What's the worst that could happen....uninsured biker..
Discussion
So this is a semi hypothetical question about a mate of a mate.
Scenario is thus.
- Biker filtering safely down middle of very slow moving dual carriageway traffic leading up to a r'bout.
- Car pulls from left lane into right lane without checking mirrors
- Bike impacts offside of car
- Biker goes over the roof and sustains severe injuries to lower limbs, not life threatening but serious trauma.
The fualt appears to lie with the driver for the accident.
The complication lies in the fact the biker was riding on a CBT licence and this expired last week. What implications does this have for any liabilities for fixing the cars/bikes/compensation for injuries etc.
It would be great if we only posted objective replies too...I and everyone else knows the biker is a tool for not realising the CBT had lapsed, given the state of the poor bugger you can't help but feel for him.
Scenario is thus.
- Biker filtering safely down middle of very slow moving dual carriageway traffic leading up to a r'bout.
- Car pulls from left lane into right lane without checking mirrors
- Bike impacts offside of car
- Biker goes over the roof and sustains severe injuries to lower limbs, not life threatening but serious trauma.
The fualt appears to lie with the driver for the accident.
The complication lies in the fact the biker was riding on a CBT licence and this expired last week. What implications does this have for any liabilities for fixing the cars/bikes/compensation for injuries etc.
It would be great if we only posted objective replies too...I and everyone else knows the biker is a tool for not realising the CBT had lapsed, given the state of the poor bugger you can't help but feel for him.
We did this a while back in Biker Banter I think...
IIRC the insurance status of the drivers involved and the blame for the accident are separate issues
If the driver of the car was 100% at fault his insurance would pay out regardless of whether the rider even had insurance - seems mad but that was the consensus...
The police, however, may take a more proactive interest in the rider's status...
IIRC the insurance status of the drivers involved and the blame for the accident are separate issues
If the driver of the car was 100% at fault his insurance would pay out regardless of whether the rider even had insurance - seems mad but that was the consensus...
The police, however, may take a more proactive interest in the rider's status...
Wether the biker was insured would depend on the terms of his policy, but the majority of policies specify that they're valid provided the driver/rider "holds, or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a valid licence", or a similar form of words. In which case he would be covered in spite of the fact that his CBT had lapsed as he had held a valid licence, and was not disqualified from holding one.
In any event if the driver was 100% to blame for the accident, the rider's own licence and insurance status are irrelevant, as far as civil liability goes at least, as his lack of insurance didn't cause the accident. Things would only get messy if he was partially to blame himself. It's the same if you drive into the back of someone at traffic lights and that someone turns out to be drunk - he gets banned for drunk driving, but you (or your insurer) still have to pay for the damage to his car, and any injuries he suffered.
In any event if the driver was 100% to blame for the accident, the rider's own licence and insurance status are irrelevant, as far as civil liability goes at least, as his lack of insurance didn't cause the accident. Things would only get messy if he was partially to blame himself. It's the same if you drive into the back of someone at traffic lights and that someone turns out to be drunk - he gets banned for drunk driving, but you (or your insurer) still have to pay for the damage to his car, and any injuries he suffered.
Aretnap said:
Wether the biker was insured would depend on the terms of his policy, but the majority of policies specify that they're valid provided the driver/rider "holds, or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a valid licence", or a similar form of words. In which case he would be covered in spite of the fact that his CBT had lapsed as he had held a valid licence, and was not disqualified from holding one.
This generally only applies to RTA cover not own damageSV8Predator said:
Yeah, but no, but yeah....
Dave S13 is feeling very sore and wants compensation for injuries etc.
Lol... Absolutely not me... I've got a full licence used to ride a blackbird but packed in biking a few years ago, one of the reasons being I like my pelvis to line up. Dave S13 is feeling very sore and wants compensation for injuries etc.
Thanks for the interesting replies anyway.
The answers have pretty well already been given.
If the bike rider is 100% not at fault then the lack of licence and potentially insurance won't matter. If the rider is found to be partially at fault then any payout will be reduced accordingly.
Plod may take an interest in his licence status, but that's a separate issue
If the bike rider is 100% not at fault then the lack of licence and potentially insurance won't matter. If the rider is found to be partially at fault then any payout will be reduced accordingly.
Plod may take an interest in his licence status, but that's a separate issue
dave_s13 said:
The complication lies in the fact the biker was riding on a CBT licence and this expired last week. What implications does this have for any liabilities for fixing the cars/bikes/compensation for injuries etc.
It would be great if we only posted objective replies too...I and everyone else knows the biker is a tool for not realising the CBT had lapsed, given the state of the poor bugger you can't help but feel for him.
Cbt doesn't expire if a car test is passed whilst it is still valid, or atleast didn't under the old rules, dl196? Cert needs to be kept thoughIt would be great if we only posted objective replies too...I and everyone else knows the biker is a tool for not realising the CBT had lapsed, given the state of the poor bugger you can't help but feel for him.
LoonR1 said:
The answers have pretty well already been given.
If the bike rider is 100% not at fault then the lack of licence and potentially insurance won't matter. If the rider is found to be partially at fault then any payout will be reduced accordingly.
Plod may take an interest in his licence status, but that's a separate issue
I would say the Biker is 100% at fault as he shouldn't have been on the rd, If he was insured my view would probably be 100% opposite. If the bike rider is 100% not at fault then the lack of licence and potentially insurance won't matter. If the rider is found to be partially at fault then any payout will be reduced accordingly.
Plod may take an interest in his licence status, but that's a separate issue
Vipers said:
Are you supposed to be filtering in moving traffic?
A lot of cars have blind spots as well, which doesn't help matters.
Filtering in moving traffic is perfectly legal. That's what plod told me on a bikesafe course.A lot of cars have blind spots as well, which doesn't help matters.
Turns out is was a single carriageway of slow moving traffic at a rush hour bottleneck, not a dual carriageway.Car driver decided not to wait and pulled and abrupt "U" turn right in front of the biker. 100% driver at fault I would have thought.
Edited by dave_s13 on Sunday 25th May 21:09
dave_s13 said:
Car driver decided not to wait and pulled and abrupt "U" turn right in front of the biker. 100% driver at fault I would have thought.
Unless Davis vs. Shroegin (sp?) has been superseded, provided the rider had no time to reasonably avoid the car then yes, 100% driver's faultLoonR1 said:
the_lone_wolf said:
Unless Davis vs. Shroegin (sp?) has been superseded, provided the rider had no time to reasonably avoid the car then yes, 100% driver's fault
Do you seriously think that D vs S has any bearing or similarity on this case? 
Appreciate you are the insurance guru though :-)
LoonR1 said:
the_lone_wolf said:
Unless Davis vs. Shroegin (sp?) has been superseded, provided the rider had no time to reasonably avoid the car then yes, 100% driver's fault
Do you seriously think that D vs S has any bearing or similarity on this case? I usually have a lot of time for what you have to say on here, perhaps read the whole thread before you start throwing these around? -->
the_lone_wolf said:
I've not looked it up, I thought D vs. S was a case almost exactly like the one the OP described later in the thread, the original post being mistaken obviously and the actual incident involving a driver making a u-turn from a single queue of traffic into the path of a motorcycle filtering past on the offside...
I usually have a lot of time for what you have to say on here, perhaps read the whole thread before you start throwing these around? -->
I usually have a lot of time for what you have to say on here, perhaps read the whole thread before you start throwing these around? -->
dave_s13 said:
On the face of it it looks similar?? I've only skim read the 1st few paragraphs though.. Busy watching telly and drinking wine.
Appreciate you are the insurance guru though :-)
D vs S is completely different.Appreciate you are the insurance guru though :-)
Filtering on the outside of one lane of traffic, not between two moving in the same direction
No U turn, just a move between lanes
D vs S summation also highlighted the individuality of crashes and that the circumstances of this crash were very specific.
Bikers are too ready to throw this case around and it's rarely to their advantage to do so.
dave_s13 said:
Filtering in moving traffic is perfectly legal. That's what plod told me on a bikesafe course.
Turns out is was a single carriageway of slow moving traffic at a rush hour bottleneck, not a dual carriageway.Car driver decided not to wait and pulled and abrupt "U" turn right in front of the biker. 100% driver at fault I would have thought.
Filtering fast enough to get thrown over the car? I'm not sure that's a good thing.Turns out is was a single carriageway of slow moving traffic at a rush hour bottleneck, not a dual carriageway.Car driver decided not to wait and pulled and abrupt "U" turn right in front of the biker. 100% driver at fault I would have thought.
Edited by dave_s13 on Sunday 25th May 21:09
Another case of being right and dead. If you are filtering through, or past stationary traffic, and are going fast enough to "be thrown", then it matters not whether you are allowed to do what you did.
The other day in a traffic jam, I watch a BMW driver indicate for about 3 mins to pull into the left lane, so I left a gap, and as he moved a biker, and his passenger came through the gap, but luckily managed to brake hard enough to stop within mm of the back of the BMW, and then, (and this is what I don't understand), the rider had a go at the BMW driver. I estimate he was doing 25 mph through stationary traffic, so quite frankly If he'd have come off, it would have been his own fault.
I'm not saying that it is the same in this case, but you need to ride a bike assuming the worst of everyone around you.
The other day in a traffic jam, I watch a BMW driver indicate for about 3 mins to pull into the left lane, so I left a gap, and as he moved a biker, and his passenger came through the gap, but luckily managed to brake hard enough to stop within mm of the back of the BMW, and then, (and this is what I don't understand), the rider had a go at the BMW driver. I estimate he was doing 25 mph through stationary traffic, so quite frankly If he'd have come off, it would have been his own fault.
I'm not saying that it is the same in this case, but you need to ride a bike assuming the worst of everyone around you.
LoonR1 said:
D vs S is completely different.
Filtering on the outside of one lane of traffic, not between two moving in the same direction
No U turn, just a move between lanes
D vs S summation also highlighted the individuality of crashes and that the circumstances of this crash were very specific.
FFS Loon - Read THIS post by the OP later in the thread:Filtering on the outside of one lane of traffic, not between two moving in the same direction
No U turn, just a move between lanes
D vs S summation also highlighted the individuality of crashes and that the circumstances of this crash were very specific.
dave_s13 said:
Turns out is was a single carriageway of slow moving traffic at a rush hour bottleneck, not a dual carriageway.Car driver decided not to wait and pulled and abrupt "U" turn right in front of the biker. 100% driver at fault I would have thought.
Flowers or chocolate with the apology, and pay more attention next time please 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff