Motorcycle RTA - Pedestrian at fault, how do i recover costs?

comeandgo

FatherAbraham wrote: »

You've mentioned contents insurance in this context in two different posts now.

This is baffling.

Why do you think that having contents insurance will help?

Contents insurance also cover personal liability.

Nasqueron

kooli9 wrote: »

Thats mad. Why were you only 60% to blame?

Different factors - car could have insufficient lights or driver over limit or whatever, all could cause the driver to be partially at fault. There are motorbike incidents where a bike is filtering and hits someone and is found partially at fault even if the car drove out in front of them because of the manner of their filtering

lisyloo

FatherAbraham wrote: »

You've mentioned contents insurance in this context in two different posts now.

This is baffling.

Why do you think that having contents insurance will help?

personal liability cover


This means most people would have the ability to pay even if they are personally in debt.

kooli9

comeandgo wrote: »

A driver should always be looking at what's around them and be aware. Nobody just runs out or just appears, they came from somewhere, you were just not observant enough, that's why a driver will never get 100%.

That's a very narrow view. Especially seeing as you don't know the circumstances. Most people cannot see through large vehicles ( not sure about you). For the person to run out from in front of a truck means they failed to look.

People do in fact run out all the time. Many people walk around distracted or in my case simple fail to observe motorcyclists or cyclist as they're only looking for car. Ever see the think bike safety campaign. Guess not.

lisyloo

A driver should always be looking at what's around them and be aware.

I do agree with you.
If you are the one driving a massive hunk of metal around at speed then there is an obligation on you which doesn't apply to pedestrians.

Nobody just runs out or just appears, they came from somewhere, you were just not observant enough

Oh yes they do.
Occassionally people jump off bridges and occassionally someone lands under your wheels.
I can give you a real example which is Ashya Frade who was thrown under the wheels of a number 53 bus on westminster bridge in a terror attack. No blame was attached to the bus driver.


But anyway if it was 75% why shouldn't you get compensation?

angrycrow

Not having a go at the op but he has now confirmed the pedestrian crossed 3 live lane's of traffic before being in a collision with op. Allowing an average lane width of 3.6m the pedestrian has crossed at least 10.8m before impact. Allowing a running speed of 10mph the pedestrian would have been visible in the road for at least 2.5 seconds.

At 30 mph it would take the op around 1 second to pass the truck if it were stationary which is rather implied by a pedestrian running in front of it. This leaves 1.5 seconds prior to undertaking the truck to see the pedestrian. This is best case timings and it is likely the pedestrian was in the road and there to be seen much longer hence the split liability.

lisyloo

This is currently being investigated by Met Police.

Just to point out, the police are only interested in criminal matters.
Once they (probably) decide that nothing criminal happened then unfortunately they are not interested in civil matters such as compensation.

OnanTheBarbarian

This place really does make me laugh sometimes. All the armchair experts playing accident reconstruction expert and"could have" and "should have" advice.

Bottom line is try and obtain the contact details for the pedestrian and go from there in terms of seeing if they have any liability insurance via a home insurance policy or have the likely means to settle a claim.

lisyloo

Bottom line is try and obtain the contact details for the pedestrian and go from there in terms of seeing if they have any liability insurance via a home insurance policy or have the likely means to settle a claim.

Any practical advice for the OP on how to acheive this?

OnanTheBarbarian

Well the only source of info for the pedestrian identity is with the Police, so the op needs to keep in touch with the officer in the case and seek details of the pedestrian as it is needed for a claim for reimbursement of losses and damages for injuries sustained.

The police may be difficult and refuse to give the details until they have completed their enquiries or they may say they will only supply them to an appointed solicitor or insurer upon paying a fee, but try to stay friendly with the investigating officer and say you are not claiming off your insurance or using a solicitor and merely need to see if the other party has in place any liability insurance, such as home insurance or is likely to have the means to pay.

Assuming contact details are provided then it may be best to just send a letter asking politely if they have home contents cover and to provide the name of insurer and policy number so you can bother them rather than have them pay for your damages and losses.

There is no database for home insurers sadly, unlike MID for motor insurance lookups. A land registry search could reveal if the property is owned by the pedestrian.

You've just got to do a bit of research and also go with your gut. If the other party seems like they don't have a pot to pish in, there's no point going after them.

If you have legal expenses cover with your motor insurance, get them onto the job and they can incur the cost of seeking the police report.