30mph side on into a car
Discussion
30mph into the side of a car - I'd expect front wheel bent, forks bent/snapped etc all stuffed back into radiator, bent headstock, destroyed bodywork, rider in hospital.
(Not long since happened to a mate of mine and that's the speed, witnesses etc to hand - that's pretty well the damage. He had many boken bones).
(Not long since happened to a mate of mine and that's the speed, witnesses etc to hand - that's pretty well the damage. He had many boken bones).
rossonza said:
So, I've got a court case coming up soon and the guy that pulled out in front of me is claiming i was doing 30+ mph at point of impact.
How often would you say a biker and bike would come away without damage/personal injury from a crash at this speed?
I'd have thought i would have ended up over the bars, maybe broken legs if they caught the bars on the way over? and bike forks bent horrifically/dinged front wheel etc
Thanks
Unless the Police have specifically verified it, speed is often disregarded in vehicle collisions because the burden of proof is nearly always impossible to apportion.How often would you say a biker and bike would come away without damage/personal injury from a crash at this speed?
I'd have thought i would have ended up over the bars, maybe broken legs if they caught the bars on the way over? and bike forks bent horrifically/dinged front wheel etc
Thanks
Are there any independent witnesses to substantiate the other party's claims?
1. traveling on 40mph main road.
2. ahead of me is a queue of traffic on my side of the road (they were all stopped due to the pedestrian controlled traffic lights had been pressed and pedestrians were crossing)
3. I slow down (due to the traffic build up and red lights ahead of me)
4. i begin to filter passed the traffic towards the pedestrian controlled lights. (down to 15mph by now)
5. see car approach junction to my left, and cover brakes.
6. as im about to go past the closest car to the junction on the left (there was a gap between the first cars in the queue for the lights and the car im just about to pass) the driver pulls out directly across my path (be it at an angle shown in the 2nd photo below)
7. i hit the side of the car (at an angle due to his angle)
8. bike drops on floor, i stay standing.
9. push my bike over to the side of the road, exchange details. witness comes over and gives details to myself and the other driver. Continue my ride to work on my motorcycle.
10. witness has sided with the other driver claiming my speed was the cause of the accident.
Sorry if im not explaining this well, see below:
top view
Angle of road
Damage
2. ahead of me is a queue of traffic on my side of the road (they were all stopped due to the pedestrian controlled traffic lights had been pressed and pedestrians were crossing)
3. I slow down (due to the traffic build up and red lights ahead of me)
4. i begin to filter passed the traffic towards the pedestrian controlled lights. (down to 15mph by now)
5. see car approach junction to my left, and cover brakes.
6. as im about to go past the closest car to the junction on the left (there was a gap between the first cars in the queue for the lights and the car im just about to pass) the driver pulls out directly across my path (be it at an angle shown in the 2nd photo below)
7. i hit the side of the car (at an angle due to his angle)
8. bike drops on floor, i stay standing.
9. push my bike over to the side of the road, exchange details. witness comes over and gives details to myself and the other driver. Continue my ride to work on my motorcycle.
10. witness has sided with the other driver claiming my speed was the cause of the accident.
Sorry if im not explaining this well, see below:
top view
Angle of road
Damage
Yes, a camera will be purchased when i get my next bike up and running. purely for situations like this. I had actually only recently got a cheap camera from ebay a couple of weeks before. However i had taken my driving test that morning (passed with 2 minors) and decided not to bother strapping it to my helmet.
My insurers decided the crash I was in was my fault as the other guy had a witless (typo intentional) who said it was his opinion that I was speeding. Although both admitted I'd stopped for a crossing when the car hit me.
The insurers said they weren't prepared to go to court over it as his one witness would count for more than anything I could produce.
So I hope the judge likes you.
Luckily I had fully comp. so they had to buy me a new bike (probably cheaper for them than paying solicitors) but I could have been out of pocket by thousands if not.
The insurers said they weren't prepared to go to court over it as his one witness would count for more than anything I could produce.
So I hope the judge likes you.
Luckily I had fully comp. so they had to buy me a new bike (probably cheaper for them than paying solicitors) but I could have been out of pocket by thousands if not.
Someone did a u-turn in front of me and i hit them side on at approx 25mph.
The bike was written off, headlights smashed, forks bent, front fairing cracked in 2 places and the front wheel buckled.
I came off a bit better but not much, fractured wrist, badly swollen ankle and balls the size of watermelons!
Police were on scene and identified the car driver to be at fault, had the bike recovered (i was off to hospital strapped to a spinal board!) and ironically later gave me a fine for an illegal number plate
The bike was written off, headlights smashed, forks bent, front fairing cracked in 2 places and the front wheel buckled.
I came off a bit better but not much, fractured wrist, badly swollen ankle and balls the size of watermelons!
Police were on scene and identified the car driver to be at fault, had the bike recovered (i was off to hospital strapped to a spinal board!) and ironically later gave me a fine for an illegal number plate
I should add my accident happened outside a main city hospital at a bus stop at 5pm...no shortage of witnesses and medical support for me!
The first person that came to my aid was a surgeon quickly followed by a bike riding off duty policeman and a selection of people of medical professions. In hindsight it was a good place to crash if there is such a thing!
The first person that came to my aid was a surgeon quickly followed by a bike riding off duty policeman and a selection of people of medical professions. In hindsight it was a good place to crash if there is such a thing!
Put simply. You're f
ked.
Accidents like that aare a miefield and probably go 50/50 most of the time. The presence of an independent witness will leave you screwed, although speed alone won't do it. Few people can accurately assess speed. Their statement that they see you at fault though is what will screw you.
Are you doing this on your own? Where is your insurer? If you've not got your insurer involved and it's going to court then you're really fking things up for yourself.
ked.Accidents like that aare a miefield and probably go 50/50 most of the time. The presence of an independent witness will leave you screwed, although speed alone won't do it. Few people can accurately assess speed. Their statement that they see you at fault though is what will screw you.
Are you doing this on your own? Where is your insurer? If you've not got your insurer involved and it's going to court then you're really f
king things up for yourself.The speed comment is irrelevant.
The witness's opinion on speed doesn't matter, as it's easily discounted. What does matter is the witness's view as to who was at fault. As they see it as the OP's fault, then it's game, set and match to the car driver. Courts will nearly always follow an independent witness's version of events and liabilty assessment as they have nothing to gain or lose from the outcome. It is that simple.
The witness's opinion on speed doesn't matter, as it's easily discounted. What does matter is the witness's view as to who was at fault. As they see it as the OP's fault, then it's game, set and match to the car driver. Courts will nearly always follow an independent witness's version of events and liabilty assessment as they have nothing to gain or lose from the outcome. It is that simple.
Loon,
there's issues with the witness statements from the witness and the claimant which are substantial to say the least.
this is all being done through my insurers lawyers.
but if they are saying it was due to speed, which you've mentioned cant be measured easily then how can that be me "f**ked"
EDIT: OK that explains it. I just wonder why my insurance are chancing court if its so easily clear cut
there's issues with the witness statements from the witness and the claimant which are substantial to say the least.
this is all being done through my insurers lawyers.
but if they are saying it was due to speed, which you've mentioned cant be measured easily then how can that be me "f**ked"
EDIT: OK that explains it. I just wonder why my insurance are chancing court if its so easily clear cut
outnumbered. Not a clue. they just asked if i was willing to go (its only a small amount for repairs (~3k) and no personal injury.
Perhaps my insurers think the complete opposite to loon. I still feel i am completely in the right, but i think most people involved in accidents always try to place blame on the other people involved.
Perhaps my insurers think the complete opposite to loon. I still feel i am completely in the right, but i think most people involved in accidents always try to place blame on the other people involved.
rossonza said:
Loon,
there's issues with the witness statements from the witness and the claimant which are substantial to say the least.
this is all being done through my insurers lawyers.
but if they are saying it was due to speed, which you've mentioned cant be measured easily then how can that be me "f**ked"
EDIT: OK that explains it. I just wonder why my insurance are chancing court if its so easily clear cut
Because they'll be hoping for a 50/50 outcome, rather than the full 100% against them that the other side want. It's a gamble and in all honesty a weird one given the damage is so small, unless it's a Bugatti Veyron you went into.there's issues with the witness statements from the witness and the claimant which are substantial to say the least.
this is all being done through my insurers lawyers.
but if they are saying it was due to speed, which you've mentioned cant be measured easily then how can that be me "f**ked"
EDIT: OK that explains it. I just wonder why my insurance are chancing court if its so easily clear cut
rossonza said:
Thanks Loon, Appreciate the input
Nightmare, I too had this.It came down to the road markings.
You are not allowed to filter past a road junction unless it is clear to do so.
In my case it came down to whether a continuoue yellow line crossed the entry road. If not it is classed as a road junction.
So although this seems unfair op, if yours was argued anything like mine you are going to be held to blame. Probably 50:50 possibly 100%
LoonR1 said:
What does matter is the witness's view as to who was at fault. As they see it as the OP's fault, then it's game, set and match to the car driver. Courts will nearly always follow an independent witness's version of events and liabilty assessment as they have nothing to gain or lose from the outcome.
What sort of tit f**king legal system do we have if the 'opinion' of some one carries such weight? A s**t one, obviously.If I was found at fault based on some toad's opinion I'd be absolutely furious.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff