Fazer Owners Club - Unofficial
General => General => Topic started by: AndyL on 30 January 2014, 05:20:24 pm
-
Hi,
I had a bump on my last bike in November.
I was filtering past stationary traffic using the other lane as it was empty, a car pulled out of a side road.
I came to a stop but this has been disputed by the car driver. It's bent the front disc on my bike and an unspecified amount of damage to the car (who was turning right)
The insurance company was going to settle against me using Powell Vs Moody
They have refused to consider the Davis Vs Schogrin on the grounds that the situation is different though they did accept Leesen Vs Bevis and have now agreed to settle 50/50
There are no witnesses to use so I can't prove I cam to a full stop. I did point out that the trend in the case law was more in the riders favor the the previous case law and while she agreed that was the trend she said the specific circumstances are different.
The damage to my bike is minor (2nd hand parts for an SR125 are cheap) but I understand this will affect premiums in future for both bikes and cars (I'm hoping to pass my car test soon).
Has anyone used Davis Vs Schogrin for an incident at a junction?
-
Just for the record, 'cos i didn't have a clue!
http://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/services-bolt-burdon-kemp-no-win-no-fee-solicitors/personal-injury-bolt-burdon-kemp-no-win-no-fee-solicitors/motorbike-accident-compensation-claims/motorbike%20accidents%20the%20law%20on%20the%20road.aspx (http://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/services-bolt-burdon-kemp-no-win-no-fee-solicitors/personal-injury-bolt-burdon-kemp-no-win-no-fee-solicitors/motorbike-accident-compensation-claims/motorbike%20accidents%20the%20law%20on%20the%20road.aspx)
-
If it's any consolation, when I bought insurance on my car, I had to report my big smash up from Spetember. And whilst it may load your bike premium like a bitch, for cars, specify it was a BIKE claim - according to the Admiral agent I bought my insurance from, whilst they need to know about it, it doesn't load the premium. :)
-
I was filtering past stationary traffic using the other lane as it was empty, a car pulled out of a side road.
I came to a stop but this has been disputed by the car driver. It's bent the front disc on my bike and an unspecified amount of damage to the car (who was turning right)
So were you therefore on the wrong side of the road
I did you stop to let him out
Still not clear to me on this bit
-
A paint diagram would be useful Andy, if you're after opinions/help. Hope it works out ok. FWIW, I was able to shoot down all previous case studies offered against me as being different to the actual circumstances of my last accident. But as Fazersharp says, difficult to say without a better description/diagram.
-
I'll draw up a diagram from a google maps image.
When I came to a stop my wheels were just on the left of the white line. The car driver is claiming I failed to stop so it sounds like the insurance companies are assuming we were both moving.
I'd looked at a quote for the 125 I was planning to keep for the bad weather and as I have transferred the no claims to the fazer (I can't have a multi bike policy as I don't have a garage) it didn't make a difference. It's the cost of a new driver in a car going up that's really scary.
-
I'll draw up a diagram from a google maps image.
When I came to a stop my wheels were just on the left of the white line. The car driver is claiming I failed to stop so it sounds like the insurance companies are assuming we were both moving.
I'd looked at a quote for the 125 I was planning to keep for the bad weather and as I have transferred the no claims to the fazer (I can't have a multi bike policy as I don't have a garage) it didn't make a difference. It's the cost of a new driver in a car going up that's really scary.
Opt for having black box in car for the 12 mths. Seriously reduces premium.
-
Oddly enough my cheapest quote wasn't black box!
-
But was your ride on time?
:D
-
But was your ride on time?
:D
Eh?
-
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=AwrSbl.en.pSGnwAQgpLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MGp1cXQ0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRVVLMjdfODg-/SIG=12097uht7/EXP=1391136798/ (http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=AwrSbl.en.pSGnwAQgpLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MGp1cXQ0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRVVLMjdfODg-/SIG=12097uht7/EXP=1391136798/)**http%3a//www.youtube.com/watch%3fv=4lOb799cTxM
-
It must be a generation thing,,,,, :lol
-
Black Box Ride on Time [ 1989 ] HD version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lOb799cTxM#)
-
I'll draw up a diagram from a google maps image.
When I came to a stop my wheels were just on the left of the white line. The car driver is claiming I failed to stop so it sounds like the insurance companies are assuming we were both moving.
I'd looked at a quote for the 125 I was planning to keep for the bad weather and as I have transferred the no claims to the fazer (I can't have a multi bike policy as I don't have a garage) it didn't make a difference. It's the cost of a new driver in a car going up that's really scary.
Opt for having black box in car for the 12 mths. Seriously reduces premium.
They generally are cheaper but after that first year drop them like a stone.
My mate got stitched right up on the 2nd year, they lowered his mileage allowance to what he did the previous year then they charge per mile if you go over it.
Just for the record as well, if you go were to be a devil and go over 100mph the sat nav picks up on it and your insurance is invalid straight away! :eek
-
Not at 20 posts yet and already had all sorts of good advice.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v347/highstorrsprom/crashsite_zps8b169d2a.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/highstorrsprom/media/crashsite_zps8b169d2a.jpg.html)
I was filtering past the cars going in the direction of car A past someone that left a gap. She came out of the side road to turn right (direction of car B) and clipped my front wheel with hers (my mudguard ended up in her wheel arch).
She is claiming she came to a full stop while I say I did. I was travelling at slow speed (1st gear on a SR125) before the accident and she was pulling away. I was roughly in line with the car that had left the gap when the collision happened.
I'm not sure if it matters but it was around 08:15 in November so light. It wasn't raining but the road surface was wet. I had dipped beam lights on (wearing full gear, silver helmet and reflective sections on the jacket).
Thanks for your time.
Andrew
-
So from your extra info and picture, it looks like you were overtaking on zig zags the cars were stationary because they had stoped to let the woman turn right, you didnt see her and she didnt see you untill it was too late. (i would take the 50/50)
Sorry
-
I think I will. I'm not sure if I'd quite got to the zig zag lines but given that
"The courts view remains fairly constant. If you are filtering and collide with a vehicle turning out of or into a junction, then you are likely to be found party at fault. The degree of fault and in turn, the amount of compensation you will lose, will depend on the specifics facts of the case. The court will also take into consideration the speed at which you were travelling."
http://www.bgtbikersolicitors.co.uk/case_law.html#filtering_update (http://www.bgtbikersolicitors.co.uk/case_law.html#filtering_update)
I'm going to try and think of the 50/50 as a better option then what my insurance company were planning before I spoke to them.
I did find out that the driver's insurance wrote to me and mentioned that their excess is £295 my quote came to £250 I'm tempted to phone them to find out how much their repairs will cost and see if we can come to an arrangement. When I phoned her to inform her the bike was damaged she asked to call me back. It was her partner, given that he claimed to have a witness which they have never offered I'm a bit uneasy about dealing with them directly.
-
Any witness in the car do not count as they are connected persons --- is what I always thought
See what other focers say about things
-
He was claiming anothor driver (the guy who left the gap) had come forward. I was at the scene for longer so I knew that was unlikely but it was never mentioned anywhere official.
-
[quote author=AndyL link=topic=11
I did find out that the driver's insurance wrote to me and mentioned that their excess is £295 my quote came to £250 I'm tempted to phone them to find out how much their repairs will cost and see if we can come to an arrangement. When I phoned her to inform her the bike was damaged she asked to call me back. It was her partner, given that he claimed to have a witness which they have never offered I'm a bit uneasy about dealing with them directly.
[/quote]
I'd be inclined to not deal direct leave it with the insurance. It could backfire on you and regardless of whether either of you take a payout from insurance you've lost your nc bonus because a claim form has been put through. Atleast that's what happened to me some years ago.
Go with the 50/50 :)
-
So from your extra info and picture, it looks like you were overtaking on zig zags
You're allowed to overtake on zig zags, it's the vehicle closest to the crossing that you're not allowed to overtake!
With regards to having discussions with their insurer-
It doesn't matter what the other party's excess is to you, they have agreed a contract with their insurers, you have agreed one with yours!
If they have disclosed they have a witness then legally they have to send you a copy of their statement!
-
It was my insurance that said if we now agree to settle privately I can keep my no claims. They even offered to let me cover their portion and keep the discount. I'll do a few quotes, if it's only a small amount I may do that.
Looks like some underwriters will car about the bike crash and others won't so I might be ok.
-
You're allowed to overtake on zig zags, it's the vehicle closest to the crossing that you're not allowed to overtake!
I knew this came up before but couldnt remember who or where.
So I always thought you couldnt. where in the highway code is this
-
50/50 at best I would say :(
-
You're allowed to overtake on zig zags, it's the vehicle closest to the crossing that you're not allowed to overtake!
I knew this came up before but couldnt remember who or where.
So I always thought you couldnt. where in the highway code is this
Rule 191
I was the only one to know this on the bikesafe day (apart from the coppers running it obviously!)
-
You're allowed to overtake on zig zags, it's the vehicle closest to the crossing that you're not allowed to overtake!
I knew this came up before but couldnt remember who or where.
So I always thought you couldnt. where in the highway code is this
Is that on same basis as solid white lines where bikes can overtake as long as don't cross or straddle the line?
-
You're allowed to overtake on zig zags, it's the vehicle closest to the crossing that you're not allowed to overtake!
I knew this came up before but couldnt remember who or where.
So I always thought you couldnt. where in the highway code is this
Is that on same basis as solid white lines where bikes can overtake as long as don't cross or straddle the line?
Correct, this was bought up on bikesafe too but be aware that they see it as if any part of you crosses the double whites it's classed as a contravention - so wide handlebars, sticky out mirrors etc.
The other side to this is if you overtake within double whites chances are you're pushing through a narrow gap, which can be questioned as driving without due care to others!
-
If a car stops on the main road, to let someone pull out, does that actually give the driver pulling out right of way?
-
I don't think so. I thought it was still up to the driver in the side road to then proceed only if safe to do so.
I know a police driver and he said just never let anyone out of a side road, especially if they are crossing your lane to get to another, as any accident will come back on you.
-
So could be an argument to get the claim more in OPs favour?
-
Whenn I spoke to my insurance company I mentioned I'd contacted the police and been told something along the lines of drivers on the main roads have right of way and the onus is on the car coming out to make sure it's clear.
The insurance said police aren't the ones who decide who's at fault. Everything I've read seems to say the biker should be ready to stop, what's annoying me is that I did but can't proove it.
-
But was your ride on time?
:D
hes much too young to get that lol :lol :lol :lol
-
when I argued the car that hit my right side had started turning into the road I was pulling out from and must have changed his mind, the insurance company told me I had pulled out on him as long as there was atleast one wheel of the other car still on the main road
When ever a car stops to let me out I virtually move the giveway line to the right side of the car letting me out. Same with cars parked at curb.
-
Could not the fact that the car (which did not have right of way) hit you, who was on the main road; could it not be argued that it was NOT, in fact, clear for him to pull out, and therefore the fault lies with him? Whether or not YOU stopped seems to me to be immaterial in this case.
You could also point out that the level of damage done shows that you were not overtaking recklessly in any way, and were in fact proceeding with all due caution before actually stopping.
-
Could not the fact that the car (which did not have right of way) hit you, who was on the main road; could it not be argued that it was NOT, in fact, clear for him to pull out, and therefore the fault lies with him? Whether or not YOU stopped seems to me to be immaterial in this case.
Also where the point of impact on the car was should surely come in to it
-
I'm thinking, if there was any blame on you at all, you need to show that more blame lies with the car driver that hit you. It seems to me that you broke no traffic laws - this is all the police would be interested in, and as you pointed out, the insurers of both parties will be the ones who decide who is actually to blame (unless it goes to court). But they must work within the laws/regulations of the road. If undue care was shown by the driver, the insurance companies must take this into account. Your insurer should be on your side - do you have legal representation? If not sure, find out from your insurer and if so, speak to them.
-
The damage to the car is also on the right hand side near the front. I'm not sure if it's the wing or a bit of the bumper,I suspect it hit my tyre first with a soft part of the car and the wheel of the car then hit my disk (my mudguard was caught in the wheel arch).
For the record the bike didn't even fall over, I just went from left foot down to right foot down.
I don't know if it matters but I'd only past my test 12days before, passed with a single minor and had four years experience on the bike with no other collisions. I'd recently attended a bike safety day run at a fire station where they did a demo of filtering past a junction, filtering had been mentioned in the lessons and my instructor also has a selection of youtube videos (Roadcraft Nottingham).
I had the most basic cover possible so no legal cover. When I first spoke to the lady at the insurance company she implied it was my fault! She also kept mentioning my car though and didn't come across as understanding of how bikes may use the road.
-
Well, it's a bit of difficult one given that the damage done doesn't sound terrible - I think many would try to settle outside of insurance in such a case, to avoid loss of no claims, case dragging on etc. But if it comes to a battle, I think you've got a good case, better than 50/50. Perhaps it would be an idea to mention to your insurance co. that you think the driver showed undue care.
I would possibly even speak to a traffic copper to see what they think. If you could show undue care on the driver's part, I think you'd be in with the chance of a win, or at least, better than 50/50.
There are bike legal specialists who you might be able to contact to see what they think. I may be wrong, but you might be able to get an opinion from such without committing to hiring them. Maybe someone else here can recommend a suitable firm?
-
Just a thought.
My insurance said that the fact the damage is to the side of my bike doesn't proove I had stopped. When I spoke to them they were claiming that she had stopped and I hit the side of the car.
I think the damage to my bike is inconsistant with her story, as least the one one given to me by her partner when I phoned after the incident. I'm going to ask for a copy of what she submitted to the insurance company.
-
If a car stops on the main road, to let someone pull out, does that actually give the driver pulling out right of way?
A clarification IIRC:
"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass" across a piece of land ie you don't have to ask anyone's permission.
"Priority" means that you get to go first, ie traffic from your right when you're pulling out of a junction gets priority.
As such, I would say that the fault is the woman who pulled out of the junction because paragraph 172 of the Highway Code states:
172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25
Note that that's a "MUST" ie it's backed by law and, by implication, it's *all* traffic you must give way to.
In which case, I'd go for 100% her fault and then (maybe) back off a bit from that, but 50/50 would be the absolute minimum
-
Ok on reading more advice and thinking a little more about this I think my "take the 50/50" was wrong
I think Nick Chrisp put it well
Could not the fact that the car (which did not have right of way) hit you, who was on the main road; could it not be argued that it was NOT, in fact, clear for him to pull out, and therefore the fault lies with him? Whether or not YOU stopped seems to me to be immaterial in this case.
But what I do pick up from this is that I think you would of been better off with a specialist bike insurer/ broker as you said yours just dont understand how a bike uses the road. Its like they carnt be arsed with it and just want to move on. I use a dedicated bike broker who (they say ) is run by bikers for bikers.
Also could this be moved into the Off thread as I think its a perfect one to go there as we are all learning from this
-
I have to say legalities aside I am amazed and discusted ! 50/50 Bo77occks ! surely this has to be a full faulty to the car driver ! he has pulled out onto a main road with out checking its clear to do so ! whether you hit them or they hit you is imaterial !
I do feel this is a case for the ombudsmon !
-
I have to say legalities aside I am amazed and discusted ! 50/50 Bo77occks ! surely this has to be a full faulty to the car driver !
The last person I spoke to at my own insurance company told me I was the person at fault! Citing Powell Vs Moody
Tomorrow I'm going to ask for a copy of what they have submitted and then speak to a solicitor.
What's really got me is that I spotted a pub near the corner had a CCTV camera so I popped in. The landlady had seen us parked up but thinks the tapes will have been wiped by now :( I'm kicking myself for not checking sooner.
I was hoping I had a witness but all she saw was the lady "helping" me. No she was the person that drove in to me. Her partner said it was damaged on the bumper at the right hand side. It's a 3 series BMW and I've been told they can be quite expensive.
Edit: I spoke to another person at my insurance company today. The rather wonderful lady was friendly, understood that filtering is legal and thought that I was doing it in a safe manor. She agreed that the damage to my bike was inconsistent with what the 3rd party had told me on the phone and is getting a copy of their form in the hope that it shows they're lying with regard to the damage, she thought regardless that it should be 100% car driver paying up but didn't try to give me fault hope. I took her name so that I can ask for her in future discussions with them.
-
Ask your solicitors to look @ David v Strogin which sets a precedent. I had a similar incident on M25 had been filtering as four lanes at a standstill, stopped for a breather in gap in lane 4 when Galaxy in lane 3 goes for same gap without checking mirrors nearly knocking me into Amoco. Luckily car behind me was a biker and was my witness as cheeky blighted when he got home & had time to think about it said I rode into him! He backed down week before court case. Lesson learned, call Police out if possible or take photos on your phone. I did win & received damages but it took 2 years & a lot of blood sweat & tears
-
Ask your solicitors to look @ David v Strogin which sets a precedent.
I had a long chat with a lady before and suggested that one. I got the feeling she wasn't a fan of bikes as from the outset she said it was my fault.
I'm getting the official account posted to me so that I know what their story is as it's already different from what her partner told me on the phone. (I wasn't impressed she got her partner to phone me back to avoid talking to me). I'm feeling much better now I don't have an anti bike person dealing with my side of things who understood what I was saying and cared.
-
I'll get you some case history that may/will be relavent. Guy I work with, was coming out of work (so he was the offending car, turning right same your woman) and hit a car that was coming down across a hatched area (with dotted borders) to turn right at a cross roads just to the left of the junction. Car he hit, was effectively you (in your accident). Pretty sure that all went on his insurance.
-
Thanks, I think they will argue it's different since they saw a space
Most case law seems to say the bike should be aware of gaps and be prepared to stop. I'm hoping she told the insurance she came to a full stop. If I was moving and she wasn't then my wheel would have twisted the other way and the disc wouldn't get caught on anything. If that's what she's put I'll push for 100%
I'm not really sure if the damage could be at the right hand side of her car and the left side of my bike if I was moving. I'm also thinking of suggesting that had I been moving I wouldn't have just been able to put my foot down.
-
There was a load of stationary traffic that Paul was coming out, through a gap, in his case as well. The car he hit, was passing the stationary traffic.
Sounds nigh on identical to me, replace the hatchings with your zigzags.
-
Now that is promising, especially as I hadn't got to the zig zag lines at the point of impact!
-
I have got an email detailing the account of the car driver
Third party version of events:
- Third party was pulling out of a minor road as vehicles had to stopped to allow them out of the junction when a motorcycle (policy holder) proceeded to overtake the stopped vehicles and collided with third party emerging from the junction.Third party area of damage:- Off side front bumperThird Party damage claim costs- Total costs of third party claim : £644.42I hope this covers all your requests and enought information has been provided. If your have any further questions or queries or wish to discuss this claim further please call 0844 856 8001 where me or any of my colleagues will be happy to help.So my question is take the 50/50 or peruse it as the damage is to the left side of bike (i.e. the brake disc) which I don't think is consistent with their version of events.
As the damage to the bike will be cheap to repair if I do it myself if I get a shift in my favor I may just pay for my portion of the damage to keep no claims (about £100 for the next quote on the fazer, not sure about the effect on the SR)
-
If that is accurate sounds like a 50/50. However, as you were on the main road, surely the onus is on the driver pulling out from the minor road to check that it is safe to do so. The fact that other vehicles had stopped to allow him to pull out is imho [/size]irrelevant[/color][/size], that is a courtesy gesture, it is still his responsibility that it is safe to do so,, and it clearly wasn't![/color]
-
I had a brief chat with a solicitor. In short they said as the claim isn't for injuries it wouldn't be cost effective to use them but did say something similar
A. The drivers version of events doesn't seem as credible due to the damage
B. I didn't fall off which supports me either not moving or at least moving very slowly
C. There should be a greater responsability on the car driver to ensure that the main road is clear of other traffic then there is for a vehicle on the main road to allow for traffic crossing give way lines.
They did say it was unlikely I'd get 100% but I wonder if I can swing this a bit more in my favour
-
I had a brief chat with a solicitor. In short they said as the claim isn't for injuries it wouldn't be cost effective to use them but did say something similar
A. The drivers version of events doesn't seem as credible due to the damage
B. I didn't fall off which supports me either not moving or at least moving very slowly
C. There should be a greater responsability on the car driver to ensure that the main road is clear of other traffic then there is for a vehicle on the main road to allow for traffic crossing give way lines.
They did say it was unlikely I'd get 100% but I wonder if I can swing this a bit more in my favour
Hope so, worth fighting for, as we tend to be treated as the underdogs, game of bluff and counter bluff, trying to persuade you to back off.
[/size][/color]Over the years have battled on through a few claims when I have been knocked off and always won through, though sometimes it felt as if I was battering my head against a brick wall![/font] :wall
-
Further phone call with my insurance company and I'm feeling more hopeful.
From their last email to me
"Having had time to review all the relevant information to hand. I have come to the decision that we will continue to push for the full 100% liability."
[/size][/color]
[/size]"[/color][/size]more and more claims are settling in the favour of the filtering motorcycle and I feel we have a good case to continue with our stance that the emerging third party vehicle has a higher degree of care"[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]I'm sticking to my argument that if I hit them[/color]
[/size]A. I wouldn't have stayed on the bike[/color]
[/size]B. The damage wouldn't be to my brake disc[/color]
-
looks like good news ! if it does go 100% in your favour , make sure you get a letter stating full cost regained from third party
I beleive ( please check) your insurers cant then load your policy as long as they get 100% of the costs back as it is the equivilaint of not cliaming !
-
Something like this you gotta step back and think 'what if this happened to a cyclist, would it unquestionably be the car drivers fault or would they point blame to the cyclist!?'
So why think differently about a motorbike???
-
Something like this you gotta step back and think 'what if this happened to a cyclist, would it unquestionably be the car drivers fault or would they point blame to the cyclist!?'
So why think differently about a motorbike???
I think the comp claim for personal injuries would but as you don't have an insurance company (normally) few people would persue the claim in court for what is really fairly minor damage.
When I got knocked of my push bike the driver drove off when I asked for their insurance details
-
Something like this you gotta step back and think 'what if this happened to a cyclist, would it unquestionably be the car drivers fault or would they point blame to the cyclist!?'
So why think differently about a motorbike???
When I got knocked of my push bike the driver drove off when I asked for their insurance details
I hope you was able to get the license!
My point is if a cyclist was sensibly either filtering on the inside of traffic or to the right of traffic (which they do) and a car pulled out in the same circumstances I doubt it would be questioned and blame would be pushed into the car driver for not looking properly, change the cyclist for a motorbike and all of a sudden we're expected to accept part of the blame for others poor use of observation!
-
Good news! I hope you get 100% :thumbup
-
Good news! I hope you get 100% :thumbup
Keep pushing for it! :) [/size][/color]well done, bit of a roller coaster of emotions but worth it[/font]
-
Finally got chance to ask the guy at work - his claim went 50/50 :-(
Fingers crossed you do better than that!
-
Thanks for checking
I'm quite prepared to take it to court if my insurance company are. I've spoken to a few people who have all agreed what she's claiming doesn't add up plus her partner told me they had a witness which they've never offered.
-
Just a quick updated (or rather lack there of) regarding this.
Both sides are still pushing 100% on the other side with no movement. I have been told that her car has been repaired with the their insurance company coughing up £349.40 towards the cost which they want back from me.
I've said I'm willing to go to court as I (possibly naively) believe that I can argue that had I been moving I would have fallen off.
Given the fairly low cost involved I'm expecting to pay any costs to avoid loosing no claims
Any advice on what I should do?
-
Can't really offer any help, but have just read all this and from the sounds of things it's 100% their fault for driving over a give way line into moving traffic. Hope you get it all sorted :)
-
I don't know if there's anything to be gained by calling the driver. Given the lies they made up at the start I'm inclined not to.
They guy I spoke to today didn't sound hopeful of a 100% but did give me the impression the split shouldn't be 50/50 as I was on the main road.
-
Iknow I've already mentioned this But worth adding to your argument the driver coming from the side road should be treating the offside of the car stopping for him as the new give way line and before committing to pull out from this new line should check way is clear both left and right. Would it be your fault had you been coming from the left.
-
I think I made that argument.
my side did sound a bit more keen when I mentioned there's a level crossing at the bottom of the road and I can turn off before that. This seemed to add weight to my point that I didn't go around a car that stopped to let someone out at a junction (as they were suggesting) but going past a line of already stationary traffic.
-
I think there hoping youll b ack down as if you lose you most likely have to pay for there costs as well ( check this) at least £175.00 an hour
is you insurance going to cover this ? I am amazed at this ! to me its clear cut 100% their fault
-
I've been told the sticky bit is that they are claiming I was overtaking at a junction.
As I haven't repaired by SR yet I'm not even sure I have a claim against them, this just seems to be for their damage.
-
Given the fairly low cost involved I'm expecting to pay any costs to avoid loosing no claims
No claims isn't all that. Go on one of the comparison sites and fill it in with the claim. Try with and without NCB and see what difference it makes.
-
I am amazed at this ! to me its clear cut 100% their fault
Just playing devil's advocaat, but there's probably a car forum somewhere saying its 100% the bikes fault for riding into them.
The problem is its your word against there's, and taking this to court would require some evidence to sway in your favour. Without any it comes down to who can afford the better legal team unfortunately.
Don't wish to sound negative, just be realistic in how the incident is viewed by those who weren't there.
This is a good example of why I now always ride with a helmet camera on. Might look a tad daft but any incidents like this and you have your proof.
Hope it goes ok for you though.
-
it comes down to who can afford the better legal team unfortunately
as much as it pains me I do feel your right
-
it comes down to who can afford the better legal team unfortunately
as much as it pains me I do feel your right
I think you will be right, or if not which legal team would back down first. I don't think my side would take it to court though.
with the 125 I'm planning to keep for bad knee days/heavy traffic it doesn't seem to matter. It added £100 for the fazer and silly amounts for car policies that are bothered by bike claims.
when I contacted the police to see if I needed to report it the lady mentioned there'd been cases where people had thought they'd been let out then have someone crash into them as a scam which has put recent emphasis on it being the responsibility of the car emerging to ensure it's safe.
If it did go to court I think it would be easy to get an anti biker person who sees it as a bike overtaking at a junction or someone who believes I would have come off had I been moving and the damage is inconsistent with their story. Clearly someone at the insurance company reviewed the detailed and changed from saying 50/50 to 100% in my favor (and said the trend is getting better for bikers in such cases )
-
I had a similar incident about ten years back... passing a stationary queue of traffic, a car stopped to let a car out from a side turning on the right, I slowed right down and when I was alongside the car at the front decided the driver of the car in the side turning wasn't about to emerge since she'd had ample time to a) see me and b) start her manoeuvre. At which point she accelerated out across the road.
We came to a halt simultaneously, with my radiator wrecked by her front wing. >:
Despite having priority and being on my side of the road I gave up on claiming it was entirely her fault since I had been overtaking at a junction and had no witnesses. So in the end it went 50:50.
Oddly, she claimed I'd been overtaking up the inside (in the cycle lane)... I never figured out whether she concocted that story as an excuse as to why she couldn't see me, or if she genuinely thought that was what had happened. :rolleyes
-
Had I not come to a complete stop with my foot down I'd have taken 50/50
Even had they not lied to me when I called them I'd have just suggested we live with cosmetic damage and bought a second hand disc.
If they had offered 70/30 on the basis that I may not have stopped in line with the car that had left the gap I'd have accepted this but that's not on the table and I'm unwilling to suggest that as it may be seen as me cracking first.
On the bright side it encouraged me to post here and I've learnt a lot, not just in this thread but about biking in general and the lovely FZS600
-
It sounds as though you have a more solid case than I did (and perhaps I should have stuck to my guns and taken mine further)... so good luck, I hope it is resolved in your favour.
-
Don't forget that solicitors are instructed by you!
They can advise what they believe will be the outcome based on previous cases going to court, they may advise you that you might lose by taking it to court-
However, it is still your choice on how to proceed, they are instructed by you and you alone!
-
Got an update today.
I came home and found a letter 70:30 in my favor. I'm a bit annoyed about not been given a choice.
Given the bike is worth so little repairing this with new parts would in all likelihood write it off (got a quote for £140 for the disc plus VAT plus pads and an hours labor). The plan is to use it as a cheap run around. Second hand disc plus new pads will be about £60
It's a rusty SR125 with about 28,000 on the clock.
-
That's good news, isn't it? how do you mean you didn't get a choice?
-
sorry I meant choice of accepting this as I rejected the 50:50 suggestion.
-
You can still tell them to fec off.
-
try giving white and dalton solicitors a ring mate - they're motorcycle specifics and might well be able to advise on this. There have been a number of new cases relatively recently which can be used as examples of case law, basically the onus has been changed so that if you're not riding without due care, or speed unacceptable to the circumstances then filtering is fine - as such as it is the car driver that has to ensure it's clear for her to pull out onto the main road
-
Harding v Hinchcliffe, 1964 - Moving motorcyclist overtakes bus on B-road going past junction to minor road, bus was indiciating to turn left into junction. Motorcyclist collides with car pulling out, turning right. Car 100% at fault, as should have checked to make sure the road was clear
Clark v Windchurch, 1969. Very similar case to yours, with the motorcyclist being found entirely at fault, however this case differs on key point - the moped driver hit the front bonner of the car, which showed the car was crawling out slowly - as you hit the side, clearly the car pulled out too fast without checking properly
From what you have said, I think you should be looking at 100% in your favour, maybe settling for 80-20.
Filtering is legal, you were not undertaking. As such, the onus is entirely on the car driver to make sure the road is clear before pulling out. Even if a car has stopped for her, there is no law in the UK that means that she now has right of way, she must check to make sure the road is clear, and as you were there and she didn't see you, that's clearly her fault.
However, you need to be able to prove you were not going too fast to be able to stop in time. I think what I would likely argue is that based (perhaps on the Clark - Windchurch case?) that as you hit the side of her car, but causing very limited damage, she clearly did not "edge" out but came out fast without checking the road was clear, and that you clearly could not have been travelling at a very high speed else you would have caused considerably more damage?
Seriously though, I'd ring White and Dalton - I've seen them win dozens of cases over the years that other solicitors would have just backed down on through not knowing road law, and motorcycle specifics!
-
Much more recent - beasley vs alexander, 2012. car performed a u turn out of statiionery traffic, overtaking motorcyclist hit him. Car driver found 100% to blame, as he had failed to ensure it was clear before making his manouvre. As the motorcyclist could not have stopped in time then the motorcyclist was in no way negligent.
-
That happened the Exup a few years back as well - some one doing a U-turn without looking
-
I have spoken to Hasting
The 70:30 is final and after a bit of checking they (as the insurers of the car driver rather than my own) will arrange for an assessment of my bike to approve repairs. Really I might be best if the bike is written off and then buy it off them and repair with second hand parts.
-
my take on this is twofold
firstly, it appears to me that all case law isn't worth the paper its written on as the judge on the day makes the call, hence the differing opinions when A gets away with it but B has to go 50/50 or except 100% liability
I posted on here last year how my lad had a bump whilst coming out of a side road onto a main road in his car after someone had "let him out"
a car travelling down the outside of the traffic passed my lad and he gently nudged their vehicle side and a bit of plastic trim fell off their van, no damage at all not even paint to my lads car
they went away and then done the whipcash claim
our insurers said my lad was at fault for pulling out from a side to a main road, same advice given to me by the cop on my advanced course but strangely, the loss adjuster/accident claims man for the insurance quoted case law where my lad was not wrong as the judge had blamed the other driver (see point one above)
my insurance said that as there were 2 in the van then the first one who claimed (van driver, had a witness......his passenger)
I got my car looked over by our insurance and they said there was damage underneath (not on show, we argued it could've been there before we bought the car as you couldn't see anything with the untrained eye) we got a certificate to say there was no frontal damage from the scrap yard
You can overtake in the zigzags and you can overtake in a hatched area with a broken surrounding line but not one with a solid surrounding line
my lad saw the insurance barrister/QC as we would not accept any liability but the insurance eventually said you take 50/50 or argue it in court on your own and pay the costs if you lose
they were happy to pay out 50/50 incase they lost in court and had to pay out 100%.........their words to us so its not about who's right and who's wrong.......its about saving money and edging their bets in the world of insurance
the whole episode made me sick
as others have said, good luck with it and get a specialist bike firm to look at it before you commit to anything
-
It's only final if you accept it. DO NOT PAY THE CHEQUE IN!!!!
-
Whenn I spoke to my insurance company I mentioned I'd contacted the police and been told something along the lines of drivers on the main roads have right of way and the onus is on the car coming out to make sure it's clear.
The insurance said police aren't the ones who decide who's at fault. Everything I've read seems to say the biker should be ready to stop, what's annoying me is that I did but can't proove it.
you can always say you were READY to stop.......if you didnt come to a full stop to avoid the accident, thats a completely different scenario. (only read 2 pages so dont know if someone else pointed that out.
im with others - carpulling out MUST give right of way - sounds like she didnt even bother looking right