advice on crash responsibility

[Punkstig]

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!

[AndyL]

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.

[fazersharp]

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

[BBROWN1664]

50/50 at best I would say

[Punkstig]

[quote author=Punkstig link=topic=11525.msg124260#msg124260 date=1391155237]
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
[/quote]
Rule 191

I was the only one to know this on the bikesafe day (apart from the coppers running it obviously!)

[midden]

[quote author=Punkstig link=topic=11525.msg124260#msg124260 date=1391155237]
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
[/quote]
Is that on same basis as solid white lines where bikes can overtake as long as don't cross or straddle the line?

[Punkstig]

[quote author=fazersharp link=topic=11525.msg124267#msg124267 date=1391157057]
[quote author=Punkstig link=topic=11525.msg124260#msg124260 date=1391155237]
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
[/quote]
Is that on same basis as solid white lines where bikes can overtake as long as don't cross or straddle the line?
[/quote]
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!

[nick crisp]

If a car stops on the main road, to let someone pull out, does that actually give the driver pulling out right of way?

[Hamos]

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.

[nick crisp]

So could be an argument to get the claim more in OPs favour?

[AndyL]

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.

[codgie]

But was your ride on time?

hes much too young to get that lol :lol :lol :lol

[midden]

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.

[nick crisp]

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.

[midden]

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

[nick crisp]

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.

[AndyL]

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.

[nick crisp]

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?

[AndyL]

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. 

[Grahamm]

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