Sons Accident - Fault ?

[Prawn]

My son had an accident yesterday, just trying to get a feel for where the fault will be levelled.

Driving slowly up the seafront looking for a parking space, see'e one on the right, slows further and indicates to turn.
Looks in mirros and see's no vehicles.
Turns across road and is promptly hit drivers side A pillar by a motorbike.

No fault or comment at the scene and no injuries.

Bike did not look damaged but car probably needs all the drivers side panels replaced (2 door so the sill is part of the rear wing, crease in front wing and door skin !!!)

Car probably a write off as its only worth £500 anyway.

Any thoughts ?

[vonhosen]

Prawn said:

My son had an accident yesterday, just trying to get a feel for where the fault will be levelled.

Driving slowly up the seafront looking for a parking space, see'e one on the right, slows further and indicates to turn.
Looks in mirros and see's no vehicles.
Turns across road and is promptly hit drivers side A pillar by a motorbike.

No fault or comment at the scene and no injuries.

Bike did not look damaged but car probably needs all the drivers side panels replaced (2 door so the sill is part of the rear wing, crease in front wing and door skin !!!)

Car probably a write off as its only worth £500 anyway.

Any thoughts ?

If as you say, both at fault.

What's the betting the motorcyclist says there was no signal though ?

[supermono]

I guess it rests on how long your boy was indicating. If it was one of those last second indicator/swerve suicide moves I have sympathy for the biker.

But if your boy was driving slowly signalling right and then moving out, the bike should have read that a mile off and stood by waiting for the move.

Hard to know. I'd be interested in hearing the outcome.

SM

[Prawn]

"What's the betting the motorcyclist says there was no signal though ?"

I would have thought he would have said that as well but did not even when the BIB came to the scene, but yes sure he will in the cold light of day.

[TOPTON]

Prawn said:

Looks in mirros and see's no vehicles.
Turns across road and is promptly hit drivers side A pillar by a motorbike.



Any thoughts ?

So where did the bike come from then? Sounds like a typical case of SMIDSY.
Sorry Mate I Didn't See You.
Not meaning to be harsh, but the bike didn't fall out of the sky and as there are no injuries, I am guessing the bike wasn't hooning along.

As yet, it is not illegal to overtake slow moving cars, so apart from not reading the situation correctly, the biker IMO is not at fault.

It is up to the driver to make SURE it is safe to turn or alter position. A signal does not mean 'I am doing this so get out of my way'

[black-k1]

TOPTON said:

Prawn said:

Looks in mirros and see's no vehicles.
Turns across road and is promptly hit drivers side A pillar by a motorbike.



Any thoughts ?

So where did the bike come from then? Sounds like a typical case of SMIDSY.
Sorry Mate I Didn't See You.
Not meaning to be harsh, but the bike didn't fall out of the sky and as there are no injuries, I am guessing the bike wasn't hooning along.

As yet, it is not illegal to overtake slow moving cars, so apart from not reading the situation correctly, the biker IMO is not at fault.

It is up to the driver to make SURE it is safe to turn or alter position. A signal does not mean 'I am doing this so get out of my way'

I have to agree with this. If the car was indicating for a reasonable time before the manoeuvre then the bike should not be passing but, the car was still in the wrong by making a right turn when it was clearly not safe to do so.

[aw51 121565]

Tell your lad to do a "lifesaver" * before changing direction, as Bikes (and cyclists, and cars on wider roads) can creep up like this in an unexpected fashion.

• quick but certain glance over the shoulders, especially the shoulder nearer the direction one is planning to change towards, but both can be useful eg in standing traffic. It saves my bacon daily .

[iainbrown]

Your son would be guilty of without due care and attention, the circumstances are almost the same as a stated case, does not mean he would be taken to court, may be decided not in public interest, as no injury or damage to bike just your car, with be a civil claim, i would think.

[GKP]

Bike's fault.

[odyssey2200]

vonhosen said:

[
What's the betting the motorcyclist says there was no signal though ?

whats the betting the car driver says he was?

Are you apportioning already Von?

[falcemob]

If it was a car rather than a bike traveling along the outside overtaking then everyone would say the car driver is lunatic. As it is a bike then the biker is assumed to be in the right, typical biker's self centered, arrogant way of thinking.
Biker is in the wrong as it is up to the overtaker to make sure it is safe to carry out the manoeuvre, or so I have been told by BiB.

[putridp]

Who would have been to blame if the car was turning right into a side road?
The bike obviously, due to the 'no overtaking by junctions' highway code rule, but this situation isn't all that different. Probably the car driver is in the wrong for turning right without clearing his mirrors properly, but IMHO the rider is in the wrong morally - I suspect that he got frustrated following a car driver taking his time to find a parking space and tried to nip past. A bit silly given the size/weight differential?

I'm not saying that I haven't raged whilst following a driver who's looking (ineptly) for a parking space though!

Edited by putridp on Monday 30th July 20:40

[odyssey2200]

how about a slightly different take on events

Car driver loitering or crawling along spending more time looking for a parking plavce that paying attention to the road.

Trafic is held up behind blockage caused by car until the driver deems it is safe to pass.

At some point loitering driver spots a place and forgets all about other trafic and pulls across the road either not indicating or indicating as he manouvers.

At that time it just happened to be a bike passing but could so easilly have been a car/bus/lorry.
Still the passing vehicles fault or ar car driver incapable of making an error?

All you drivers of "performance" cars bleat on about idiot car drivers who do stupid stuff, well you should try dealing with the Richard Cranium's when on 2 wheels.

you sound like a bunch of old grannys

"Oh that motorbike was going too fast young man!"

Edited by odyssey2200 on Monday 30th July 20:49

[jimmyb]

Blindspot not checked. Car driver at fault biker gets leniancy always much like cyclists.

[Muffles]

It sounds like it might be a 50/50 to me - both the car driver and the biker have a duty to ensure the road is clear before performing their repsective manoeuvres.

I think it will hurt the driver to have not checked blind spot though (if that is to be admitted in any claim of course).

I don't know if the highway code specifies who has precedence in this situation?

[bitwrx]

Sorry to say it sounds like your boy's fault (in my opinion - the value of which I shall let you judge for yourself). Yes he was indicating and did check in his mirrors, but he didn't see the bike.

Whether the bike should have been there in the first place is a different matter entirely. Even if the bike was wrong to be there, it is your son's responsibility to account for the unexpected - including mentalists who have a death wish (which this biker may or may not have been).

Good point well made about the lifesaver. It's only since I have done some road miles on a bike that I have really made a point of doing it. It's already saved me a few times. Nothing like the fear of death to make you pay a bit more attention!!

[Mr2Mike]

odyssey2200 said:

h
you sound like a bunch of old grannys

Perhaps those complaining have been subject to the frightening displays of stupidly by a proportion of bikers who appear to think they are immortal. Sadly many of them prove they were mistaken

Sounds like both could be at fault, driver for possible lack of attention, and biker because he was overtaking moving traffic at the time, a manouver which always carries some risk which must be borne by the overtaker.

[black-k1]

putridp said:

Who would have been to blame if the car was turning right into a side road?
The bike obviously, due to the 'no overtaking by junctions' highway code rule, but this situation isn't all that different. Probably the car driver is in the wrong for turning right without clearing his mirrors properly, but IMHO the rider is in the wrong morally - I suspect that he got frustrated following a car driver taking his time to find a parking space and tried to nip past. A bit silly given the size/weight differential?

I'm not saying that I haven't raged whilst following a driver who's looking (ineptly) for a parking space though!

GKP said:

Bike's fault.

falcemob said:

If it was a car rather than a bike traveling along the outside overtaking then everyone would say the car driver is lunatic. As it is a bike then the biker is assumed to be in the right, typical biker's self centered, arrogant way of thinking.
Biker is in the wrong as it is up to the overtaker to make sure it is safe to carry out the manoeuvre, or so I have been told by BiB.

OK. Slightly different scenario. Tractor chugging along at 12mph with a line of cars behind. Car 1 not attempting to get past, nor is car 2. Car 3 can see clearly way ahead is clear so checks mirrors, indicates and pulls out to pass car 2, car 1 and tractor but, as car 3 gets level with rear end of car 1 car 1 indicates and moves right at the same time. Now who’s at fault?

Are you making your judgments on the fact that it’s a bike doing the passing or the fact that the maneuver was wrong? If the car did not give ample warning of the intention to turn right then the car is totally in the wrong in that it carried out a turn right without proper signaling and when it was clearly not safe to do so. If the car did give ample warning then the bike should not have been overtaking BUT the car should still not have carried out the right turn as it was not safe to do so – perhaps 50/50.

[WildCat]

Insurer will try to do a 50/50 if neither admit liablity & the driver claims "indicating" whilst the biker refutes the signal.

One word against the other. On balance of probabilities - both should have been looking out for the other - especially if in area where cars are parking to a Pay/Display system or whatever

If it goes to court - depend on judge und which "version he or she prefers" on the day . Insurers usually hire big legal firms who send out the most junior in the Chamber to deal with these cases. Usually goes "pear shaped" as result for one - but neither party argued particularly well either based on what folk tell me.

[Noger]

Fault from the insurers perspective ?

Given no injuries and low cost, I very much doubt the two insurers would even bother to go 50/50 (i.e. recover off each other) - simply not worth it.