hi,
a motorcyclist crashed into me while i was making a right turn last week. assumed it was his fault as i was clearly indicating etc and he came belting up the middle of the road.
just opened the post to find a letter from one of those ambulance chasing law companied claiming for damages, as apparently i was turning right into a no right turn junction (not technically a junction but a forecourt), which i obviously wasnt aware of. so now what - am i even insured for making a no right turn?? is this some sort of criminal offence - whats going to happen to me, wail??!!
|
This is why you have insurance, to cover stupid mistakes like this. You need to go back to the scene of the accident and check to see if there is no right turn there. Even then it still dosn't automatically mean you're to blame.
Other people on here will advise further I am sure.
|
Mmmmm.
Agree that heading off to the scene, armed with camera and googleearth map could be a good idea...
|
|
|
|
|
.... can you counter-claim for whiplash??
|
|
|
|
I think you'll find the lawyers will say that even if you're indicating, you still have a responsibility to look!
|
IMO:
On one hand ...
If there are no-right-turn signs prior and adjecant to the turning then you are commiting an offence by turning right.
However if it is only no-entry signs errected by the owner of the land on to which you are turning, such as into the "wrong" end of a garage forecourt then I dont think that constitutes a traffic offence.
On the otherhand ...
Perhaps if it were a 30 limit with solid white centre lines indicating no overtaking and you indicated well in advance of manouvering when there was no traffic visible behind you at the time and then the bike came up the outside at 60 + not indicating and illegally overtaking - then you might have a case.
However if the biker was legally allowed to overtake and was indicating his intentions then as Marlot says it is your duty to ensure that it is safe to turn before doing so.
Edited by cheddar on 20/10/2008 at 08:31
|
PS. Don't think I'm getting at you.
I tend to think that most collisions on the road are caused by a collection of errors. Glad this one didn't lead to fatality and hope neither you nor the biker are badly hurt, so that all your insurance companies have to argue about is some bent metal.
If the question had come from a biker saying "I was overtaking a line of cars when this car suddenly turned right against my path", I'd be asking what he'd been doing to make his overtake as safe as possible.
|
|
|
|
I am sure there is something in the Highway Code about turning across the path of overtaking vehicles.
I think it may be Rule 211
|
rule 211
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.
|
|
|
IMO the motorcyclist was entirely at fault. See rule 167 highway code
Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users
for example: when a road user is indicating right.....
|
..IMO themotorcyclist was entirely at fault..
The motorcyclist could argue that he had indicated and was commited to the overtake when the car swerved across him with no warning ....
Edited by cheddar on 20/10/2008 at 16:09
|
The motorcyclist could argue that he had indicated and was commited to the overtake when the car swerved across him with no warning ....
He could and we could argue all day about who was telling it as it was, but my comment is based on the statements in the OP's first post, i.e he gave warning by indicating yet the motorcyclist still proceeded with the overtake. The motorcyclist was "belting" taken as meaning going too fast.
|
>my comment is based on the statements in the OP's first post, <
It's not clear to me from the OP whether the bike was overtaking or approaching - which was it? Everyone here seems to assume it was an overtake?
|
|
|
|
IMO the motorcyclist was entirely at fault.
Mainly at fault? Maybe.
Entirely at fault? Unlikely.
We've only heard one side of the story! We know nothing about the road positioning - eg. had the car moved over to the right?. We have a driver who apparently saw a motorbike coming up the centre of the road, yet chose to turn in front of him. (If he didn't see him how does he know that the biker "came belting up the middle of the road").
|
|
|
|
|
just opened the post to find a letter from one of those ambulance chasing law companied claiming for damages ...
Put the matter into the hands of your insurance company (even if you don't make a claim for damage to your own vehicle) and send them the letter, and send them any subsequent communications that you receive from the motorcyclist or from anyone representing the motorcyclist. Do not reply to the letter, or to any subsequent letters.
Stop worrying, and let your insurance company will sort it.
Edited by L'escargot on 20/10/2008 at 10:10
|
Like what L'escargot says. Quit worrying, ignore the letter and hand it to your insurance company. The police are *very* unlikely to come after you for a charge of dangerous driving or a fixed penalty offence.
|
As per the above advice, forward all correspondence and don't answer..
But if it was me, I'd like to know what was going on. So if the accident site was nearby I'd go for a look armed with a camera. I'd not say anything to anyone unless asked, but it may not be as cut and dried as the allegation. In which case I think your insurance company could be interested in the pictures.
|
I'm not sure how everyone can possibly say who was at fault based on that original post... there's not enough info! Appart from anything else if that had been a police car or a tow truck going to get a broken down car further up would he still claim the same? I remember a friend of mine on a bike hitting the side of a car who decided to u turn from a queue of cars without looking - the car driver got done... Even if the driver was turning out from a row of stationary cars to cross the road he should not assume that the road is clear beyond them and should still check both ways before completing the manoever. Seems like the biker may have a case... but...
Can we have a lot more detail please?
Edited by b308 on 20/10/2008 at 17:05
|
|
|
|
|
Remember those tv adverts which exhorted " think bike "? IMO in every example , the "biker" was at fault, I have no problem with "think bike", ( also, think child - think learner - think Dippo - think every other idiot on the road [except us of course !] ) Couple of years ago i had a colleague who, for reasons of economy, decided to get a bike (licence), i had been driven in a car by this guy on more than one occasion and had recognised him as a very steady and safe ( he had 3 kids ) driver. He got a couple of steps up the biking ladder and one day approached me in a worried state bacause he had been encouraged by his bike instructor to " ride more aggressively" I haven't got a problem with people being taught to be expert drivers or riders, but if you are going to drive aggressively, you absolutely HAVE to assume that everybody else on the road is going to do something silly, and if you whack somebody, it is gonna be your fault, because YOU are the "expert"and you failed to see it coming, (maybe you are not as good as you think you are) ? Maybe "think bike" should nowadays be just "think safe" Sorry for going on. To the OP - if you were on the middle of the road ( white line? ) why would anybody, bike or car - be trying to overtake you ? whether or not you were going to make an unauthorised right turn. Hope you get the right result .. stan.
|
Remember those tv adverts which exhorted " think bike "? IMO in every example the "biker" was at fault I have no problem with "think bike" ( also think child - think learner - think Dippo - think every other idiot on the road >>
Maybe "think bike" should nowadays be just "think safe" >>
All sounds very anti-bike there stan, the point is that most accidents involving bikes are caused by other road users being dippos and not thinking bike!
|
In every example the "biker" was at fault
From the National Archives ...
Featuring well known sports presenter Jimmy Hill, ?Think Bike? encourages motorists to take extra care to look out for motorcyclists when pulling out from junctions.
Using the slogan ?think once, think twice, think bike?, the film features a graphic depiction of an accident to shock the audience.
A very similar tactic is still in use today in the recently launched ?Think - take longer to look for bikes? campaign which also shows a motorcyclist crashing into the side of a car.
A Department for Transport report from 2006 concluded that the most common cause of motorcycle crashes is a ?right of way? violation...the majority of these incidents occur at T-junctions and it is usually the motorist - rather than the biker - who is at fault.?
?In around 65% of these ?right of way? incidents, a driver somehow fails to see a motorcyclist who should be in clear view.?
|
It is strange that when people look, they often only see what they are expecting to see.
Countless times, when I've been out on the bike, people pull out in front of you. It is behaviour that is expected.
I have come to junctions and seen a car driver looking in my direction and seen his eyes looking at me - then they just pull out.
|
Still no new details yet...?
Come on, NRT, give us more!
PS Stan10, what has 3 kids got to with proving he's a safe driver?!
Edited by b308 on 21/10/2008 at 12:10
|
|
|
|
the point is that most accidents involving bikes are caused by other road users being dippos and not thinking bike!
You wouldn't say that if you saw the antics of bikers on the twisty 60 mph single carriageway A631 crossing the Lincolnshire Wolds. tinyurl.com/6c2mzh
Eight bikers were caught variously doing 90mph to 130 mph in one day this September. "Think car" would be a better sign for these sort of bikers.
Edited by L'escargot on 22/10/2008 at 14:18
|
You wouldn't say that if you saw the antics of bikers on the twisty 60 mph single carriageway A631 ..... Eight bikers were caught variously doing 90mph to 130 mph in one day this September.
>>
I would wager that there are over 100 times more accidents, injuries and deaths involving bikes caused by negligent car/van/truck drivers than there are caused by speeding bikers.
|
|
|
|
|
encouraged by his bike instructor to " ride more aggressively"
Advanced Driving is like that to some extent - depends a bit on who is teaching it, but a lot of it is about "bold" positioning and "owning" your space on the road.
We did it at work and a number of guys didn't like it at all as it's a much more forceful style of driving than they were used to.
|
There's a world of difference between aggressive and assertive.
|
I agree with BP and Mapmaker. Exactly the same things apply when driving a car: you have to make your intention clear and place the car boldly but accurately where it should be, if there is some delay in completing the manoeuvre.
There are two problems for mimser types. One is that such positive positioning sometimes alarms and confuses them. The other is that they prefer half-baked positioning themselves. If you are holding everyone up you know you exist and have rights, don't you?
Nothing to be done about it in general, alas. Om, chaps.
|
|
|
|
|
Just had another read, and yes ( hangs head ) it does sound a bit "anti bike" doesnt it?
Sorry bikers - not the intention, dont ride myself, but have friends who do.
TV ads - accept the principles, but IMO the ads i am thinking of could have been filmed better to illustrate the points they are trying to make.
The word "aggressively" was my colleagues word, - "positively" is clearly a fairer word, ( if i really thought that there were professional instructors out there, car, bike, or whatever, telling people to drive aggressively, i think i would stay at home ! ) What prompted his comment was the scenario where he was riding down the road, passing parked cars on his left, ahead of him (dunno how far ) one was clearly indicating intention to pull out from kerb. colleague slowed - instructor said he should not have - colleague not comfy with that.
Something nice about bikers - i do try and be aware of bikes, specially ones coming up from behind, and get a kick out of a waved "thanks" when i move over. my favourite is where i have seen the missile early enough to allow it past without a pause, and the left fingers give a quick flick from the grip without letting go. Also, it seems, the bigger the bike, the more chance of a wave.
|
Also look out for a left foot stuck out- common biker response to say thanks on the continent, seen it used here a few times (means you don't have take your hand off the bar).
I always thank drivers that move over if I'm filtering/ passing traffic, it's a common courtesy, glad to hear a driver that appreciates it!
Cheers,
Alex.
|
|
Stan, your honesty noted and appreciated. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
