Biker hits pedestrian whilst filtering - who's fault?
- Thread starter blueboy2001
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,351
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I think this will go down to something like 25/75 split in favour of the pedestrian. I am talking in the insurance / civil suit sense.
BTW, you don't need to decide "who's fault" at your statement, just tell the police what you saw.
BTW, you don't need to decide "who's fault" at your statement, just tell the police what you saw.
Bikers fault - If he was going quicker he would have missed the pedestrian
.
Nah its got to be the pedestrians fault. He should have used the crossing, he obviously dosn't know his green cross code (stepping out from behind a van?) and the bikes speed is irrelevent - if someone immidiately stepped infront of the biker he wouldn't be able to stop insantly unless he had the reactions of a psychic cat.
.Nah its got to be the pedestrians fault. He should have used the crossing, he obviously dosn't know his green cross code (stepping out from behind a van?) and the bikes speed is irrelevent - if someone immidiately stepped infront of the biker he wouldn't be able to stop insantly unless he had the reactions of a psychic cat.
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,898
I'd say the bike was doing 30-35mph when it passed my car but was slowing for the lights. I would have thought 10-15mph is plenty when filtering through stationary traffic.
I guess had I not thought the biker was going too fast when I saw it in the mirror and as it went past then I would say it is the pedestrians fault. Even if the biker had been doing 10mph and the pedestrian had stepped out at the wrong moment he would still have been hit.
I guess had I not thought the biker was going too fast when I saw it in the mirror and as it went past then I would say it is the pedestrians fault. Even if the biker had been doing 10mph and the pedestrian had stepped out at the wrong moment he would still have been hit.
Last edited:
hmmm 30-35 is abit quick through stationery traffic, but still even if he was doing 15mph no way he could stop in time if some plank walks out on him.
Exaclty, lol maybe they should teach how to walk at schools now aswell as cycling
, being a biker I dont step out in front of anything now unless ive checked the way is clear.
Bikers fault - If he was going quicker he would have missed the pedestrian
Nah its got to be the pedestrians fault. He should have used the crossing, he obviously dosn't know his green cross code (stepping out from behind a van?) and the bikes speed is irrelevent - if someone immidiately stepped infront of the biker he wouldn't be able to stop insantly unless he had the reactions of a psychic cat.
Exaclty, lol maybe they should teach how to walk at schools now aswell as cycling
, being a biker I dont step out in front of anything now unless ive checked the way is clear.
No way. I done my test a few weeks ago and I wasn't told to do this at all.
Yea I got a Minor for not making progress lol.
If he really was filtering at 35mph in stationary traffic he is a complete fool and deserves to have the book thrown at him.
However, it's unlikely he was going at that speed. As many have said, 10mph looks very fast from the sperspective of a car driver sitting in stationary traffic.
However, it's unlikely he was going at that speed. As many have said, 10mph looks very fast from the sperspective of a car driver sitting in stationary traffic.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
Agreed.
yep the instructors exact words was " you dont get a bike to sit in traffic "
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 2,843
- Location
- Cheshire
You sure he was doing 30-35mph through stationary traffic?? That would have looked incredibly fast and would have most likely hospitalised the ped.
edit: should have read the rest of the thread first
Still peds fault though, the number of times i've nearly hit people who step off the kerb without looking, jabbering away on their phones or listening to their ipods, they then glare or gob off at you, thats provided they even realise you're there. Think I might get some spikes fitted
Fog
edit: should have read the rest of the thread first
Still peds fault though, the number of times i've nearly hit people who step off the kerb without looking, jabbering away on their phones or listening to their ipods, they then glare or gob off at you, thats provided they even realise you're there. Think I might get some spikes fitted
Fog
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 2,843
- Location
- Cheshire
It is an at risk situation, but so is walking through traffic without looking, thats why we have pedestrian crossings.
+1 for jaywalking charges.
Fog
yea but they changed law or they way they look at it recently that if theres whitnesses that the biker wasnt going fast and a car driver pulls out on a filtering biker its the cars fault for not looking, same should apply to plank pedestrians
Did the pedestrian not look, or did he correctly check the two legitimate and clearly marked lanes of stationary traffic not expecting someone to have made a third as an at own risk manouver?
There are far too many bikers who are under the impression that it's other road users responsibilities to watch for bikers doing at risk moves outside the standard road rules. It isn't, it remains the responsibility of the biker who has chosen to make the move to ensure that move is safe.
Your right there are, but I take responsibility for what I do if its my fauly I will hand on heart take whats coming to me, but its also other road users to follow the code and check mirrors and do their blind spot checks, if they cant do this they are not safe to be on the road.
i really doubt he was going at 35-50 mph. Filtering bike seem faster than they are in stationary traffic.
if the conditions allow it i use all the road when filtering (ie. middle of the other side of the road) as there is no solid line in the middle it's fine to cross over. I know some idiot will step out in front of me so the closer to the stationary traffic you are the slower you should go... but this also makes the biker seem to be going faster.
the ped would have been seriously injured at 35-40mph and the biker i assume would have come off and probably hit something else while going at that speed.
at the end of it i think the biker will get the blame as they are more likely to believe bikers are all hooligans
if the conditions allow it i use all the road when filtering (ie. middle of the other side of the road) as there is no solid line in the middle it's fine to cross over. I know some idiot will step out in front of me so the closer to the stationary traffic you are the slower you should go... but this also makes the biker seem to be going faster.
the ped would have been seriously injured at 35-40mph and the biker i assume would have come off and probably hit something else while going at that speed.
at the end of it i think the biker will get the blame as they are more likely to believe bikers are all hooligans
Caselaw still disagrees with you apart from in a very narrow situation.
http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/Articles/filtering_law.htm
Filtering on motorways, dual carriageways or in anything other than very slow moving traffic is still entirely the bikers responsibility, exactly as it should be. No driver should have to not only watch the legitimate lanes, but try to guess where bikers have made extra ones as well.
Was it a transit van or a little van? If it was a big van then I reckon the biker should have slowed right down as he wouldn't of had clear visibility of what was in front of it. If it was a little van then he must have been going to fast or not paying enough attention to spot the pedestrian.
/2p
/2p
Last edited: