right of the driver would not impair their view of the motorcyclist approaching from their left.


Have I completely misunderstood, or can the OP not provide a clear description?

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

But the stationary traffic to the right of the driver would not impair their view of the motorcyclist approaching from their left.


Have I completely misunderstood, or can the OP not provide a clear description?

OP's been perfectly clear imo. No idea why you think there would only be traffic to the cars right. Traffic is generally slow moving/stationary because there is something in front of them impeding their journey.

OP was on left side of road through, there was heavy traffic in the oncoming lane to their right. To the right of that oncoming traffic, there was a car waiting to turn right (to go into same lane in same direction OP was going). Car waiting to emerge has probably either been flashed by one of the cars in the oncoming traffic and assumed it was safe so pulled out without properly checking or they've spotted a gap in the traffic coming from their right and were fed up waiting so haven't properly checked before pulling out in front of OP.

As others have said though, if the car driver is alleging they saw OP - especially long enough for them to accurately judge that they were driving in excess of the speed limit, they're also admitting that either :
1) They made the decision to pull out in front of him after assessing his speed and deeming it to be too fast
2) They didn't assess his speed at all before pulling out and by the time they realised, it was too late.

Either of those would be dangerous and would fall below the standard of a reasonably competent driver. In addition, they both go some way to showing that the other drivers judgement is lacking and therefore his judgement of what speed OP was doing cannot be relied upon.

Manxman_in_exile

unholyangel wrote: »

OP's been perfectly clear imo. No idea why you think there would only be traffic to the cars right.
.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think OP has been clear.


I do not think there were cars only to the right. This was suggested by DoaM (and is what I was replying to).


The OP says that the driver pulling out from the junction on the Op's right could not see the OP (to the driver's left) because of a queue of stationary traffic (or some such wording). I do not see how this could be the case unless the OP was either (i) undertaking stationary traffic approaching the junction, or (ii) the OP was travelling in lane 1 of a 2 lane carriageway and the traffic in lane 2 had come to a halt and the OP was proceeding in lane 1. Either way, if I were riding a motorcycle and was approaching a junction on the right, I would be very cautious when I realised that traffic in the direction I was going in had come to a halt - either because of traffic congestion, or to allow a vehicle in from the junction to the right.


I don't know if the driver pulling in from the right was at fault or not. If he was pulling into a 2 lane carriageway then he should have been aware of the possibility of traffic in lane 1 if traffic in lane 2 had stopped to allow him to proceed. But if the traffic from the driver's left (ie where the OP was coming from) was in a single lane, why would the driver expect a motorcyclist to be undertaking that single lane?


If I were the driver joining from the junction on the right (the OP's right) I would have been extremely cautious when traffic had apparently stopped to let me out because I would be aware of the dangers. Equally, if I were riding a motorbike, I would expect other car drivers not to see me, and would ride cautiously accordingly. (ie would be extremely careful approaching a junction from the right with surrounding stationary traffic).


Whether the driver was at fault or not, it is unfortunate that the OP managed to ride into the back of them without stopping.

Retrogamer

donnie-cov wrote: »

Now hes saying it was my fault as i was speeding,

Ask them what speed makes your motorbike invisible.

Either he looked, but not well enough to see you
Looked, seen you but not well enough to judge your speed
Looked, seen you, seen your speed but decided to pull out anyway
Or he didn't look

Either way he joined a road, therefore he must give way to traffic that has priority (i.e you)
The accident seems pretty evident he failed to give way.

Manxman_in_exile

OP - you say twice in the edit to the original post that you "couldn't brake" - do you mean that you "couldn't stop" in time? Not being able to stop is one thing; not being able to brake in time might suggest you were going too quickly for the road situation.


I say this because you've had the chance to edit and you say you "couldn't brake", not that you couldn't stop. Were you not sufficiently aware of the other vehicle joining from the right?


(FWIW I say this because I come from a place where there are a lot of motorbikes - and for the most part I mean 600cc to 1000cc, not a 125 "scooter" - and riders need to ride very defensively or they won't last long).


I'm pretty certain that the other driver was at fault, but if you're on a 'bike you have to be especially careful and look out for yourself - car drivers won't!

Manxman_in_exile

Retrogamer wrote: »

Ask them what speed makes your motorbike invisible.

Either he looked, but not well enough to see you
Looked, seen you but not well enough to judge your speed
Looked, seen you, seen your speed but decided to pull out anyway
Or he didn't look

Either way he joined a road, therefore he must give way to traffic that has priority (i.e you)
The accident seems pretty evident he failed to give way.

Yes. If the driver "says" you were speeding, why did he pull out in front of you? I wouldn't have - I'd have given you a wide berth.


But, OP, you also say he couldn't have seen you because of the "blind spot" created by stationary traffic.


Despite the driver saying you were speeding, I'm still not sure why you think he could not have seen you because of a queue of stationary traffic. Was this a queue of traffic travelling in the same direction as you, or in the opposite direction?