Car vs Bike Accident - Who's at fault?
Discussion
Here we go again...
Before I get branded a "bike hater", whilst I've never had any interest in motorbikes, I do appreciate them, as a (car) petrolhead myself I get the fascination, the speed and agility is impressive.
So, we were pulling out of the entrance of a large shop, turning right on to the main road, speed limit is 30. I looked right, there is traffic lights 170 yards down the road (measured on google satellite), the lights were red and nobody on the road. I spotted a bright yellow car at the lights.
Looked left, traffic slow but steady and there was a gap in the traffic. Slowly edged forward.
Looked right, the lights had just changed and I saw the yellow car set off. Looked left, the gap was there so I went..... next thing biker straight over the bonnet. He landed 8 metres the other side of the car. (jumping ahead, he left in an ambulance battered and bruised, but OK)
Thinking I'd completely misjudged the traffic, and worried the kids were in the back, I looked right to make sure the car wasn't also going to hit us, the car (who left the lights at the same time as the bike) had time to witness the accident unfold and came to a gradual stop.
the rest is routine, police, ambulance, bla bla, bla... The witnesses (many) said the bike shot off from the lights, apparently he was braking so hard his rear wheel was off the ground . I told the police the truth, I didn't even see a bike until he hit us.
The biker even said to me, "I saw you edging out", so I don't know why he presumed we'd seen him.
A few relevant points... we're awaiting CCTV footage from the shop. The bike was a Honda CBR1000RR. After speaking to witnesses, the police are very interested in CCTV to gauge his speed. We were away in the peak district, on a mini break with the kids, and were in no rush.
Now... I know I'm not innocent here, I feel terrible that I didn't see him, if I had, knowing the capability of bikes, I wouldn't have moved.
What's really annoying though is that our insurance were willing to instantly accept 100% liability without even seeing evidence (there's lots of CCTV footage). I've disputed their decision and asked for a full review, but, it's like they're trying to protect his personal injury claim and keep referring to him as a "vulnerable road user" that "should be entitled to compensation". As I've pointed out, if from CCTV we calculate his average speed at very high, I had no chance of seeing him.
I feel bad he was hurt, but, he knew the risk and made a choice. I should've seen him, but likewise, he should've been riding in a safer manner.
Before I get branded a "bike hater", whilst I've never had any interest in motorbikes, I do appreciate them, as a (car) petrolhead myself I get the fascination, the speed and agility is impressive.
So, we were pulling out of the entrance of a large shop, turning right on to the main road, speed limit is 30. I looked right, there is traffic lights 170 yards down the road (measured on google satellite), the lights were red and nobody on the road. I spotted a bright yellow car at the lights.
Looked left, traffic slow but steady and there was a gap in the traffic. Slowly edged forward.
Looked right, the lights had just changed and I saw the yellow car set off. Looked left, the gap was there so I went..... next thing biker straight over the bonnet. He landed 8 metres the other side of the car. (jumping ahead, he left in an ambulance battered and bruised, but OK)
Thinking I'd completely misjudged the traffic, and worried the kids were in the back, I looked right to make sure the car wasn't also going to hit us, the car (who left the lights at the same time as the bike) had time to witness the accident unfold and came to a gradual stop.
the rest is routine, police, ambulance, bla bla, bla... The witnesses (many) said the bike shot off from the lights, apparently he was braking so hard his rear wheel was off the ground . I told the police the truth, I didn't even see a bike until he hit us.
The biker even said to me, "I saw you edging out", so I don't know why he presumed we'd seen him.
A few relevant points... we're awaiting CCTV footage from the shop. The bike was a Honda CBR1000RR. After speaking to witnesses, the police are very interested in CCTV to gauge his speed. We were away in the peak district, on a mini break with the kids, and were in no rush.
Now... I know I'm not innocent here, I feel terrible that I didn't see him, if I had, knowing the capability of bikes, I wouldn't have moved.
What's really annoying though is that our insurance were willing to instantly accept 100% liability without even seeing evidence (there's lots of CCTV footage). I've disputed their decision and asked for a full review, but, it's like they're trying to protect his personal injury claim and keep referring to him as a "vulnerable road user" that "should be entitled to compensation". As I've pointed out, if from CCTV we calculate his average speed at very high, I had no chance of seeing him.
I feel bad he was hurt, but, he knew the risk and made a choice. I should've seen him, but likewise, he should've been riding in a safer manner.
It happens, at least there are no serious injuries.
I ride bikes, and see lots of people riding like this (tbf, I used to ride like this and somehow never had a big accident). I always seemed to get frustrated with who was right and who was wrong. The thing is, being right still might mean you leave the ride in the back of an ambulance, or worse. Since I realised that, i've slowed down and really started to ride a bit more sensibly & defensively. Hopefully you can both learn from the incident and be less likely to have a similar thing happen in the future. It sounds as if you've really thought about it and didnt just instantly go 'bikers fault, too fast' etc etc which is always the default response to most bike accidents (I had a lady tell me I was going too fast when she went into the back of me whilst stationary at some traffic lights lol, not sure how that even works)
From what you've described though, sounds like the bike is majority fault, insurnace might go 70/30 or something though as ultimately you did cut across the path of the bike
I ride bikes, and see lots of people riding like this (tbf, I used to ride like this and somehow never had a big accident). I always seemed to get frustrated with who was right and who was wrong. The thing is, being right still might mean you leave the ride in the back of an ambulance, or worse. Since I realised that, i've slowed down and really started to ride a bit more sensibly & defensively. Hopefully you can both learn from the incident and be less likely to have a similar thing happen in the future. It sounds as if you've really thought about it and didnt just instantly go 'bikers fault, too fast' etc etc which is always the default response to most bike accidents (I had a lady tell me I was going too fast when she went into the back of me whilst stationary at some traffic lights lol, not sure how that even works)
From what you've described though, sounds like the bike is majority fault, insurnace might go 70/30 or something though as ultimately you did cut across the path of the bike
I think so far there’s no evidence to say that he was speeding. Plenty of witnesses but no one ever says a bike is going slow and they do accelerate faster than cars in normal conditions. Doesn’t always mean they are speeding.
Happy to be proven wrong but it just sounds like you’re latching onto something in the hope of reducing your claim. Have a think about the things you did miss in this scenario to try and avoid it happening again. How did you miss something most likely brightly coloured with a headlight on? If he had time to see you edging out, why didn’t you have time to see him?
On the other side, if he saw you edging out, why didn’t he slow down? What if he was speeding, as you say it would contribute to it happening.
Happy to be proven wrong but it just sounds like you’re latching onto something in the hope of reducing your claim. Have a think about the things you did miss in this scenario to try and avoid it happening again. How did you miss something most likely brightly coloured with a headlight on? If he had time to see you edging out, why didn’t you have time to see him?
On the other side, if he saw you edging out, why didn’t he slow down? What if he was speeding, as you say it would contribute to it happening.
[quote=CJ19]Here we go again...
Before I get branded a "bike hater", whilst I've never had any interest in motorbikes, I do appreciate them, as a (car) petrolhead myself I get the fascination, the speed and agility is impressive.
So, we were pulling out of the entrance of a large shop, turning right on to the main road, speed limit is 30. I looked right, there is traffic lights 170 yards down the road (measured on google satellite), the lights were red and nobody on the road. I spotted a bright yellow car at the lights.
Looked left, traffic slow but steady and there was a gap in the traffic. Slowly edged forward.
Looked right, the lights had just changed and I saw the yellow car set off. Looked left, the gap was there so I went..... next thing biker straight over the bonnet. He landed 8 metres the other side of the car. (jumping ahead, he left in an ambulance battered and bruised, but OK)
Soooooo you admit you didn't see him .........yet insist he was riding too fast/ dangerously?
[/qu
Before I get branded a "bike hater", whilst I've never had any interest in motorbikes, I do appreciate them, as a (car) petrolhead myself I get the fascination, the speed and agility is impressive.
So, we were pulling out of the entrance of a large shop, turning right on to the main road, speed limit is 30. I looked right, there is traffic lights 170 yards down the road (measured on google satellite), the lights were red and nobody on the road. I spotted a bright yellow car at the lights.
Looked left, traffic slow but steady and there was a gap in the traffic. Slowly edged forward.
Looked right, the lights had just changed and I saw the yellow car set off. Looked left, the gap was there so I went..... next thing biker straight over the bonnet. He landed 8 metres the other side of the car. (jumping ahead, he left in an ambulance battered and bruised, but OK)
Soooooo you admit you didn't see him .........yet insist he was riding too fast/ dangerously?
[/qu
Edited by Art Keller on Friday 29th September 11:45
CJ19 said:
The witnesses (many) said the bike shot off from the lights,
Yes. A Fireblade will do 0-30 in around 1 second while barely trying. 99% of the time I'll be doing 30mph (on a far older 750) before the cars have even moved from the lights. CJ19 said:
apparently he was braking so hard his rear wheel was off the ground .
And? From 30mph braking as hard as I can on my wifes bike[1] I *can't* keep the rear wheel on the ground. Just about every modern sports bike will be the same, maximum braking is limited by the torque lifting the rear wheel.
It's absolutely nothing to do with speed and everything to do with weight distribution.
Ultimately it's your fault, you pulled out on someone, it's a common issue that you didn't see them (either inattentional blindness, motion camouflage or hidden by the A pillar) but that doesn't absolve you from blame.
There may be some contributory % blame if the bike *was* speeding but 99% of the time loud bike=fast bike....even when it's a CBR250RR doing 26mph behind a bus at 18krpm!
While the rider should have realised you were going to pull out and taken avoiding action, that doesn't mean the blame falls on him. You still shouldn't have pulled out!
[1] It's closer to a Fireblade than my road bike which has a significant rear weight bias and just won't lift the rear before the front loses grip.
Whatever you do, don't admit liability, it sound like he set off from the lights like Barry Sheene.
What speed do you estimate he was doing when he hit you,
One of my lads had a bike crash fifteen years ago at 30mph, when a car mashed his leg up pulling out of a side street, the legals dragged on three years and he was awarded around 90k.
He now has a rod through his left leg and walks with a limp.
Don't just lie down here, it will come back to bite you, stand your ground,
Obviously, I hope the rider was only shaken up?
On another bike thread earlier today, I said:-
I can't see what this obsession with speed is.
Far nicer to bumble along at 50/60mph on some twisty B roads on something like a Royal Enfield bullet.
What speed do you estimate he was doing when he hit you,
One of my lads had a bike crash fifteen years ago at 30mph, when a car mashed his leg up pulling out of a side street, the legals dragged on three years and he was awarded around 90k.
He now has a rod through his left leg and walks with a limp.
Don't just lie down here, it will come back to bite you, stand your ground,
Obviously, I hope the rider was only shaken up?
On another bike thread earlier today, I said:-
I can't see what this obsession with speed is.
Far nicer to bumble along at 50/60mph on some twisty B roads on something like a Royal Enfield bullet.
Sorry to hear about the accident, but from the description it sounds like you are fully at fault, regardless of the bikers speed / acceleration. You admit you didn’t see him so I can’t see your insurers wanting to defend this at all. Sorry.
Some interesting advice above, but having worked in motor insurance for over 20 years, I’m afraid much of it is not correct.
Some interesting advice above, but having worked in motor insurance for over 20 years, I’m afraid much of it is not correct.
Edited by bencollins4 on Friday 29th September 11:59
I didn't say he was speeding...
When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
CJ19 said:
I didn't say he was speeding...
When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
I take your point and you’ve clearly been unlucky, but you can’t pull out on a biker just because you believe him to be speeding. When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
I'm not a biker but it's your fault, it's your mistake. Of course you won't admit it and if claim goes to court the noise of the motorbike will convince the judge it was doing 200mph. Was going to go into a rant but enough to say perhaps look twice next time or it could be a 3t electric car going faster and then you might not be around to argue about who was right.
CJ19 said:
I didn't say he was speeding...
When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
If. at the point of impact he was doing the legal 30mph, it was 100% your fault unfortunately.When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
If however he was doing 60mph, different matter....witnesses say he "Shot off from the lights".
It all revolves around this (imo)
WR
Biker since 1969.
CJ19 said:
I didn't say he was speeding...
When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
Edited to say, my advice would be forgot about it and get on with your life. The insurance can sort out the money. It was actually your fault, obviously legally is different, but the time and energy required to try and show it is not worth it in my opinion.When I get access to the CCTV footage we'll know for sure, hence why I measured the distance. at 170 yards, it should have been 12.6 seconds to reach our location from the lights changing, I certainly didn't take that long to cross his path.
I'm not looking for an argument of blame, IF he was speeding, we're both to blame. My "fault" reference was regarding to insurance.
Yes, of course I'm trying to lower the claim, especially once I know exactly what happened from evidence. If he was doing 40MPH, I've been a muppet and it's clearly my fault. But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
Edited by re33 on Friday 29th September 12:09
Edited by re33 on Friday 29th September 12:12
CJ19 said:
But, if he was doing very high speed, why should I be penalised and he gets his personal injury claim protected?
Because regardless of his speed, by your own admission, you pulled out in front of him. If you weren't there he wouldn't be injured. He's the victim here, you seem intent on victim blaming.You stated the lights were 170 yards away to your right and in the direction you intended to go.
I hope I have interpreted correctly.
A vehicle travelling at 60mph equates to 88ft/sec or say 30 yards so at the legal limit of 30mph its 15 yards per second.
That's 11 seconds at the speed limit or 5.5sec at 60mph.
That is quite a long time not to see something coming.
Even at 120mph it is 2.75 seconds of not looking in the right direction.
I hope I have interpreted correctly.
A vehicle travelling at 60mph equates to 88ft/sec or say 30 yards so at the legal limit of 30mph its 15 yards per second.
That's 11 seconds at the speed limit or 5.5sec at 60mph.
That is quite a long time not to see something coming.
Even at 120mph it is 2.75 seconds of not looking in the right direction.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Friday 29th September 12:28
User2109 said:
Because regardless of his speed, by your own admission, you pulled out in front of him. If you weren't there he wouldn't be injured. He's the victim here, you seem intent on victim blaming.
So you think, if he had accelerated to 100mph, (Easy to do). he would still be blameless?Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff