Advanced driving perspectives on this court case welcome

[Somewhatfoolish]

Please see my op here:http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1264840

[johnao]

At para. 13 of the Judgement it says:

Para 13. The Second Defendant saw the motorcycle. As it came towards her she stopped in reaction to it, part within her own lane and part within the oncoming lane (roughly half and half), with a distance of approximately 5m between the back of her car and the front of the Rover.

So, why did she stop half way across the carriageway, 5 metres beyond the broken down vehicle, in the face of an oncoming motorcycle?

I guess the Appeal Court Judges didn't know the answer to this question either. Hence the increased liability apportionment

[ismellburning]

Haven't read the whole thing just yet, but seems like an odd choice to assume a dead car would come back to life. Coasting on assuming that popping the clutch (or whatever) would start it again makes stopping somewhere dangerous almost inevitable, doesn't it?

There but for the grace, obviously - can't say exactly what I'd do in that situation after all...

[SK425]

I haven't read the judgement but when I looked at the other thread I found your comment interesting:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Nevertheless to me the rover and Toyota drivers are so "normal" in the way they behaved that ... their behaviour was entirely reasonable by civil law standards

I'm not sure I'd like the courts to judge a driver's behavior as reasonable simply because it's the way many drivers might behave, without assessing whether or not that "normality" is sensible, thoughtful, intelligent etc.

[trashbat]

The interesting comment is a legal one, not an AD one, IMO.

Noone in this case excelled themselves. The biker was pulled up on not being able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear. The Toyota driver was pulled up on hesitation. The Rover driver was pulled up on unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation.

[AnotherGareth]

I think paragraph 16 of the judgement is shocking - the lack of observation by the motorcyclist was appalling, not least because if he had noticed these things he should have immediately expected the possibility of an on-coming vehicle attempting to pass.

[Mr Grayson]

Rover driver was a bit foolish, but did at least move his car to the edge of the road. With no power other than momentum, putting your car onto the verge is trickier than it sounds.

Mrs. Miggins was legal in overtaking the Rover, but perhaps a bit slow-witted in stopping rather than continuing to get out of the way. Whether she should have overtaken faster, or closer, are irrelevant, since circumstances could have put her in the same place relative to the motorcycle with a little time leeway one way or the other.

Motorcyclist, it seems, was in a little world of his own. Not expecting or looking for any dangers in his "areas of invisibility", not reacting to them when they appeared, traveling too fast to make appropriate decisions when they did appear.

Pillion was in the hands of the motorcyclist, nobody else. Nobody crashed into the motorcycle, the motorcycle crashed into an oncoming vehicle, which was occupying roughly 50% of its width into the m/c's carriageway. Not 50% of the carriageway, 50% of the car's width. At a rough guess that would leave about 70% of the carriageway's width unoccupied. The m/c was allegedly 2/3 of the way across the carriageway coming round the bend approaching the oncoming vehicle, but was unable to move the ~4% (less than 6 inches) necessary to miss the obstruction.

(Assumptions in Imperial units - carriageway width 11ft, car width 6ft - I admit I'm too idle to Google the A143 in the appropriate place and measure the carriageway width by some hopefully more accurate means, others are welcome to).

[trashbat]

Mr Grayson said:

Pillion was in the hands of the motorcyclist, nobody else. Nobody crashed into the motorcycle, the motorcycle crashed into an oncoming vehicle, which was occupying roughly 50% of its width into the m/c's carriageway. Not 50% of the carriageway, 50% of the car's width. At a rough guess that would leave about 70% of the carriageway's width unoccupied. The m/c was allegedly 2/3 of the way across the carriageway coming round the bend approaching the oncoming vehicle, but was unable to move the ~4% (less than 6 inches) necessary to miss the obstruction.

(Assumptions in Imperial units - carriageway width 11ft, car width 6ft - I admit I'm too idle to Google the A143 in the appropriate place and measure the carriageway width by some hopefully more accurate means, others are welcome to).

I think you're being quite unfair with this, both on technical details and more importantly in spirit. Para 14 of the judgement supports this view.

For one, the Toyota was described (para 11) as having its nearside wheels on the painted lines. She then stopped 50% over the lines, as you (and para 13) describe. At what point the motorcyclist observed the vehicle is not clear.

Regardless, for the motorcyclist, it would have been a rapidly developing event, in which he was presented with an unexpected hazard that may itself have still been developing.

He quickly took a course of action that it seems went badly, early, and reduced his options from then on. However you are apparently arguing that he should have been able to immediately perceive that the danger was either not that severe or would become less severe by the time they met, identify a safe course through the hazard, then take it. Whilst I'd hope that I could do exactly that, it's not a reasonable expectation, and that is what the court found.

[AnotherGareth]

trashbat said:

the Toyota was described (para 11) as having its nearside wheels on the painted lines.

That doesn't seem unreasonable when the Toyota driver is being wary of people hidden from view associated with the stopped car as well as the possibility of on-coming vehicles.

trashbat said:

At what point the motorcyclist observed the vehicle is not clear.

This is fundamental but it appears the court accorded him a pass in terms of his responsibility to see and interpret what's ahead.

trashbat said:

for the motorcyclist, it would have been a rapidly developing event

The degree to which the event was rapidly developing was entirely within the control of the motorcyclist. If he was approaching the bend too quickly or wasn't paying proper attention, both of which seem likely, then the event would have developed faster than it should.

trashbat said:

you are apparently arguing that he should have been able to immediately perceive that the danger ...

The point is that the motorcyclist should have perceived the danger much much earlier, and if he had, and had then had taken the appropriate action, the outcome would probably have been very different.

[trashbat]

AnotherGareth said:

trashbat said:

the Toyota was described (para 11) as having its nearside wheels on the painted lines.

That doesn't seem unreasonable when the Toyota driver is being wary of people hidden from view associated with the stopped car as well as the possibility of on-coming vehicles.

Which way did the road bend? She either extended or limited her own view by doing this.

AnotherGareth said:

The degree to which the event was rapidly developing was entirely within the control of the motorcyclist. If he was approaching the bend too quickly or wasn't paying proper attention, both of which seem likely, then the event would have developed faster than it should.

The point is that the motorcyclist should have perceived the danger much much earlier, and if he had, and had then had taken the appropriate action, the outcome would probably have been very different.

I don't disagree; I was merely picking at the notion that once the situation was presented to him, he should have been expected to identify and take what in retrospect was perhaps an easy exit path. If anything this is even more difficult on a bike (including pushbikes), and that's before you take in factors like target fixation.

[Mr Grayson]

trashbat said:

think you're being quite unfair with this, both on technical details and more importantly in spirit. Para 14 of the judgement supports this view.

I deliberately didn't set out to re-apportion the liability, just to say how I saw the case. I do think there is a case for some limited liability on the part of the car drivers, but I don't believe it's as strong as the judge did. Perhaps 20% each.

I'm not sure I see where "spirit" comes into this. This is a case of an injured third party claiming financial compensation against all persons present at the scene. The question is who should pay what. Not much spirit, just arithmetic.

The car drivers took some precautions to ensure safety, but perhaps could have done better. The motorcyclist made a decision that turned out badly, particularly for his passenger.

trashbat said:

For one, the Toyota was described (para 11) as having its nearside wheels on the painted lines.

Yes, at some point during her overtake. No mention is made of whether the motorcycle was in sight by then.

trashbat said:

She then stopped 50% over the lines, as you (and para 13) describe.

Yes, presumably after she saw the motorcycle. But she was travelling at no more than 10 mph, allegedly, so stopping would have been near instantaneous, after time to react.

trashbat said:

At what point the motorcyclist observed the vehicle is not clear.

This is the really crucial point and it's a shame the accident investigators didn't do more to work out what the limit of vision was and therefore how far the motorcyclist had to perform whatever manoeuvre he chose as his avoidance tactic.

trashbat said:

Regardless, for the motorcyclist, it would have been a rapidly developing event, in which he was presented with an unexpected hazard that may itself have still been developing.

Yes. That's the nature of hazards on the road.

trashbat said:

...However you are apparently arguing that he should have been able to immediately perceive that the danger was either not that severe or would become less severe by the time they met, identify a safe course through the hazard, then take it. Whilst I'd hope that I could do exactly that, it's not a reasonable expectation, and that is what the court found.

No, I'm arguing that he wasn't expecting any hazard to be there, and therefore didn't allow himself enough safety margin. Let me ask you a question, as an advanced driver - when you are negotiating a blind bend with double solid lines along the centre, what's going through your mind? If a hazard appeared, and you couldn't stop, who would you consider to be at fault? Imagine that instead of humans in cars, the hazard was either an inanimate object - a lump of rock fallen from the side of the hill, or an animal - a huge stag, maybe. Who would be liable then? Could the pillion passenger have sued the deer, or the rock? Of course not, but because other road users were present, they are assumed to be liable.

Edited by Mr Grayson on Monday 25th March 21:01

[trashbat]

Mr Grayson said:

No, I'm arguing that he wasn't expecting any hazard to be there, and therefore didn't allow himself enough safety margin.

I agree with this bit, but that's not what I quoted you on earlier, which was a discussion about 70% of the carriageway's width being clear. Presented as he was with the situation, I don't feel it was fair to expect him to make such a calculated assessment, and I'm not sure that I would have done it either.

Mr Grayson said:

Let me ask you a question, as an advanced driver - when you are negotiating a blind bend with double solid lines along the centre, what's going through your mind? If a hazard appeared, and you couldn't stop, who would you consider to be at fault?

Me, of course, at least for a static hazard.