Injured in motorcycle accident. police dont seem to Care.
Discussion
Due to being a massive pedant...
BURDEN of proof refers to who has to do the proving.
STANDARD of proof relates to whether it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal cases) or 'on the balance of probabilities' (civil ones) that is required.
Pedantry over!
Police in this case probably thinking that, without independent evidence, the car driver could allege motorcyclist was going very fast/not looking where they ought to/maliciously opportunistic and it would be difficult to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
These allegations could rear their head in a civil case, whether it affevlcts anything depends on whether insurers wish to contest and, if so, what the court believes happened (on balance of probabilities...)
BURDEN of proof refers to who has to do the proving.
STANDARD of proof relates to whether it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal cases) or 'on the balance of probabilities' (civil ones) that is required.
Pedantry over!
Police in this case probably thinking that, without independent evidence, the car driver could allege motorcyclist was going very fast/not looking where they ought to/maliciously opportunistic and it would be difficult to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
These allegations could rear their head in a civil case, whether it affevlcts anything depends on whether insurers wish to contest and, if so, what the court believes happened (on balance of probabilities...)
The number of cars in this pic parked facing oncoming traffic on their side of the road is mind boggling.
All of them accidents waiting to happen when they pull out.
A lethal combination of a sat nav obscuring forward vision in the blue VW and the atrocious postioning of the silver one.
The latter is not far short of committing an offence due to its distance from the kerb.
All of them accidents waiting to happen when they pull out.
A lethal combination of a sat nav obscuring forward vision in the blue VW and the atrocious postioning of the silver one.
The latter is not far short of committing an offence due to its distance from the kerb.
fred bloggs said:
...can I take this further as well?
Contact White Dalton http://www.whitedalton.co.uk/I had a modest bike accident in 2007, I tried dealing with the council who were to blame but got no where. White Dalton on a no-win-no-fee basis got the whole thing resolved and were absolutely brilliant. No bulls
t, they're not ambulance chasers, they will ensure you are properly compensated for loss of earnings if the accident wasn't your fault etc. They are very positive and will really fight your corner for you - this is what they do full time.Don't worry about the other driver, it's not relevant - get yourself sorted.
Also if you stayed in the middle of the road the collision may have been avoided judging by the persons car?
If she came out slowly, which I assume would be the case given how tight the parking spot is, I'm surprised you were unable to veer to the right.
Further the car in front of the car you collided with didn't help by being parked so out from the kerb.
Just playing devil advocate - get your money, move on and think more about defensive driving.
If she came out slowly, which I assume would be the case given how tight the parking spot is, I'm surprised you were unable to veer to the right.
Further the car in front of the car you collided with didn't help by being parked so out from the kerb.
Just playing devil advocate - get your money, move on and think more about defensive driving.
I think it likely the car has rolled back to that position after the crash which could have occurred in the centre of the road. The bike has barely slid along the road so I can't think the OP was going very fast. If the very badly parked VW was there when she pulled out then I think that car had a lot more to do with it than the sat-nav.
herewego said:
I think it likely the car has rolled back to that position after the crash which could have occurred in the centre of the road.
The debris position suggests that the Golf stopped very quickly after the collision, and hasn't moved since. Looking at that lower grille/front bumper section, it may well have been stationary at the moment of impact.herewego said:
If the very badly parked VW was there when she pulled out then I think that car had a lot more to do with it than the sat-nav.
I assume you mean the silver Polo? The one that's not there in most pictures, and has the left indicator (hazard lights?) on in the one picture it does appear in?If the Polo WAS there, then the bike was DEFINITELY far too close to the parked vehicles.
Centurion07 said:
BigLion said:
unable to veer to the right.
I know the satnav has been mentioned but is that it, next to the massive yellow thing dangling from the mirror? If so she wouldn't have been able to see a bus coming down the road, nevermind a motorbike, no matter how slowly she edged out.
It's not driving without due care or attention, or dangerous driving. It's an accident.
Just simply someone navigating out of a parking space at the wrong place and time, whereby they met OP coming the other way - they nosed out to much, to quickly, and were not able to see down the line of parked cars (or through the parked cars).
We could argue the fact that they were parked on the wrong side of the road - but come-on that that would be a considerable step change in policing, and enforcement, not to mention the public outcry.
The vast majority of us do this very regularly, and try and much as possible to edge out slowly with enough warning to others (lights, indicators etc).
The police have opted to not pursue it because it will be a nightmare to a) prosecute b) prove what happened b) enforce going forwards.
Take it civil OP, but you have to prove negligence of the other driver.
Just simply someone navigating out of a parking space at the wrong place and time, whereby they met OP coming the other way - they nosed out to much, to quickly, and were not able to see down the line of parked cars (or through the parked cars).
We could argue the fact that they were parked on the wrong side of the road - but come-on that that would be a considerable step change in policing, and enforcement, not to mention the public outcry.
The vast majority of us do this very regularly, and try and much as possible to edge out slowly with enough warning to others (lights, indicators etc).
The police have opted to not pursue it because it will be a nightmare to a) prosecute b) prove what happened b) enforce going forwards.
Take it civil OP, but you have to prove negligence of the other driver.
BigLion said:
Also if you stayed in the middle of the road the collision may have been avoided judging by the persons car?
If she came out slowly, which I assume would be the case given how tight the parking spot is, I'm surprised you were unable to veer to the right.
Further the car in front of the car you collided with didn't help by being parked so out from the kerb.
Just playing devil advocate - get your money, move on and think more about defensive driving.
I was taught to keep to the middle of the road where vehicles were parked either side. I was also taught to look for exhaust 'smoke' and to check every car to see if it had a driver.If she came out slowly, which I assume would be the case given how tight the parking spot is, I'm surprised you were unable to veer to the right.
Further the car in front of the car you collided with didn't help by being parked so out from the kerb.
Just playing devil advocate - get your money, move on and think more about defensive driving.
The accident is not the rider's fault. He/she is the innocent party in this matter, but they probably don't want the same thing to happen again.
fred bloggs said:
1. Motorcycle barely does 40 mph top speed
2. This is lambeth. 20 Mph limit on that road.
3. Just behind the badly parked polo is a speed bump.
As I said. I had no chance to brake or swerve. Maybee she looked, but only for something large. Then she moved out of the spot fast.
Was that Polo there when she pulled out, or was there another car there? Otherwise I don't know why she would pull out at such a sharp angle.2. This is lambeth. 20 Mph limit on that road.
3. Just behind the badly parked polo is a speed bump.
As I said. I had no chance to brake or swerve. Maybee she looked, but only for something large. Then she moved out of the spot fast.
Yes,the polo was there at the time of the accident.
I'll need the owner of the golf to admit she left the car there overnight.I beleive she was getting in the car to goto work,as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
I'll need the owner of the golf to admit she left the car there overnight.I beleive she was getting in the car to goto work,as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
fred bloggs said:
I'll need the owner of the golf to admit she left the car there overnight.I beleive she was getting in the car to goto work,as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
Seriously?Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
fred bloggs said:
Yes,the polo was there at the time of the accident.
I'll need the owner of the golf to admit she left the car there overnight.I beleive she was getting in the car to goto work,as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
What's that admission going to do to help you?I'll need the owner of the golf to admit she left the car there overnight.I beleive she was getting in the car to goto work,as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
fred bloggs said:
Yes,the Polo was there at the time of the accident.
I'll need the owner of the Golf to admit she left the car there overnight. I believe she was getting in the car to go to work, as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
It doesn't help you that the third party broke the law, what could help is getting the witness statement.I'll need the owner of the Golf to admit she left the car there overnight. I believe she was getting in the car to go to work, as it happened at 09.20. Then its easy
Highway code Rule 248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.
Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff