We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

If a car and motorcycle collide, who's at fault in this scenario?

245

Comments

  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Deastons wrote: »
    Imagine a queue of static traffic.

    From the left, a car joins the road, turning right through a gap in the static traffic. A motorcycle is coming down the middle of the road to avoid the traffic jams and hits the side of the car.

    Is it the car's fault for not looking, or the motorcyclist for overtaking the traffic jam at a speed that didn't allow him to stop in time?

    Someone watched last nights edition of Traffic Cops.

    Wasn't the policeman's recommendation to the CPS, no further action because the dashcam footage and independent witnesses showed they were both at fault?
  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 9,064 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Both at fault.
    Car driver for failing to give way. (RTA 1988 Section 36)
    Biker for overtaking on approach to junction. (HC Rule 167)
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,212 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    You can easily find case law on this if you Google it. Biker filtering at speed even hitting a car pulling out frequently gets liability (all or some) against them as filtering is not the same as overtaking and is meant to be done at low and safe speed not just drive at the speed limit regardless

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • matttye
    matttye Posts: 4,828 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker Debt-free and Proud!
    Who took no action?

    The police are there to investigate criminal offences not decide liability.

    From the description given it sounds like the offence would be careless driving, which is a summary only offence and therefore would be a police charging decision...not CPS.

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/charging-directors-guidance-2013-fifth-edition-may-2013-revised-arrangements

    Look at section 15 - police charging decisions.
    What will your verse be?

    R.I.P Robin Williams.
  • angrycrow
    angrycrow Posts: 1,119 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    And tonight the challenge is for anyone to find a valid legal rule that says filtering is an acceptable practice.

    It's not filtering its overtaking
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,866 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    angrycrow wrote: »
    And tonight the challenge is for anyone to find a valid legal rule that says filtering is an acceptable practice.

    It's not filtering its overtaking

    If there was a "legal rule", it would give a right for people to do it - something that isn't required because theres no standard or act prohibiting it.

    Theres no legal rule saying that using blue biros is an acceptable practice. But unless there is a rule against it, then it is by default an acceptable practice.
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • marlot
    marlot Posts: 5,004 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    angrycrow wrote: »
    And tonight the challenge is for anyone to find a valid legal rule that says filtering is an acceptable practice.

    It's not filtering its overtaking
    I nearly failed my bike test because I didn't filter when I had the chance.

    The police biker rider who did my advanced training filtered when there was a suitable opportunity.

    When I was having trouble filtering on the A3 (because a few selfish drivers were blocking the filtering), a police biker parked at the side of the road joined just ahead of me and led the filtering. Probably at 20mph in nearly stationary traffic (70mph limit).

    Reading this, it sounds like I'm a really nervous biker. That's not the case - just demonstrating that it is regarded as acceptable practice.
  • Andy_L
    Andy_L Posts: 13,151 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    angrycrow wrote: »
    And tonight the challenge is for anyone to find a valid legal rule that says filtering is an acceptable practice.

    It's not filtering its overtaking

    Rule 88
    "when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    Rule 160
    "be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. "

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,866 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Andy_L wrote: »
    Rule 88
    "when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    Rule 160
    "be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. "

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

    Thats already been quoted in the thread in post #4 - i suspect angrycrow meant an actual law rather than guidelines given their use of "legal rule".
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • AndyMc.....
    AndyMc..... Posts: 3,248 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    matttye wrote: »
    From the description given it sounds like the offence would be careless driving, which is a summary only offence and therefore would be a police charging decision...not CPS.

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/charging-directors-guidance-2013-fifth-edition-may-2013-revised-arrangements

    Look at section 15 - police charging decisions.

    And your point is?

    Careless driving is a criminal offence.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 353.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 246.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.2K Life & Family
  • 260.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.