Ran into the back of someone but not to blame!
Discussion
Non-FB link for those wanting a direct: https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brenda-mitch...
Reminds me of when I was 17 on my brand new RD125LC. Driving behind a female driver in the dark and rain approaching a set of lights. They were on green for our lane going straight on but red for the right turn.
As she approached the stop line - on green - she suddenly did an emergency stop. I was on her offside rear but couldn’t stop and hit her. She’d got confused with the lights.
Told her she’d have to pay for her stupidity. She gave me a false address and that was that.
My fault really. I hadn’t anticipated an emergency stop on the stop line on a wet road.
As she approached the stop line - on green - she suddenly did an emergency stop. I was on her offside rear but couldn’t stop and hit her. She’d got confused with the lights.
Told her she’d have to pay for her stupidity. She gave me a false address and that was that.
My fault really. I hadn’t anticipated an emergency stop on the stop line on a wet road.
gland said:
Is there a particular aspect of the judgment can't you get your head around? Can you elaborate?
In 40 years on bikes, in cars, trucks etc I've always understood that if you can't stop and run into something, you are at fault. No matter how much of a dick the car driver was, the bike ran into the back of the car. At very least I would have thought there would have been some liability on the biker.
I did something similar myself, riding my gpZ900r behind a nervous driver in a golf. The golf pulled away at a roundabout, I started to follow him out, watching for traffic coming round the roundabout. Unbeknownst to me, he saw a lorry chugging round the roundabout and decided he couldn't make it while I saw the lorry and gave it a bit of welly...straight into the boot of the now stopped Golf. Yes he shouldn't have stopped in the middle of a roundabout, but 100% my fault that I hit him.
Edited by Vanordinaire on Thursday 28th February 20:48
Vanordinaire said:
gland said:
Is there a particular aspect of the judgment can't you get your head around? Can you elaborate?
In 40 years on bikes, in cars, trucks etc I've always understood that if you can't stop and run into something, you are at fault. No matter how much of a dick the car driver was, the bike ran into the back of the car. At very least I would have thought there would have been some liability on the biker.
I did something similar myself, riding my gpZ900r behind a nervous driver in a golf. The golf pulled away at a roundabout, I started to follow him out, watching for traffic coming round the roundabout. Unbeknownst to me, he saw a lorry chugging round the roundabout and decided he couldn't make it while I saw the lorry and gave it a bit of welly...straight into the boot of the now stopped Golf. Yes he shouldn't have stopped in the middle of a roundabout, but 100% my fault that I hit him.
Edited by Vanordinaire on Thursday 28th February 20:48
gland said:
Thanks - I see what you mean. I think I'm coming at it from little person experience but having seen videos of a couple of brake checks by irrate cars in front of dashcam-equiped lorries. They end badly and there's no doubt who's at fault.
Yeah, I remember that clip a few years ago of a lady brake checking a van driver coming onto a dual carriageway. She caused a pile up and some serious injuries and was found totally at fault. The facts suggest some pretty s
t riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.
Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like st riding to me!
t riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like s
t riding to me!poo at Paul's said:
The facts suggest some pretty st riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.
Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like st riding to me!
st riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like s
t riding to me!t driving too to be fair. I can see how anyone could be caught out by the car in front stopping dead for no apparent reason. Rubin215 said:
What has never been raised in any of the news coverage is that the car driver, an experienced road user, deliberately did the emergency stop intending to scare the motorcyclists behind but did not actually anticipate one of them running into the back of her.
Allegedly...
This is the only thing that makes sense of the judgement. Allegedly...
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
What has never been raised in any of the news coverage is that the car driver, an experienced road user, deliberately did the emergency stop intending to scare the motorcyclists behind but did not actually anticipate one of them running into the back of her.
Allegedly...
This is the only thing that makes sense of the judgement. Allegedly...
I don't buy the line that "she <the driver> was so nervous about having a motorbike behind her that she did an emergency stop from 50mph". There has to have been something else going on.
Zarco said:
poo at Paul's said:
The facts suggest some pretty st riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.
Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like st riding to me!
st riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like s
t riding to me!t driving too to be fair. I can see how anyone could be caught out by the car in front stopping dead for no apparent reason. Even a fairly standard family saloon with abs will stop faster than a bike just by standing on the brake pedal; four tyres means far better grip and stability.
Do it with a barrier on the left and an articulated lorry coming the other way and where can the biker go?
No idea how you can actually have this as a law. My wife will emergency brake if a squirrel runs in front of her car. Something the motorcyclists behind would never see. She defends this by saying it could have been a child, and best to brake then work out what it was rather than the alternative. I have no argument for that.
I suspect the judge in this case thought the emergency braking was intentionally to upset the motorcyclists behind or otherwise its madness.
And as others have said before its impossible to hit a car In front if you are driving to be able to stop in the space you can see, and it is therefore always a degree of contributory negligence.
I suspect the judge in this case thought the emergency braking was intentionally to upset the motorcyclists behind or otherwise its madness.
And as others have said before its impossible to hit a car In front if you are driving to be able to stop in the space you can see, and it is therefore always a degree of contributory negligence.
julian64 said:
No idea how you can actually have this as a law. My wife will emergency brake if a squirrel runs in front of her car. Something the motorcyclists behind would never see. She defends this by saying it could have been a child, and best to brake then work out what it was rather than the alternative. I have no argument for that.
I suspect the judge in this case thought the emergency braking was intentionally to upset the motorcyclists behind or otherwise its madness.
And as others have said before its impossible to hit a car In front if you are driving to be able to stop in the space you can see, and it is therefore always a degree of contributory negligence.
That is a different set of circumstances with your wife, she is braking as a reaction to a perceived threat in front in order to avoid a collision, that's not what the driver in the judgement was doing.I suspect the judge in this case thought the emergency braking was intentionally to upset the motorcyclists behind or otherwise its madness.
And as others have said before its impossible to hit a car In front if you are driving to be able to stop in the space you can see, and it is therefore always a degree of contributory negligence.
This judgement isn't saying every time a motorcyclist runs into the back of a braking vehicle ahead the driver of the braking vehicle will be liable.
Each case rests on it's own facts.
People brake testing others are criminally dangerous & potentially liable for adverse outcomes.
Rubin215 said:
Zarco said:
poo at Paul's said:
The facts suggest some pretty st riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.
Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like st riding to me!
st riding. If he could not stop from 55mph with a 60 m gap to the car in front, he must have reactions like a sloath. Even if the car stopped dead, I'm sure I could stop from 55mph in 60m. Or at least slow to navigate around it.Of course, the car would not stop instantly, so there would in reality be over 100 metres to stop in. Sounds like s
t riding to me!t driving too to be fair. I can see how anyone could be caught out by the car in front stopping dead for no apparent reason. Even a fairly standard family saloon with abs will stop faster than a bike just by standing on the brake pedal; four tyres means far better grip and stability.
Do it with a barrier on the left and an articulated lorry coming the other way and where can the biker go?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff