Small accident - what to do??
Discussion
I need some advice from those in the business about a small accident I had last night on my motorbike.
This is what happened....
I'm travelling home last night out of London at about 5.40pm along a 4 lane 2 way road. The traffic is crawling so I filter carefully at about 10-15mph down the middle of the road. Coming up to a petrol station on the left a car pulls out across the 2 lanes of traffic in my direction, to turn right in order to travel in the opposite direction, in doing so he pokes his nose out because he can't see what's coming causing me to have to brake hard and try and swerve around him, unfortunately because of limited room for manouevre and because he hadn't seen me and stopped sooner, I scraped ankle of my boot first, followed by my exhaust, across his front bumper on the left hand side of his car above his fog lamp, the important thing here is that my large front fairing is untouched. This pushed me out into on-coming traffic, fortunately because it was at slow speed I managed to pull back across the road to avoid a head-on.
We pulled into the Petrol station and exchanged details, I photographed the scene and the vehicles. Basically his bumper needs re-spraying and my exhaust now has a dent in it and needs a new gasket to re-seal where it meets the manifold.
If this goes the route of insurance claims etc who do you think is at fault? or will it go the politically correct(read can't be bothered to fight it) 50/50?
The dent in my exhaust is only cosmetic so I'm happy to leave it but not sure what the other driver will do yet.
Cheers
This is what happened....
I'm travelling home last night out of London at about 5.40pm along a 4 lane 2 way road. The traffic is crawling so I filter carefully at about 10-15mph down the middle of the road. Coming up to a petrol station on the left a car pulls out across the 2 lanes of traffic in my direction, to turn right in order to travel in the opposite direction, in doing so he pokes his nose out because he can't see what's coming causing me to have to brake hard and try and swerve around him, unfortunately because of limited room for manouevre and because he hadn't seen me and stopped sooner, I scraped ankle of my boot first, followed by my exhaust, across his front bumper on the left hand side of his car above his fog lamp, the important thing here is that my large front fairing is untouched. This pushed me out into on-coming traffic, fortunately because it was at slow speed I managed to pull back across the road to avoid a head-on.
We pulled into the Petrol station and exchanged details, I photographed the scene and the vehicles. Basically his bumper needs re-spraying and my exhaust now has a dent in it and needs a new gasket to re-seal where it meets the manifold.
If this goes the route of insurance claims etc who do you think is at fault? or will it go the politically correct(read can't be bothered to fight it) 50/50?
The dent in my exhaust is only cosmetic so I'm happy to leave it but not sure what the other driver will do yet.
Cheers
Its a 50/50 I would suggest.
The fact that the other cars had stopped to let him out does not mean he can pull out without due care.
Its a shame with your elevated position you didn't manage to see him or anticipate him sooner but.
There is an argument that would suggest that one of the cars that stopped to let him out could be culpable if he flashed at the other driver or beckoned him to proceed but obviously you would need CCTV for any help there.
The road sounds busy there is it actually legal for the driver to perform a right hand turn from that forecourt. I would suspect a no right turn or even one way sign may possibly be in an area like that.
The fact that the other cars had stopped to let him out does not mean he can pull out without due care.
Its a shame with your elevated position you didn't manage to see him or anticipate him sooner but.
There is an argument that would suggest that one of the cars that stopped to let him out could be culpable if he flashed at the other driver or beckoned him to proceed but obviously you would need CCTV for any help there.
The road sounds busy there is it actually legal for the driver to perform a right hand turn from that forecourt. I would suspect a no right turn or even one way sign may possibly be in an area like that.
mark69sheer said:
Its a 50/50 I would suggest.
The fact that the other cars had stopped to let him out does not mean he can pull out without due care.
Its a shame with your elevated position you didn't manage to see him or anticipate him sooner but.
There is an argument that would suggest that one of the cars that stopped to let him out could be culpable if he flashed at the other driver or beckoned him to proceed but obviously you would need CCTV for any help there.
The road sounds busy there is it actually legal for the driver to perform a right hand turn from that forecourt. I would suspect a no right turn or even one way sign may possibly be in an area like that.
HIndsight is a wonderful thing, however there were vans and large cars obstructing my view hence approaching slowly, the car just took a chance in nudging forward.The fact that the other cars had stopped to let him out does not mean he can pull out without due care.
Its a shame with your elevated position you didn't manage to see him or anticipate him sooner but.
There is an argument that would suggest that one of the cars that stopped to let him out could be culpable if he flashed at the other driver or beckoned him to proceed but obviously you would need CCTV for any help there.
The road sounds busy there is it actually legal for the driver to perform a right hand turn from that forecourt. I would suspect a no right turn or even one way sign may possibly be in an area like that.
There is nothing stopping a right turn from that petrol station unfortunately.
A friend of mine who often takes me home from work carries out a very similar turn from a side road every night.
Personally if we hit a bike whilst making the turn I'd assume it was my friend's fault. She's entering the road, turning across three lanes of traffic (2 from the right one from the left)and it is up to her to ensure that the road is clear for her to carry out this action. The fact that it's virtually impossible for her to see anything because of the traffic isn't the point, it is up to her to ensure she can carry out the turn safely.
AFAIK it is legal for you as a bike to over take traffic - so as long as you were overtaking (not undertaking) then I don't think you've done anything wrong.
However I'm sure the insurers will suggest that your observation should have been better, I'm sure they will also suggest that the other driver was already three quarters of the way through his turn when you drove into him (rather than him pulling out on you if that makes sense) and it might all get to be a pain in the neck.
I'd try to persuade the other party that it is clearly his fault but that you'll settle amicably to avoid too much aggro.
Personally if we hit a bike whilst making the turn I'd assume it was my friend's fault. She's entering the road, turning across three lanes of traffic (2 from the right one from the left)and it is up to her to ensure that the road is clear for her to carry out this action. The fact that it's virtually impossible for her to see anything because of the traffic isn't the point, it is up to her to ensure she can carry out the turn safely.
AFAIK it is legal for you as a bike to over take traffic - so as long as you were overtaking (not undertaking) then I don't think you've done anything wrong.
However I'm sure the insurers will suggest that your observation should have been better, I'm sure they will also suggest that the other driver was already three quarters of the way through his turn when you drove into him (rather than him pulling out on you if that makes sense) and it might all get to be a pain in the neck.
I'd try to persuade the other party that it is clearly his fault but that you'll settle amicably to avoid too much aggro.
EU_Foreigner said:
Are you legally allowed to drive between cars though? I thought that you could not, so therefore you would be at fault automatically?
I think this may be the case when it comes down to looking at the accident logically. As well as the highway code they also look at could either driver have done something to avoid the accident.It could be argued that technically you shouldn't have been filtering through the traffic. I am assuming that the traffic was slow or stopped and then stopped to a halt to let him cross the paths. If this is the case it could also be argued that his way was clear as far as he could possibly know and had no way of knowing that a bike would be filtering through the rest of the traffic.
It will come down to exactly what the highway code says or doesnt say about filtering through traffic. If it is at all against it, then taking the insurance wrangling out of it, it might end up 100% against you.
Piglet said:
A friend of mine who often takes me home from work carries out a very similar turn from a side road every night.
Personally if we hit a bike whilst making the turn I'd assume it was my friend's fault. She's entering the road, turning across three lanes of traffic (2 from the right one from the left)and it is up to her to ensure that the road is clear for her to carry out this action. The fact that it's virtually impossible for her to see anything because of the traffic isn't the point, it is up to her to ensure she can carry out the turn safely.
AFAIK it is legal for you as a bike to over take traffic - so as long as you were overtaking (not undertaking) then I don't think you've done anything wrong.
Which I was, I was in the middle of the road.Personally if we hit a bike whilst making the turn I'd assume it was my friend's fault. She's entering the road, turning across three lanes of traffic (2 from the right one from the left)and it is up to her to ensure that the road is clear for her to carry out this action. The fact that it's virtually impossible for her to see anything because of the traffic isn't the point, it is up to her to ensure she can carry out the turn safely.
AFAIK it is legal for you as a bike to over take traffic - so as long as you were overtaking (not undertaking) then I don't think you've done anything wrong.
Piglet said:
However I'm sure the insurers will suggest that your observation should have been better, I'm sure they will also suggest that the other driver was already three quarters of the way through his turn when you drove into him (rather than him pulling out on you if that makes sense) and it might all get to be a pain in the neck.
Thankyou, but my observation was just fine, otherwise I would probably of ended up coming off the bike, if you are right on top of someone when they decide to move what can you do?? Going back to my original post, remember that the first point at which he touched me was my boot, nearly 2/3rds the way down a fully faired sports tourer.Piglet said:
I'd try to persuade the other party that it is clearly his fault but that you'll settle amicably to avoid too much aggro.
My view on whole situation is that the car should have turned left and then made their way back again using easier turning opportunities, rather than pull out accross traffic where quite obviously he can't see properly and was also causing an obstruction.Just be warned.
A colleague had an accident last year, both parties agreed to seetle their own (very minor) damage. He spoke to the company concerned, and they verbally agreed that they would pay for the small dent to be fixed.
A year later, there is now a claim in from the hire company (no one mentioned this at the time) as the damage has not been repaired by the company that hired it. Not only that, the damage has grown remarkably, needing new parts, resprays, repairs, etc. Not only that, but the other driver AND passenger are now claiming whiplash. My colleague is now going through the insurers, they have said its his fault, but fortunately will pay up.
My advice - think very hard before agreeing to do anything outside the Insurance companies. With protected no claims, cheap offers, etc, its often not worth it.
BFF
A colleague had an accident last year, both parties agreed to seetle their own (very minor) damage. He spoke to the company concerned, and they verbally agreed that they would pay for the small dent to be fixed.
A year later, there is now a claim in from the hire company (no one mentioned this at the time) as the damage has not been repaired by the company that hired it. Not only that, the damage has grown remarkably, needing new parts, resprays, repairs, etc. Not only that, but the other driver AND passenger are now claiming whiplash. My colleague is now going through the insurers, they have said its his fault, but fortunately will pay up.
My advice - think very hard before agreeing to do anything outside the Insurance companies. With protected no claims, cheap offers, etc, its often not worth it.
BFF
Sorry something you have said has changed things slightly.
I assumed when you used the word 'filtered' that you were driving 'between' two stationary lanes of traffic.
However am I right now in understanding that you were driving along the outside of the two lanes of traffic and that you were in effect driving along the middle of the road and it was in fact safe for the other driver to have passed in front of the traffic that was stationary.
I would guess now that I would be happy to get a 50/50 in that situation
I am an ex biker myself and spent a year threading my bike through the old north circular at rush hour every week.
If you have approached a petrol station and a gap is there then you know its been left for traffic to get in and out of the station so extreme caution must be exercised and an assumption that someone will be coming out must be made or they would have filled the gap anyway.
I am not trying to be clever or critical as an ex biker I can visualise the whole scenario and can understand your concern.
The car pulling out rightly or wrongly wouldn't have expected anything coming from his right since as far as he could see the whole carriageway was gridlocked. Even if he had expected a bike along the outside he wouldn't have been able to look for or see one until his bonnet was past the traffic blocking his view (vans you say).
Its just a situation where you will now drive differently in future I suspect.
as I say not being clever and not being critical just analysing the difficulties for all parties in that situation
I assumed when you used the word 'filtered' that you were driving 'between' two stationary lanes of traffic.
However am I right now in understanding that you were driving along the outside of the two lanes of traffic and that you were in effect driving along the middle of the road and it was in fact safe for the other driver to have passed in front of the traffic that was stationary.
I would guess now that I would be happy to get a 50/50 in that situation
I am an ex biker myself and spent a year threading my bike through the old north circular at rush hour every week.
If you have approached a petrol station and a gap is there then you know its been left for traffic to get in and out of the station so extreme caution must be exercised and an assumption that someone will be coming out must be made or they would have filled the gap anyway.
I am not trying to be clever or critical as an ex biker I can visualise the whole scenario and can understand your concern.
The car pulling out rightly or wrongly wouldn't have expected anything coming from his right since as far as he could see the whole carriageway was gridlocked. Even if he had expected a bike along the outside he wouldn't have been able to look for or see one until his bonnet was past the traffic blocking his view (vans you say).
Its just a situation where you will now drive differently in future I suspect.
as I say not being clever and not being critical just analysing the difficulties for all parties in that situation
mark69sheer said:
Its just a situation where you will now drive differently in future I suspect.
No because then I'll get beaten up by all the couriers and other commuters for holding them up I've been riding into London for over 7 years (and over 150000 miles) and this is the first in-traffic knock I have had. I was going slowly enough that he should of seen me.
I think yesterday has something to do with the clocks changing..... there were at least 3 other bikes I saw yesterday evening that had had accidents (police were in attendance on some of them) and after I carried on home at least 5 more people tried side swiping me when I was fully in lane on the A13.
They are just not used to/capable of driving safely and observantly in the dark.
Have to add that I usually leave it later to go home to avoid the traffic so I am used to riding in the dark.
Edited by ZZR on Thursday 1st November 14:50
Big Fat F'r said:
Just be warned.
A colleague had an accident last year, both parties agreed to seetle their own (very minor) damage. He spoke to the company concerned, and they verbally agreed that they would pay for the small dent to be fixed.
A year later, there is now a claim in from the hire company (no one mentioned this at the time) as the damage has not been repaired by the company that hired it. Not only that, the damage has grown remarkably, needing new parts, resprays, repairs, etc. Not only that, but the other driver AND passenger are now claiming whiplash. My colleague is now going through the insurers, they have said its his fault, but fortunately will pay up.
My advice - think very hard before agreeing to do anything outside the Insurance companies. With protected no claims, cheap offers, etc, its often not worth it.
BFF
Depending on the exact details of the situation, your colleague if he stood his ground would have legally been fine. A colleague had an accident last year, both parties agreed to seetle their own (very minor) damage. He spoke to the company concerned, and they verbally agreed that they would pay for the small dent to be fixed.
A year later, there is now a claim in from the hire company (no one mentioned this at the time) as the damage has not been repaired by the company that hired it. Not only that, the damage has grown remarkably, needing new parts, resprays, repairs, etc. Not only that, but the other driver AND passenger are now claiming whiplash. My colleague is now going through the insurers, they have said its his fault, but fortunately will pay up.
My advice - think very hard before agreeing to do anything outside the Insurance companies. With protected no claims, cheap offers, etc, its often not worth it.
BFF
To be frank the other party is trying to run a fraudulent claim. As with all 'verbal' contracts they are legally binding, however it is proving what has been said later is the problem. Now if he stood his ground and told the truth about what happened their story wouldnt have looked that great - why did they not say earlier - why did your mate pay for his own damage - why is your mate not backing up their story?
With a bit of pressure from a decent insurance company they would have crumbled as the stakes are slowly risen until the bluff is called when one party is willing to go to court - and for one reason or another the other party is not 'comfortable' in going to court.
100% fault of the other driver.
He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
Eliminator said:
100% fault of the other driver.
He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
On the evidence I tend to agree, however take a look at;He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
All 45 pages of it, debating something very similar.
s2art said:
Eliminator said:
100% fault of the other driver.
He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
On the evidence I tend to agree, however take a look at;He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
All 45 pages of it, debating something very similar.
ZZR said:
s2art said:
Eliminator said:
100% fault of the other driver.
He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
On the evidence I tend to agree, however take a look at;He may not move into the road from a side road (or petrol station) if it causes another vehicle to alter speed or direction. If he pulled out into the path of a vehicle on an empty roar we would not be debating this. So what difference does it make that there was a line of traffic?
There is no law or rule against filtering.His only "defence" is if you were speeding or otherwise riding without due care and attention. It seems that you were not hence he should not have "pushed" forward into your path (presumably looking the other way at that point).
This has happened to me, and th other guy went to a "no win no fee" lawyer. Net result - he paid for his and my damage, plus he found that the "no fee" related to his team, not my insurer who went on to recover costs in disputing the claim.
Get on to a professional - Annies Dad comes recommended on this forum (though I have not used them) or get a bike mag and take a look in the back pages of adverts.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
All 45 pages of it, debating something very similar.
Would be worth getting professional advice on this as, even though you don’t mind the dent in your exhaust, why should you have to put up with it when it was not your fault?
esselte said:
I've no axe to grind,this is a straightforward question,are we saying here that on a dual C/W it's Ok for a bike to make a "3rd" lane?
No but it seems to be generally accepted that it is OK to use the available space, if conditions allow to make progress past slow moving or stationary vehicles.From an Insurance perspective, this accident has broad similarities with the Legal precedent of Powell v Moody (1966). As is reported here the Claimant was riding a motorcycle & has effectively attempted to make 2 lanes out of 1 (in this scenaro 3 out of 2). Judge held both parties at fault, but attached 80% of the responsibility on the motorcycle for "undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard & which had to be varried out with great care".
Essentially the car driver was entitled to believe, when emerging from a side road (be it a garage forecourt) that if the road he was emerging onto was only 2 lanes wide, the there would only be 2 lanes of traffic. Sadly & by virtue of the fact that you have, by riding between the two lines of cars, created a 3rd lane, majority of blame attaches to you.
Sorry to be the bringer of bad news (am incredibly popular at parties you know...........).
Essentially the car driver was entitled to believe, when emerging from a side road (be it a garage forecourt) that if the road he was emerging onto was only 2 lanes wide, the there would only be 2 lanes of traffic. Sadly & by virtue of the fact that you have, by riding between the two lines of cars, created a 3rd lane, majority of blame attaches to you.
Sorry to be the bringer of bad news (am incredibly popular at parties you know...........).
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff