Motorway incident
Discussion
My friend had an accident on the motorway, and we'd be interested to know how the law stands in the circumstances:
He was in stationary/slow moving traffic in third lane, and indicated left to move into middle lane. Eventually a lorry signalled him access, but as he moved across, a motorbike ran into him, hitting the front wing. Both stopped to exchange details, and no injuries, so that's good.
So, who's wrong? Maybe both of them - driver for not looking carefully enough, and biker for jumping traffic inbetween lanes. Please can someone give a balanced legal viewpoint.
He was in stationary/slow moving traffic in third lane, and indicated left to move into middle lane. Eventually a lorry signalled him access, but as he moved across, a motorbike ran into him, hitting the front wing. Both stopped to exchange details, and no injuries, so that's good.
So, who's wrong? Maybe both of them - driver for not looking carefully enough, and biker for jumping traffic inbetween lanes. Please can someone give a balanced legal viewpoint.
Without a witness I would assume a 50/50 incident.
Who's to say the motorcyclist was travelling too fast or the driver did signal.
I know from experience that no matter how simple the accident try to find witnesses or at least reg numbers. Easily said after the incident but once bitten....
Who's to say the motorcyclist was travelling too fast or the driver did signal.
I know from experience that no matter how simple the accident try to find witnesses or at least reg numbers. Easily said after the incident but once bitten....
tobeee said:
My friend had an accident on the motorway, and we'd be interested to know how the law stands in the circumstances:
He was in stationary/slow moving traffic in third lane, and indicated left to move into middle lane. Eventually a lorry signalled him access, but as he moved across, a motorbike ran into him, hitting the front wing. Both stopped to exchange details, and no injuries, so that's good.
So, who's wrong? Maybe both of them - driver for not looking carefully enough, and biker for jumping traffic inbetween lanes. Please can someone give a balanced legal viewpoint.
Not sure if I agree with this. If a driver changes lane surely it is incumbent upon them to check that there are no oncoming vehicles before commencing the manoevre? The use of an indicator is immaterial - switching your indicator on does not give you the right to manoevre in front of other traffic. There is no law against filtering on a bike between slow moving traffic. I think the car driver was wholly negligent (but am happy to be proved wrong!).
PS - before I'm accused of being one eyed, I am a passionate biker AND driver!
I would say all three..
Lorry driver has taken some responsibility by signalling its safe for the manouvre.
Car driver for failing to ensure it's clear and acting on signal of someone who's not Bib.
Bike rider - if he's doing in excess of 5mph over the other traffic he's not filtering & it's driving without due care. I'll assume - filtering, Insurance companies usually have a standard 50/50 split if filtering.
Lorry driver has taken some responsibility by signalling its safe for the manouvre.
Car driver for failing to ensure it's clear and acting on signal of someone who's not Bib.
Bike rider - if he's doing in excess of 5mph over the other traffic he's not filtering & it's driving without due care. I'll assume - filtering, Insurance companies usually have a standard 50/50 split if filtering.
tonyrec said:
Sadly, its one of those 50-50 knocks as both must share some of the blame.
Car Driver for not taking enough care when carrying out a manouvre, and Bike rider for the same.
You sure TR?
This guy has changed lanes into a filtering bike without looking.
A similar example came up on my bikesafe course and it was the driver fault.
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Wednesday 12th November 08:47
Munta said:
Surely it depends upon if the bike was in the middle lane or was weaving between two vehicles.
If the bike was in the middle lane, then it would be your friend at fault but if the bike was making his own lane, then the bike was at fault. IMHO
Well that's b*llocks because the car must have *also* been between two lanes at the moment of impact!
toad_oftoadhall said:
Surely it depends upon if the bike was in the middle lane or was weaving between two vehicles.
If the bike was in the middle lane, then it would be your friend at fault but if the bike was making his own lane, then the bike was at fault. IMHO
Well that's b*llocks because the car must have *also* been between two lanes at the moment of impact!
The difference is that the bike could have been making a "fourth lane" which is agaist the highway code. I have yet to see a car making a "fourth lane" on a motorway.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
The issue I was most interested in was the biker creating a fourth lane. I'm not anti-biker (ride trials myself) but it's probably a common thing for people to be surprised by a bike zipping between lanes on a motorway. Must be a clear-cut answer as to whether the biker is acting illegally or merely endangering himself by riding between lanes...
Anyway, this seems to have opened a can of worms, so I hope nobody's been upset by anyone else's comments.
The issue I was most interested in was the biker creating a fourth lane. I'm not anti-biker (ride trials myself) but it's probably a common thing for people to be surprised by a bike zipping between lanes on a motorway. Must be a clear-cut answer as to whether the biker is acting illegally or merely endangering himself by riding between lanes...
Anyway, this seems to have opened a can of worms, so I hope nobody's been upset by anyone else's comments.
toad_oftoadhall said:
Munta said:
The difference is that the bike could have been making a "fourth lane" which is agaist the highway code.
Perfectly legal.
As for the highway code would you care to quote the place where the HC forbids filtering?
I would have thought that this section would cover it.
242 - Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
The fact that the bike was obviously moving faster than both the third and the middle lane, he was breaking this rule as he was not keeping up with the traffic.
Edited to say that I have great respect for Bikers and will always move out of their way if thay are making this sort of manover
>> Edited by Munta on Wednesday 12th November 09:25
5ltr-chim said:
I would say all three..
Lorry driver has taken some responsibility by signalling its safe for the manouvre.
Car driver for failing to ensure it's clear and acting on signal of someone who's not Bib.
Bike rider - if he's doing in excess of 5mph over the other traffic he's not filtering & it's driving without due care. I'll assume - filtering, Insurance companies usually have a standard 50/50 split if filtering.
I have just won one of these types of claim for a client 75/25 in favour of the motorcyclist.
Filtering is a perfectly legal manouevre, and is accepted on a Motorway where traffic is stationary. The duty of care was held to be primarily with the car driver for not ensuring that it was safe to move from lane three to lane two before commencing his turn.
The motorcyclist was always going to have a degree of contributory negligence, and this was assessed at 25%.
Don't confuse civil law with road traffic law. In civil law, all that has to be proved is on the balance of probability whereas in criminal law it is beyond reasonable doubt.
Likewise, it has been a recent instruction form the high court that insurers, lawyers and the courts must not rely on previous case law as their defence or claim, it is reliant on both parties to be judged on the merits of the facts of the case rather than some bit of case law dating back 40 or 50 years.
vladd said:
Surely the insurance companies will decide between themselves who was responsible in which proportion. Now that the matter is in their hands there's not much your friend can do about it, so he may as well forget about it.
Not true ! some idiot pulled out in front of Mrs T at night and then came up with the origal excuse of 'she didn't have her lights on' Utter bxxxxxxs of course.
Insurance companies say knock for knock as he has 'witnesses'. We say, no chance!
Outcome: suggested that all parties thrash it out in court. Surprise, surprise his 'witnesses' won't attend court.
Result: Full recovery of expenses and preservation of NCB - Only took 10 month's to sort out.
Moral: If you are the right, don't give up - the scumbags should get all they deserve.......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff