Had my first accident today, who's fault was it?
Discussion
Hi lads n lasses,
Firstly I am ok and the driver of the car is fine obviously!
I have a a sore lower leg but ambulance checked us over and been given the ok.
Bike is a bit of a mess but not shockingly bad, it still runs just a few body panels and scrapes, main thing everyone's okish!
Ok, now here's the thing who was at fault here? it's a tricky one (I think) but I think it was 50/50.
Scenario was this.
Temporary lights had backed the traffic up on my side of the road, I seen there was no oncoming traffic so had started to filter past building my speed up, probably hit 20-25mph in a 30 zone (would have gone slower in hindsight perhaps!) now the car that 'I' hit was parked up on the side that the traffic was ie the traffic on my side was blocking the view of the car from me, car pulled out from the parking spot to go in the opposite direction to me and I hit the passenger side front before I hit the tarmac, happened in a blur to be honest.
We exchanged details, lady was nice not a massive amount of damage to her car.
Thoughts?
Firstly I am ok and the driver of the car is fine obviously!
I have a a sore lower leg but ambulance checked us over and been given the ok.
Bike is a bit of a mess but not shockingly bad, it still runs just a few body panels and scrapes, main thing everyone's okish!
Ok, now here's the thing who was at fault here? it's a tricky one (I think) but I think it was 50/50.
Scenario was this.
Temporary lights had backed the traffic up on my side of the road, I seen there was no oncoming traffic so had started to filter past building my speed up, probably hit 20-25mph in a 30 zone (would have gone slower in hindsight perhaps!) now the car that 'I' hit was parked up on the side that the traffic was ie the traffic on my side was blocking the view of the car from me, car pulled out from the parking spot to go in the opposite direction to me and I hit the passenger side front before I hit the tarmac, happened in a blur to be honest.
We exchanged details, lady was nice not a massive amount of damage to her car.
Thoughts?
Carlososos said:
I’m not sure on the Highway Code but my 10p worth.
If you are allowed to drive on wrong side of road to filter it’s the woman’s fault.
If you are not allowed to filter on the other side of the road it’s your fault.
In any event the insurance on both sides will probably agree 50 50.
Yeah I thought it may be 50/50, I was on the white line but possibly if i was more on the other side of the road i may have spotted the car pulling out into my path! sods law!!If you are allowed to drive on wrong side of road to filter it’s the woman’s fault.
If you are not allowed to filter on the other side of the road it’s your fault.
In any event the insurance on both sides will probably agree 50 50.
Sounds like you were going a bit too fast, and not considering the possibility that there might be a parked car emerging. On the other hand, the other driver could reasonably have been expected to check that no motorcycle or cyclist was filtering down the queue. Personally I'd go 60/40 with you being slightly more to blame for putting yourself in a dodgy position.
Filtering past stationary traffic, I would expect to be going at max 10-15 mph rather than 20-25.
SydneyBridge said:
Split
Did someone let the parked car out?
You should have noticed what was going on, but so should have parked car and seen you
Guessing so, must have left a gap for the car to pull out never noticed it till it was to late as the built up traffic obscured my view and obviously hers too. Did someone let the parked car out?
You should have noticed what was going on, but so should have parked car and seen you
leo182 said:
Really, why is that then? I am just curious not saying you are wrong or right by the way just interested.
Because you should have been prepared for a car to come out from a car sized gap and I think you were probably going a bit too quickly too, you live and learn, the driver has to take some responsibility but it could have been avoided.Common case law normally used by insurers in your case find you mostly at fault
Powell v Moody (1966) The defendant was exiting a minor road onto a main road. There was a queue of traffic on the main road, and he was invited to leave the minor road by a driver on the main road in the queue of traffic. As he did so the claimant, on a motorbike, was riding along the offside of the queue and collided with the defendant’s vehicle. The judge found the claimant to be 80% to blame, as any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is ‘undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard’.
Patel v Cuthbert (2009). The claimant, a motorcyclist, was overtaking a queue of stationary traffic on the approach to a traffic light controlled junction travelling at about 20mph. The defendant was seeking to emerge from a road on the left and was allowed out by one of the queuing vehicles. There was a collision as the claimant ran into the nearside of the defendant’s vehicle. The court found the motorcyclist 100% to blame because he was travelling too fast and should have taken extra care at the junction.
Powell v Moody (1966) The defendant was exiting a minor road onto a main road. There was a queue of traffic on the main road, and he was invited to leave the minor road by a driver on the main road in the queue of traffic. As he did so the claimant, on a motorbike, was riding along the offside of the queue and collided with the defendant’s vehicle. The judge found the claimant to be 80% to blame, as any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is ‘undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard’.
Patel v Cuthbert (2009). The claimant, a motorcyclist, was overtaking a queue of stationary traffic on the approach to a traffic light controlled junction travelling at about 20mph. The defendant was seeking to emerge from a road on the left and was allowed out by one of the queuing vehicles. There was a collision as the claimant ran into the nearside of the defendant’s vehicle. The court found the motorcyclist 100% to blame because he was travelling too fast and should have taken extra care at the junction.
JDiz said:
Common case law normally used by insurers in your case find you mostly at fault
Powell v Moody (1966) The defendant was exiting a minor road onto a main road. There was a queue of traffic on the main road, and he was invited to leave the minor road by a driver on the main road in the queue of traffic. As he did so the claimant, on a motorbike, was riding along the offside of the queue and collided with the defendant’s vehicle. The judge found the claimant to be 80% to blame, as any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is ‘undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard’.
Patel v Cuthbert (2009). The claimant, a motorcyclist, was overtaking a queue of stationary traffic on the approach to a traffic light controlled junction travelling at about 20mph. The defendant was seeking to emerge from a road on the left and was allowed out by one of the queuing vehicles. There was a collision as the claimant ran into the nearside of the defendant’s vehicle. The court found the motorcyclist 100% to blame because he was travelling too fast and should have taken extra care at the junction.
I found these!Powell v Moody (1966) The defendant was exiting a minor road onto a main road. There was a queue of traffic on the main road, and he was invited to leave the minor road by a driver on the main road in the queue of traffic. As he did so the claimant, on a motorbike, was riding along the offside of the queue and collided with the defendant’s vehicle. The judge found the claimant to be 80% to blame, as any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is ‘undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard’.
Patel v Cuthbert (2009). The claimant, a motorcyclist, was overtaking a queue of stationary traffic on the approach to a traffic light controlled junction travelling at about 20mph. The defendant was seeking to emerge from a road on the left and was allowed out by one of the queuing vehicles. There was a collision as the claimant ran into the nearside of the defendant’s vehicle. The court found the motorcyclist 100% to blame because he was travelling too fast and should have taken extra care at the junction.
Fagan V Jeffers (2005)
Motorcyclist filtering on left (undertaking) when car pulls out from the left. Motorcyclist 50% at fault – had they not been undertaking this may have gone in their favour.
I wasn't undertaking so would go in my favour maybe? I don't know!
Jones v Lawton (2013)
Motorcyclist filtering past stationary traffic when a car pulls across their path from a side road, Motorcyclist found 33% at fault.
This ones similar to mine apart from the car pulling out from the parking space not a side road.
Here is some more supportive case law on filtering
https://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/filtering-motorbike...
https://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/filtering-motorbike...
Paynewright said:
Was the other vehicle reversing out or driving forwards?
Lots of companies request employees reverse park into spaces so they drive out forwards when leaving - thinking is to reduce pedestrian accidents through better visibility.
That advice was even more crucial when air con and screen heaters were not so prevalent (lack of air con would be OK but humidity would build up and then dew point would be reached when occupants returned and added to humidity levels through breath).Lots of companies request employees reverse park into spaces so they drive out forwards when leaving - thinking is to reduce pedestrian accidents through better visibility.
Passing at 20 - 25mph is not ‘filtering’ to me.
Glad you're ok mate.
You sound more relaxed than me - although I'm very impatient, I'm also pretty paranoid, expecting every other road user to have half their attention on their phone.
In practice, this means I wouldn't filter at more than 15 mph, even when I can see everything. I agree with you that 20-25 is a bit quick. It only takes one taxi driver to do an unexpected U-turn.....
You sound more relaxed than me - although I'm very impatient, I'm also pretty paranoid, expecting every other road user to have half their attention on their phone.
In practice, this means I wouldn't filter at more than 15 mph, even when I can see everything. I agree with you that 20-25 is a bit quick. It only takes one taxi driver to do an unexpected U-turn.....
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff