Detective Frank Grebbin - Homicide. I ought to bust your ass down to traffic.
Oh wait, that's Dirty Harry.
I can't see how having it 80/20 will actually make any difference to you. I'm pretty sure 50/50 or 80/20, you still have a claim on your record; it's just that the insurance company gets to pay out less and therefore gets a bit more to spend on hookers and coke at their Christmas party.
I think you were probably right to do that, but it's interesting that your insurance company still think that they can apportion a greater share of the blame on the other party.
If the other insurance company were to eventually accept the 80/20, I wonder if that would have helped your case, had you taken it to court?
Thanks for update, always good when these kind of threads don't just disappear.
Detective Frank Grebbin - Homicide. I ought to bust your ass down to traffic.
Oh wait, that's Dirty Harry.
I can't see how having it 80/20 will actually make any difference to you. I'm pretty sure 50/50 or 80/20, you still have a claim on your record; it's just that the insurance company gets to pay out less and therefore gets a bit more to spend on hookers and coke at their Christmas party.
Isn't it taken into account when they ask how much the claim was for? As obviously if your ins. co. only pays for 20% of the total that will be much less. (No idea how much this would affect your premium however - any excuse for them to print money!)
However you stated yourself that although the biker did nothing illegal, he acted out of accordance with the highway code.
Whether it was illegal or not bears no relevance to the situation. As I said in my previous post: "There are plenty of scenarios where another driver could cause a crash by doing something perfectly "legal" and it still be 100% their fault."
Ergo, the fact that the biker did not perform an illegal manoeuvre does not necessarily mean he isn't 100% at fault.
I agree, but the fact that both drivers did things 'wrong' means you can't place blame 100% on either side. If the OP hadn't pulled onto a major road where he couldn't see it was clear the accident wouldn't have happened, and on the other hand if the biker hadn't been filtering where he shouldn't really then the accident wouldn't have happened.
Ergo, partial blame on both sides, simples, yet OP has refused to accept this so 6 months later it's still dragging on...
Apart from the way he was on the wrong side of the road overtaking near a junction and overtaking the closest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing and overtaking over the zigzag do not overtake lines of course.
Fixed my brakes today and decided to try them out on a country road.
Seen worst sight ever. A motorbike in pieces all over the road, with the rider about 30ft away from it, all mangled up and clearly dead with some random driver doing CPR on him. Is helmet was a few metres from his body, so must have come off.
Horrible. He had gone head on into a car. Looks like the biker may have been speeding and gone onto the wrong side of the road around a blind bend. A bend that could easily be done at 70+mph.
must have missed the accident by about 3-4 minute.
Fixed my brakes today and decided to try them out on a country road.
Seen worst sight ever. A motorbike in pieces all over the road, with the rider about 30ft away from it, all mangled up and clearly dead with some random driver doing CPR on him. Is helmet was a few metres from his body, so must have come off.
Horrible. He had gone head on into a car. Looks like the biker may have been speeding and gone onto the wrong side of the road around a blind bend. A bend that could easily be done at 70+mph.
must have missed the accident by about 3-4 minute.
Hang on... so even if you weren't turning, the motorbike would have hit you anyway as he was going too fast to stop at the junction? The motorbike ended up hitting your car in the middle of the intersection according to your diagram.
What was the lorry drivers version of events again?
Indeed, you don't (or should not at least) act on headlight flashes, although the trucker could have been flashing his headlights for any number of reasons.
Perhaps, he'd checked his offside mirror, seen the biker & the flash was some kind of warning? (what else could he do to give such a warning?)
Your all to quick to jump on the "homicidal trucker" as you deem him, getting back to the highway code, flashing of headlights is a warning that he is there, as I say, I can't see how else he could have warned the OP of the oncoming bike.
Think once, think twice, think bike indeed, a great shame in this instance the biker himself was not thinking.
I've seen far too many mangled & dead bikers over the years and no doubt, I'll see a lot more before I hang my keys up for good.
If the OP hadn't pulled onto a major road where he couldn't see it was clear the accident wouldn't have happened, and on the other hand if the biker hadn't been filtering where he shouldn't really then the accident wouldn't have happened.
Realistically speaking, at some times of day it's impossible to pull out onto a major road and know it's absolutely 100% clear. You rely on other motorists not trying to kill themselves by doing something utterly retarded like speeding on the wrong side of the road past a junction when the adjacent traffic is stationary.
If that was the bikers skid marks he was travelling at speed past stationary traffic, general rule of thumb for us bikers is 15mph above the speed of traffic you are filtering past, beware of junctions and traffic ahead. Clearly the biker was driving dangerously and if the OP was pulling out cautiously then it would be the biker 100% at fault. If there was not a witness then the OP would be 100% at fault for pulling out dangerously. Its down to burden of proof.
If the biker and the OP both have witnesses contradicting it will go 50/50 unless there is CCTV footage... as its too late now to get any as most place only hold footage for 1 month...
So every one should have PVR's in their cars, trucks and on their bikes.
Realistically speaking, at some times of day it's impossible to pull out onto a major road and know it's absolutely 100% clear. You rely on other motorists not trying to kill themselves by doing something utterly retarded like speeding on the wrong side of the road past a junction when the adjacent traffic is stationary.
Again, I agree, but that doesn't make him blameless.
I'm not sure he was speeding though, the skidmarks are what, 2-3 metres from the car so barely any speed reduction yet the damage to the cars bumper looks to be very minor. Almost certainly not the 40mph originally claimed
for what it's worth a quick google gives a stopping distance of 59 feet or ~18 metres for a motorcycle braking distance at 40mph, let alone when skidding which will increase it/decrease the drop in speed.
Some of the stories my mum tells me about being an A&E nurse riding out with the ambulances to rta's (this would be back in the 60's/70's)...
Two that stick out in my mind (and hers too) - The biker who went head on into the metal radiator grill of an articulated lorry at 70 mph; it took a long while to distinguish where the man ended and the lorry began, never mind about separating them.
The early hours of the morning motorway crash where one of two of the occupants of one vehicle was doa and the other (a woman) was so badly injured it she was resuscitated 5 times in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. When she got there and woke up she kept asking 'is my baby ok, where is my baby?' No one at the scene ever saw a child. My mum had to go back with a police officer and search the crash site. They found the baby 50 yards down the road from where the vehicles had come to rest, in a ditch at the side of the road. As the child had been thrown from the vehicle and there was no other signs of an infant on board, nobody thought to look for one.
Apparently it was one of the hardest things my mum ever had to do at the hospital - not telling the woman directly because she was so badly injured. Then having to break the news when the woman was out of immediate danger.
She says she can still hear the woman's voice and see the look on her face, clear as day, if she thinks about it.
She always said I'd never ride a motorbike whilst living under her roof... mostly because of the amount of broken human beings she'd had to scrape off the road/attempt to put back together. I guess that kind of sticks with you.
There's good and bad bikers. But I largely see the bad ones who think they can ride however they like; overtaking on blind bends, hills, and as in this case, over t-junctions/crossroads and traffic light junctions.
Think bike? Bikers, think! No good trying to get there quicker if you might not end up getting there at all. I see it a lot, where a bike barrels along a line of stationary traffic, just over the white line, dangerous move if you ask me, even at a sensible speed, like 10-15 mph.
Again, I agree, but that doesn't make him blameless.
I'm not sure he was speeding though, the skidmarks are what, 2-3 metres from the car so barely any speed reduction yet the damage to the cars bumper looks to be very minor. Almost certainly not the 40mph originally claimed
for what it's worth a quick google gives a stopping distance of 59 feet or ~18 metres for a motorcycle braking distance at 40mph, let alone when skidding which will increase it/decrease the drop in speed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
