Nailed while filtering

[Beardy]

I literally just got my Sportster finished exactly how i wanted it, then a guy pulls out of a side road and nails me.





Im after some advice or at least an idea of how boned im going to be by the insurance company.

I was travelling at about 10 - 15mph, filtering up the outside of slow moving traffic, guy in a land rover waves this guy out just as i draw level with the land rover. The driver who hit me never looked in my direction. He got 3rd of the way into the oncoming lane which is when i hit him, i was trying to swerve out of his way but as he never looked i didnt have a chance.

Solicitor is saying its gonna be 80 - 20 in his favour, 50 - 50 if im lucky. Is that correct? i cant really have done anything to avoid the crash, other then not filtering, which isnt illegal so why shouldt I?

Any advice or info you can throw my way would be hugely appreciated!

[the_monster]

when I got hit in similar circumstances a few years back the insurance co found a legal precedent that pointed to it being 75% 25% in my favour as the guy crossing my path had failed to take care to ensure the road was clear, the 25% was that I should have been a bit more careful approaching the junction even tho' I wasn't travelling fast.

If the Mercedes driver states that the land rover driver signalled him across, then you may get even better odds.

[kevscrivener]

Get a new brief cos yours is talking out of his arse. Anyone who pulls out without looking (whether someone flashed them or not) is in the wrong. You were technically overtaking, he failed to look. Driving without due care and attention.

You need as many witnesses as posssible for a start; names, numbers as much info as you can get. Don't rely on digital photos for evidence.

If you're a member of MAG get in touch with them.

Edit; just read your other post on this; if the law are prosecuting the other driver you need to keep a good tab on the outcome. I had a similar thing some years ago when me and my then girlfriend were knocked off my 45 on a traffic island in derby. Insurance claimed I was partly to blame till I sent them evidence that the van driver had been done and got fine and 5 points for driving without due care. You need documented proof that he's been prosecuted and give this to the insurance company.

[BaZa®]

As Kev says if he gets done then that will help but................


Easy for me to say BUT when overtaking at whatever speed YOU have to be vigilant to all road users. (Treat everyone as a twat)

The landy driver is partly to blame for waving someone out (that is why YOU NEVER do that as you can be blamed.) You could counter a claim off him for saying it was all clear when obviously it was not because you were overtaking him. (But try and prove it!)

In future you WILL observe the road and notice that there was a gap in front of the landy and a car was trying to enter the road.

On advanced driving/riding courses you are taught that any car on your nearside in a road entering your road is a potential hazard.

The same as a car that you are overtaking in a queue of traffic doing a U turn....You are at risk and will not get the backing of your insurance company.

Whenever overtaking stationary traffic or parked cars be wide so you do not collide when (and they do) open their car doors.

Sorry it's not what you want to hear but you are as much to blame for not anticipating what happened.

But I am more than glad you are ok.

[Beardy]

Thanks for all the advice so far chaps.

I clocked the VW as i approached the junction, im already moving up the outside of the traffic and he had plenty of time to see me. As you can see from the photo, i anticipated him pulling out and was already braking and moving to the oncoming lane to get around him, but he came out of the turn in 1 movement, no edging forwards and checking, and thats why he ended up nailing me almost in the middle of the oncoming lane.

I had no way of knowing the land rover had waved him out, and being that my bike was deafeningly loud i didnt think he would wave him out as i was quite clearly visible.

The police have stated that the land rover has no liability, he IS wrong for waving the guy out, but as soon as the VW took that chance it became his problem. Hence the charge he was booked under.

Solicitor is stating that unless i can prove that i couldnt avoid the crash the case will go his way, IMO i couldnt have done anything else. i was already slowing down and moving out. Unless i stopped and allowed him to go, which of course it was to late for me to do by the time he pulled out, i cant see what else i could have done.

At the end of the day, me and my missus both got up and walked away from it, banged bruised and a little broken but alive. Thats a win already. I know hes getting charged, whether the conviction will stick, i dont know. Fingers crossed i guess.

[the_monster]

new solicitor needed by the sounds of it !

[BaZa®]

I'm really sorry but I still feel you are an alien to the road as you cannot be seen or heard over modern car entertainment systems, by the wanker that pulled out. If you see a POSSIBLE hazard you go to a speed that you can stop if the hazard is a wanker. Period.

Pulling out to the other side of the road may not be an option on another day if oncoming traffic was there.

As I said when putting yourself in that position you look to see if there are any gaps in the traffic you are overtaking and if there is than expect the worse.

BTW I overtake at EVERY opportunity so I am NOT having a pop at you mate, just stating what we have to look out for.

[BaZa®]

The USA riders in nearly all states have to sit in traffic and cannot make progress.

[FXSTC Dave]

Read this :

It maybe of some help.
Also visit the website link at the end.



Filtering law revised in the UK
Judge finds for bikes !

Read this - it's important
If you ride through town, or indeed if you ever find yourself in a position where you are likely to be filtering past cars or other vehicles then this applies to you. If those cars aren't moving quickly the the grey area has gone - this biker is NOT breaking the law any more..."
It's sadly a rare event to be able to write an article about the law being changed in favour of motorcyclists. But that's exactly what has happened, and what this article is about.

In civil law, while there are obviously rules and regulations against which cases are judged, the over-riding factor which affects the court's decision almost every time is something called case law. In effect, if a similar case has been heard before and a decision has been made then that decision is taken as law. The precedent has been set and if there are sufficient similarities then any further case will be decided the same way. Unless a judge sees reason to challenge that finding. But they'd need to have a very good reason.

Now way back in 1966 a collision took place between a car and a bike, The bike was filtering through stationary traffic when the car did a U-turn and clobbered the rider. For various reasons, no doubt including the prevailing attitude towards bikers at the time, the judge ruled that 80% of the the blame was attributable to the rider. This finding, Powell vs Moody, went into case law and was used as the basis for every car v bike incident that the driver's solicitor could squeeze it into. We got stitched up.

In 1972 a second case changed the finding, making it 50/50. Better but still not really acceptable. I mean, you're filtering past stationary cars and some clown t-bones you and you have to pick up half the bill?

Well in 2006 an appeal court judge stood the whole thing on its head. In Davis vs Shrogin, the judge found that, and I quote, a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occured if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action.

They're stationary, the biker is totally in the clear. And if one of them makes a U turn and knocks him off, they're 100% in the wrong. In other words, if you are filtering past traffic which is stopped or almost stopped and someone pulls out in front of you close enough that you can't avoid a collision when travelling at a reasonable speed then the resposibiltiy for the collision rests squarely with the other driver.
Ladies and gentlemen, filtering past stationary traffic is no longer a grey area - it's completely legal. It gets a little iffy when the traffic is moving at more than a crawl - that still is a grey area. And once things are moving along properly the you're breaking the law when you filter.
Obviously I'd still earnestly recommend that you engage the services of a good, bike savvy solicitor (try calling Plantec on 0870 284 3431 for someone who will handle all the rest of the hassle as well) but knowing that one little phrase - Davis vs Shrogin - could make a huge difference to the outcome. Or even, if your solicitor isn't as switched on as they might be, to the approach they take.
It's good news. But try not to need it, eh?

Filtering law revised in the UK

[45Brit]

between this thread and the one about the ASBO, I see that the old chestnut about civil liability, civil law, criminal law, and police powers is getting an airing.

the nub of it is, that none of these are the same thing.

1) a civil prosecution and a criminal record are not the same

2) just because something is legal, that doesn't justify you, or mean you have no liability for its consequences, or that someone else has liability for your actions. It's perfectly possible to be grossly stupid and/or utterly negligent, without actually doing anything illegal in the process. Similarly it's easy to be 100% legal and have no claim for civil compensation for any consequences. That's why the HSE legislation goes into great detail about who is responsible for your safety; because it would otherwise be ambiguous

3) the Highway Code is not law

4) the police have a great deal of discretion in such matters. They always have had, and the politicization and target-driven culture they now work under means that it's preferable to target soft targets than hard ones. This isn't new, but it is greatly expanded in our modern age. That said, sometimes they are right. Those among the assembled company of a certain age will remember some of the hideous abortions rolling round in the early 70s; 10" over forks on unraked frames, Bantam front brakes on 650 Beezers, slugs, apes that rotated when pushed, you name it. They were legal but ( whatever Bike magazine may have said at the time ) plain dangerous, and were largely driven off the road by plain old police harassment. It was and remains, a traditional means of dealing with issues where the actual law isn't much help, and properly used it still has a necessary place

5) someone else's idea of what is stupid, and yours, probably aren't the same. The fact that you don't agree, is secondary to which one of you is determining the outcome