advice on crash responsibility

[BBROWN1664]

You can still tell them to fec off.

[JoeRock]

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

[JoeRock]

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!

[JoeRock]

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.

[Dead Eye]

That happened the Exup a few years back as well - some one doing a U-turn without looking

[AndyL]

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.

[maddog04]

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

[BBROWN1664]

It's only final if you accept it. DO NOT PAY THE CHEQUE IN!!!!

[Lazarus]

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