advice/help needed reg. motorbike crash

advice/help needed reg. motorbike crash

Author
Discussion

smiffyraf1

Original Poster:

30 posts

164 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
hi guys
this is going to be a long one im afraid.
i know that some of you are aware i recently (5/5/14) had an accident on the ducati monster. the details briefly were i was overtaking a car by using the lane separators (diagonal white lines) still well within the speed limit and as i approached the car it suddenly and without indication moved in front of me on to the diag white lines and braked hard at the same time with what i view was the intention of turning into an un signposted farm entrance (that has a closed gate at the end to stop people driving down)i point this out as i realise if this was a junction signposted or otherwise it would not be an ideal overtaking point. This manouver caused me to impact the rear of the car and cartwheel down the road as i obviously had no time to brake or react.
i realise this wasnt an open and shut case but the impression i got from the police and family and friends was that i would not be found to blame.
now in the past few days i have received email saying the prosecution has elected rather than prosecute me for careless/dangerous driving to offer me a driver awareness course! obviously i am furious about this. and have spent a much time making sure i was in the right. pointing the officer to the relevant sections of the highway code i:e:

Highway Code 130: Areas of white diagonal stripes...If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

I'd say it's necessary to enter the hatched area in order to pass traffic as i ensured it was safe to do so. It's one of those grey areas in road law. The use of the word 'should not' instead of 'MUST NOT' means the rule is question is advisory, not law.

On the other hand, the car driver did not heed these:

HC 144: You MUST NOT -
drive dangerously
drive without due care and attention
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

HC 147: Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care. You should -
try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

HC 151: In slow-moving traffic. You should -
reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow
never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely.
leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past.
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

HC 160: Once moving you should -
be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room...

HC 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

anyway skip to the point. what should i do? fight it take it on the chin?
im stumped
thanks
smiffy

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
What does your solicitor say?

If you don't have one, get one. Then consider their advice.

Despite your best attempts to explain the point in hand it is far more complex than can be covered here and there are potential implications regarding any civil claim that may be in the offing.


UpTheIron

3,992 posts

267 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
From what you write, this is not about blame but instead a potential charge of careless driving. I am sure many would argue that is was not necessary to enter the hatched area, and that you should not have attempted the overtake. You don't give any indication of the speed of the other vehicle but a) if it was doing a reasonable speed you should have stayed behind and b) if it was crawling you should have anticipated the turn.

Possibly the other party has received similar, as it would appear they failed to check it was safe to begin their turn.

What does your insurance company / solicitor say?

IMHO, take it on the chin - I'd rather not be fighting a dangerous or careless charge.

Edited to add: As posted above, this needs to be considered in the bigger picture, not just the charge/course but the overall blame for the coming together etc.

smiffyraf1

Original Poster:

30 posts

164 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
it had just passed from a 40 to NSL about 100 meters before as the vehicle didnt speed up i elected to overtake and at the time was approx doing 55. i would never normally have used hatched areas as i always (wrongly) assumed it was illegal to do so. it was only after doing a bike safe course with lincoln police i was actively encouraged to use these areas and told you are legally allowed to do so.

Edited by smiffyraf1 on Tuesday 19th August 14:03

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Do you know what action (if any) the Police are taking against the car driver? Potentially you could both be prosecuted.

Were there any independent witnesses?

Entirely playing devil's advocate, the car driver may allege you suddenly chose to overtake despite his pre-existing right turn signal and after his mirror checks (when you were safely tucked in behind), and did so so quickly that a careful and competent driver would not be expected to see you and take appropriate avoiding action. He may argue you entered the hatchings when it was not safe to do so, contrary to the Highway Code.

smiffyraf1

Original Poster:

30 posts

164 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
im not sure what the driver has been offered and am unsure of witnesses. i know there was a broken down motorcyclist who i had stopped to help not far from the accident and am sure he would have seen but this is pretty much the first i have heard about it and have been in hospital since the accident due to my injuries.

joebongo

1,516 posts

174 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
IANAL but isn't it like a caution whereby taking the SAC is an admission of guilt?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
What are you worried about? The fact you're being offered a course, or that you think it may affect the outcome of the liability for the incident?

I know which one my money is on.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Plod advises use broken cross-hatch where all the debris likely to cause punctures collects?

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
What are you worried about? The fact you're being offered a course, or that you think it may affect the outcome of the liability for the incident?

I know which one my money is on.
From the description (and knowing that there are three sides to every story) I would not be surprised that they were concerned as to what effect this might have on a claim where a driver pulled into their path without signalling, etc.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
From the description (and knowing that there are three sides to every story) I would not be surprised that they were concerned as to what effect this might have on a claim where a driver pulled into their path without signalling, etc.
That's where my money is and that's a whole separate discussion.

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
That's where my money is and that's a whole separate discussion.
If it's true the police have attached criminal liability to the biker, it suggests the incident is not quite as clear cut as the OP describes. I imagine this might be the beginning of a lengthy civil argument before the dust's allowed to settle.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Unfortunately you choose to overtake in a potentially dangerous place, indicated by the broken lines. Suck it up and be glad you don't walk with a limp smile

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
tenpenceshort said:
If it's true the police have attached criminal liability to the biker, it suggests the incident is not quite as clear cut as the OP describes. I imagine this might be the beginning of a lengthy civil argument before the dust's allowed to settle.
That's where I'm coming from. He's hanging off the pedantic use of shouldn't vs must not. All the while trying to badge his overtake as necessary. Reality is that they'll probably both be being done and he's unlikely to see much, if any, reduction for contributory negligence.

smiffyraf1

Original Poster:

30 posts

164 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
wow genuinely surprised at all the douchebaggery on the forum.
was after advice not speculative based insults.
the reason i asked is as i believe, not through naivety or big headedness that i wasn't in the wrong and after being interviewed by police and told pretty much the same was surprised when i received an email to state otherwise.
I am reluctant to accept the course as feel as someone has said that it is an admission of guilt.
but as to an unnecessary overtake when is any overtake completely necessary and i guarantee everyone has done one. I agree that not the best place in the world to overtake but i had moved left to view any oncoming traffic and carried out all the safety checks before carrying out the manoeuvre.
im only going off what i've been told and what i've read but yes it was taught to use cross hatched areas go and speak to police motorcyclist if you do not trust me.
This wasnt a sportsbike and have never been interested in tearing round pi$$ing car drivers off with silly stunts. i was happy plodding along on my early duc monster which i had put a lot of time and effort in to make mint and only came out on sunny days unfortunately i think as soon as motorbike is mentioned people have pre conceptions.

aw51 121565

4,771 posts

232 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
smiffyraf1 said:
... the prosecution has elected rather than prosecute me for careless/dangerous driving to offer me a driver awareness course! obviously i am furious about this. and have spent a much time making sure i was in the right. pointing the officer to the relevant sections of the highway code i:e:

Highway Code 130: Areas of white diagonal stripes...If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

I'd say it's necessary to enter the hatched area in order to pass traffic as i ensured it was safe to do so. It's one of those grey areas in road law. The use of the word 'should not' instead of 'MUST NOT' means the rule is question is advisory, not law.

...
It being "necessary to enter the area bordered by a broken white line" would be in an emergency or when about to turn right, for example, and not for routine overtaking.

It wasn't necessary to enter 'the area' and, in this instance, events rapidly occured which led to it becoming very unsafe indeed frown . (Did you anticipate this, having seen the turning to the right and planned for the vehicle to your left making a dive for it? If not, then you're too trusting of complete strangers who might also be complete idiots with tunnel vision wink .)

Be glad you're not posting this from the grave wink ; what was wrong with waiting for the next straight bit of road sans hatched area?? smile

Several people have posted "do the course", and I will join them in stating this...

smiffyraf1

Original Poster:

30 posts

164 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
its not a right turn. as i stated in my original post its a private farm entrance.

Edited by smiffyraf1 on Tuesday 19th August 19:28

smiffyraf1

Original Poster:

30 posts

164 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
and your mistaken. its chevrons with solid white line borders that you cannot enter unless an emergency

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
smiffyraf1 said:
wow genuinely surprised at all the douchebaggery on the forum.
was after advice not speculative based insults.
the reason i asked is as i believe, not through naivety or big headedness that i wasn't in the wrong and after being interviewed by police and told pretty much the same was surprised when i received an email to state otherwise.
I am reluctant to accept the course as feel as someone has said that it is an admission of guilt.
but as to an unnecessary overtake when is any overtake completely necessary and i guarantee everyone has done one. I agree that not the best place in the world to overtake but i had moved left to view any oncoming traffic and carried out all the safety checks before carrying out the manoeuvre.
im only going off what i've been told and what i've read but yes it was taught to use cross hatched areas go and speak to police motorcyclist if you do not trust me.
This wasnt a sportsbike and have never been interested in tearing round pi$$ing car drivers off with silly stunts. i was happy plodding along on my early duc monster which i had put a lot of time and effort in to make mint and only came out on sunny days unfortunately i think as soon as motorbike is mentioned people have pre conceptions.
I'm not biased in the slightest against bikes as my name should suggest.

What guilt are you admitting to? The driving standard and potential penalty is dealt with as a criminal law perspective, albeit viewed as irrelevant as a criminal matter. The insurance matter will be dealt with as a civil matter. Whether you go on the course or not is likely to have little to no effect on the outcome of the civil insurance matter. That assumes everything you've said is true which is open to conjecture as there are several sides to every story.

You really need to get over the whole victim mentality so beloved of many riders and admit when you're in the wrong.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
smiffyraf1 said:
wow genuinely surprised at all the douchebaggery on the forum.
was after advice not speculative based insults.
the reason i asked is as i believe, not through naivety or big headedness that i wasn't in the wrong and after being interviewed by police and told pretty much the same was surprised when i received an email to state otherwise.
I am reluctant to accept the course as feel as someone has said that it is an admission of guilt.
but as to an unnecessary overtake when is any overtake completely necessary and i guarantee everyone has done one. I agree that not the best place in the world to overtake but i had moved left to view any oncoming traffic and carried out all the safety checks before carrying out the manoeuvre.
im only going off what i've been told and what i've read but yes it was taught to use cross hatched areas go and speak to police motorcyclist if you do not trust me.
This wasnt a sportsbike and have never been interested in tearing round pi$$ing car drivers off with silly stunts. i was happy plodding along on my early duc monster which i had put a lot of time and effort in to make mint and only came out on sunny days unfortunately i think as soon as motorbike is mentioned people have pre conceptions.
You say it yourself. An overtake isnt a necessity and you shouldn't have done what you did. Not excusing the other guy but you do seem to have been driving a little recklessly. You seem to have got off lightly so far.