motorbike filtering accident

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 19:50

Need some advice. I was involved in an motorbike *filtering accident 2 years ago. My solictors have told me throughout to settle for 50/50 though I completely disagree. I was filtering by stationary traffic when a car pulled out from my left from a private (unmarked) carpark. I was already in front of the car and could do nothing to avoid the accident. The defendant however claims I hit her. Totally untrue. And her sole claim is that I was driving on the wrong side of the road. This I have admitted to as it gave me a clear view to the end of the road and other vehicles. There was nothing oncoming so this was to my judgement not dangerous, in fact I would say a sensible course as if I had been closer to the stationary traffic the accident would have been far worse. Anyhoo I have just recieved the statement of the defendant and there are so many blaringly obvious inconsistencies. The biggest being that I hit the driver and toppled to the right with my bike. However as part of my claim the only personal injury I sustained was to my left foot where her car collided with my left side. She claims I sustained the injury during the bike toppling which to me is physically impossible as if my foot had got trapped under the bike it would have needed to twist to sustain such an injury and if so would have sustained far worse than the swelling and bruising I had. It seems as though the fact I was filtering is frowned upon and this is what the defendant is relying upon. My solicitors *dont seem to give a shhh either. I was driving at 10-15mph so not excessively, in fact I would say I am quite cautious if and when I do filter as I know the risks. I have also been quoted various caselaws tho they all seem to involve accidents with cars at junctions, not emerging from a private car park, which simply is exited via a sloped kerb, no markings, no barriers, no signs. Has anyone had/got a similar experience?

CaptainRAVE · 27 May 2012 at 19:55

50/50 seems to be the best you will get tbh.

acemastr · 27 May 2012 at 20:03

50/50 is it, you filtered past what is effectively a junction.
We all do it, just sometimes we get unlucky.

Surely damage to the car and bike should show who hit who though, it'd still be 50/50 if she ran straight into the side of you though, I imagine anyway.

Jokester · 27 May 2012 at 20:07

What was the outcome of the guy that did the same thing but was in the car pulling out?

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:17

The damage report has never been sent to me but according to the solicitor its inconclusive as to evidence. She said she looked both ways but she could not have done as she would certainly have seen me. Moreso I think the point is it could quite easily have been a cyclist or pedestrian. I was being cautious as the road is used by many cyclists. She cannot say the same as at least a motorbike makes a sound a cycle wouldnt and I fear that if she had a cyclist instead of me on my substantial bike the consequences would have been far worse. It makes me cross to think someone can do something so silly and then deny the fact. Especially as she has put in her witness statement tjat shes been driving 25 years and never had an accident. That to me is neither here nor there

CaptainRAVE · 27 May 2012 at 20:18

Unless you have witnesses there, she can and will say whatever it takes to deny responsibility.

Domi · 27 May 2012 at 20:19

Powell v Moody (1966)

The defendant was exiting a minor road onto a main road. There was a queue of traffic on the main road, and he was invited to leave the minor road by a driver on the main road in the queue of traffic.

As he did so the claimant, on a motorbike, was riding along the offside of the queue and collided with the defendant's vehicle.

The judge found the claimant to be 80% to blame, as any party jumping a queue of stationary vehicles is 'undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard'.

Read more: http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal...g-what-the-law-says-lu-2811.htm#ixzz1w6DqgRvK

It sounds like go to court you will lose.

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:20

Also maybe worthy of mention in my favour is that I had just retook my 2 yearly CBT 2 weekss prior whereas a driver of 25 years is not inclined to have refreshers etc and after that amount of time she could easily have picked up bad habits

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:23

Sorry forgot to mention that there was a witness but he didnt want to say fault on either party. Plus I have now been told the witness statement was never signed by him. I want to question what exactly my solicitors ARE doing

Skalaberg · 27 May 2012 at 20:23

Passing stationary traffic on the wrong side of the road if Ive read that correctly... 50/50 sounds like a win for you if this is the case and you should probably take it.

Domi · 27 May 2012 at 20:25

Honestly just reading that article from access legal you have no chance of bettering 50/50

Filtering is a risky manouvre you failed to recognise the possible danger of the "junction" so its at least partly your fault. Sorry.

frankly if solicitors were not such thieving Bs they would have told you that at the start.

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:26

Thanks Domi but I would have thought the circumstances differ. I did not collide with her but vice versa. Surely any manouever that a driver makes should only be done so if the road is clear and they have a clear view of the road, this she could not have had else she would have saw me

CaptainRAVE · 27 May 2012 at 20:27

Sorry, but forget about it and move on tbh.

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:29

Thanks for the comments. The initial offer was 10/90 in her favour so it has improved. I am just mad that it has took this long to get anywhere really. It does seem however that automatic assumption is on the bike driver when filtering accidents happen no matter how cautious we are :-(

CaptainRAVE · 27 May 2012 at 20:31

bonus_2002 said:
Thanks for the comments. The initial offer was 10/90 in her favour so it has improved. I am just mad that it has took this long to get anywhere really. It does seem however that automatic assumption is on the bike driver when filtering accidents happen no matter how cautious we are

As I found when someone ran up the back of me, even in an automatic fault situation, the whole process takes ages and the solicitors do all they can to make every penny they can.

Dogbreath · 27 May 2012 at 20:47

Skalaberg said:
Passing stationary traffic on the wrong side of the road if Ive read that correctly... 50/50 sounds like a win for you if this is the case and you should probably take it.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about passing stationary traffic on the "wrong" side of the road, unless you have crossed double white lines to do so, or do it on a pedestrian crossing etc.

OP, contact one of the law firms that specialise in bike accidents. I wouldn't want to let that go for 50/50.

[TW]Fox · 27 May 2012 at 20:49

bonus_2002 said:
Also maybe worthy of mention in my favour is that I had just retook my 2 yearly CBT 2 weekss prior whereas a driver of 25 years is not inclined to have refreshers etc and after that amount of time she could easily have picked up bad habits

Hang on, surely if you RETOOK a CBT its because in the 2 years after your first CBT you'd not bothered to take a proper test and get off L plates? Therefore surely this doesn't exactly highlight that you are some sort of ubertrained rider, infact quite the opposite?

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:52

Haha yeah. I didnt mean it like that. I just meant that I had recently had some form of road awareness training. I sadly cant afford the full licence or a real mans bike :-)

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 20:54

Thanks dogbreath. I thought this too. In fact I have quoted to my solicitors no such rule in the highway code. Whereas the defendant DID break rules about moving off without a full view of the public highway

bonus_2002 · 27 May 2012 at 21:05

Can anyone actually define a junction for me too please?
I wouldnt class this as a junction. Is a private entry to a property with a sloped kerb classed as a junction, cos in essence this is what she entered the highway from