Their word against mine?
Discussion
Before I start, this all happened to me months ago. I'm not interested in pursuing the matter, just curious what would have happened if I had gone a different route.
About half a year ago I was on the bike, filtering through stationary traffic. There was a turn right lane up ahead, with broken chevrons leading up to it, no traffic coming the other way, I was filtering past stationary traffic to move into the turn right lane.
As I reach the chevrons, a white van who is sitting in the traffic (not in the turn right lane) suddenly decides to turn right without indicating (or looking for that matter) hitting me off my bike. Only happened at about 5mph, so no injuries, but the footpeg of my bike and brake lever had snapped off.
We pulled into a car park where this woman who 'witnessed' the whole thing was having a go at me saying I was going at breakneck speeds overtaking the cars, and that she saw the van indicate and safely turn right, and me overtake him whilst he was turning.
This is all completely untrue - as I said I was turning right so could not have been going fast, and I was indicating to do so, as well as approaching the turn right lane.
We ended up parting ways without trading insurance details, as I felt that if it came down to it, I would lose out, seeing as he has a 'witness'. I don't know what that woman had against bikers, or whether she knew the guy, but she was completely making this stuff up.
Reason we left without trading details is I thought a footpeg would cost me £50, when it ended up costing around £200 for the parts I needed.
Basically just want to know what would have happened had I taken it up with insurance, would it have been a 50/50 due, or even my fault due to his apparent witness?
About half a year ago I was on the bike, filtering through stationary traffic. There was a turn right lane up ahead, with broken chevrons leading up to it, no traffic coming the other way, I was filtering past stationary traffic to move into the turn right lane.
As I reach the chevrons, a white van who is sitting in the traffic (not in the turn right lane) suddenly decides to turn right without indicating (or looking for that matter) hitting me off my bike. Only happened at about 5mph, so no injuries, but the footpeg of my bike and brake lever had snapped off.
We pulled into a car park where this woman who 'witnessed' the whole thing was having a go at me saying I was going at breakneck speeds overtaking the cars, and that she saw the van indicate and safely turn right, and me overtake him whilst he was turning.
This is all completely untrue - as I said I was turning right so could not have been going fast, and I was indicating to do so, as well as approaching the turn right lane.
We ended up parting ways without trading insurance details, as I felt that if it came down to it, I would lose out, seeing as he has a 'witness'. I don't know what that woman had against bikers, or whether she knew the guy, but she was completely making this stuff up.
Reason we left without trading details is I thought a footpeg would cost me £50, when it ended up costing around £200 for the parts I needed.
Basically just want to know what would have happened had I taken it up with insurance, would it have been a 50/50 due, or even my fault due to his apparent witness?
If the witness was to give that false statement and the van driver went along with it, i think there's a fair chance that you would be held liable.
Without her witness statement i'm not sure.
Filtering is legal and safe if done at a reasonable speed (most people suggest 10mph max) and traffic isn't moving.
Drivers should always check mirrors and a glance out the window before turning left or right to ensure there isn't a cyclist or similar beside them so it sounds like they were negligent because they turned into your path without checking the way is clear.
I've also read that a motorcycle that is filtering has a greater onus on liability claims as they are performing a risky maneuver.
In short, just my opinions but i'm not really sure what insurance would say.
Without her witness statement i'm not sure.
Filtering is legal and safe if done at a reasonable speed (most people suggest 10mph max) and traffic isn't moving.
Drivers should always check mirrors and a glance out the window before turning left or right to ensure there isn't a cyclist or similar beside them so it sounds like they were negligent because they turned into your path without checking the way is clear.
I've also read that a motorcycle that is filtering has a greater onus on liability claims as they are performing a risky maneuver.
In short, just my opinions but i'm not really sure what insurance would say.
Would go against you with the independent witness, it's why I never go on the roads without video camera's both front and rear.
I wonder what would happen if you had the witness give their statement and then produced video evidence showing that her statement was false, would they be up for any criminal charges?
I wonder what would happen if you had the witness give their statement and then produced video evidence showing that her statement was false, would they be up for any criminal charges?
Thanks, see this is what I feared. I know 100% I was in the right, if I had a camera he would've had to pay out I'm certain of that, but as I said I got too scared due to him having his so called witness. I think they might have known each other, she worked at a burger van, and he took that sudden right to go to the car park where the burger van was, so it's possible they know each other.
Really annoying, but sounds like I made the right choice in that situation then. Time to invest in a gopro..
Really annoying, but sounds like I made the right choice in that situation then. Time to invest in a gopro..
ging84 said:
by filtering do you mean you joined the right hand lane well before it actually opened, and the van joined it where it did open?
I was filtering from before the right hand lane, which I'm allowed to do. Van was sitting adjacent to the right hand turn lane for a good amount of time, before probably deciding he couldn't be bothered to sit in traffic, and spontaneously turned right without lookingchrispwill said:
ging84 said:
by filtering do you mean you joined the right hand lane well before it actually opened, and the van joined it where it did open?
I was filtering from before the right hand lane, which I'm allowed to do. Van was sitting adjacent to the right hand turn lane for a good amount of time, before probably deciding he couldn't be bothered to sit in traffic, and spontaneously turned right without lookingAllowed by who?
Being told you should not do something but not being legally strictly forbidden from doing something where it is safe and necessary is funny definition of being allowed.
What you did was unsafe, illustrated quite clearly by the fact you were involved in an accident and i doubt it was particularly necessary.
It is one thing to filter in the hatching in queuing traffic, it is quite another to then cut straight from the hatchings to a new right turn lane opening, where it is quite obvious vehicles in the actual traffic lane may choose to change lanes to turn right, and will not be expecting other vehicles to already be over taking them.
Filtering accidents usually got down as having at least partial liability on the motorcyclist, even in far far less dubious circumstances than this.
There are plenty of roads about where there is a big section of hatchings with width of a lane, which a car can easily use to cut into the lane early, and if a car does that and is involved in an accident where the another car then pulls into the new lane at the correct place and crashes into the car emerging from the hatchings, the idea that the car using the hatching wouldn't be at-least 50% to blame would be unthinkable, any witness would usually be describing other driver as a maniac.
Bikers think they have some special exemption which allows them to use the hatchings or any gap as an extra lane and it's all always the other drivers fault because they didn't check thier mirrors, but the courts and the insurance companies tend to disagree.
ging84 said:
What you did was unsafe...
As unsafe as say, changing lanes without checking your mirrors? That kind of unsafe, yes?ging84 said:
It is one thing to filter in the hatching in queuing traffic, it is quite another to then cut straight from the hatchings to a new right turn lane opening, where it is quite obvious vehicles in the actual traffic lane may choose to change lanes to turn right, and will not be expecting other vehicles to already be over taking them.
OP said matey had sat next to the open lane for some time, which would give anyone the impression that he was happy sitting in the queue to go straight on, although I'm sure OP has learned the valuable lesson of never assume another driver is going to do what they should/you expect them to do.ging84 said:
Bikers think they have some special exemption which allows them to use the hatchings or any gap as an extra lane and it's all always the other drivers fault because they didn't check thier mirrors, but the courts and the insurance companies tend to disagree.
No, they don't.Edited by Centurion07 on Tuesday 2nd June 18:51
ging84 said:
You're allowed?
Allowed by who?
Being told you should not do something but not being legally strictly forbidden from doing something where it is safe and necessary is funny definition of being allowed.
What you did was unsafe, illustrated quite clearly by the fact you were involved in an accident and i doubt it was particularly necessary.
It is one thing to filter in the hatching in queuing traffic, it is quite another to then cut straight from the hatchings to a new right turn lane opening, where it is quite obvious vehicles in the actual traffic lane may choose to change lanes to turn right, and will not be expecting other vehicles to already be over taking them.
Filtering accidents usually got down as having at least partial liability on the motorcyclist, even in far far less dubious circumstances than this.
There are plenty of roads about where there is a big section of hatchings with width of a lane, which a car can easily use to cut into the lane early, and if a car does that and is involved in an accident where the another car then pulls into the new lane at the correct place and crashes into the car emerging from the hatchings, the idea that the car using the hatching wouldn't be at-least 50% to blame would be unthinkable, any witness would usually be describing other driver as a maniac.
Bikers think they have some special exemption which allows them to use the hatchings or any gap as an extra lane and it's all always the other drivers fault because they didn't check thier mirrors, but the courts and the insurance companies tend to disagree.
There is nothing incorrect about entering hatchings where lines are broken, whatever vehicle you are in charge of. Passing stationary traffic that does not show any intention to turn is not the action of a maniac but it is a manoeuvre that requires careful observation. If the facts are as stated, in this case the OP made a judgement call that didn't work out but that doesn't mean that the van driver was not at fault. The witness evidence sounds dubious given the type and extent of damage caused to the bike. However, for £200 I can't see that pursuing it will benefit the OP. Allowed by who?
Being told you should not do something but not being legally strictly forbidden from doing something where it is safe and necessary is funny definition of being allowed.
What you did was unsafe, illustrated quite clearly by the fact you were involved in an accident and i doubt it was particularly necessary.
It is one thing to filter in the hatching in queuing traffic, it is quite another to then cut straight from the hatchings to a new right turn lane opening, where it is quite obvious vehicles in the actual traffic lane may choose to change lanes to turn right, and will not be expecting other vehicles to already be over taking them.
Filtering accidents usually got down as having at least partial liability on the motorcyclist, even in far far less dubious circumstances than this.
There are plenty of roads about where there is a big section of hatchings with width of a lane, which a car can easily use to cut into the lane early, and if a car does that and is involved in an accident where the another car then pulls into the new lane at the correct place and crashes into the car emerging from the hatchings, the idea that the car using the hatching wouldn't be at-least 50% to blame would be unthinkable, any witness would usually be describing other driver as a maniac.
Bikers think they have some special exemption which allows them to use the hatchings or any gap as an extra lane and it's all always the other drivers fault because they didn't check thier mirrors, but the courts and the insurance companies tend to disagree.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff