had a accident this morning :(
- Thread starter wijcc
- Start date
What I'm saying is that if the white car is the lorry, the 4x4 is you can you prove to me that there wasn't a silver car at the lights? if not then you can't prove he broke rule 191 of the highway code, I have no idea if that's the case but ultimately if you can't prove it you can't use it...
matthab said:
Filtering, perfectly legal but an at-risk manoeuvre, much like pulling out of a give-way without knowing it's clear, hence 50/50...
Associate
my mother works for a motorbike school, an if the biker was on the wrong side of the road they are at fault, just asked her then on the phone lol
Soldato
A difficult one as clearly you were edging out and the motorcycle was filtering at an inappropriate speed (one which did not allow him to stop in time).
Like Skill, I think a 50:50 is likely but I highly doubt you would be found at blame, especially if the witness vehicle was the closest vehicle to the crossing, in which case the motorcycle broke the law, and you should be fine.
Like Skill, I think a 50:50 is likely but I highly doubt you would be found at blame, especially if the witness vehicle was the closest vehicle to the crossing, in which case the motorcycle broke the law, and you should be fine.
Soldato
Yeah I think at that point it becomes overtaking rather than filtering, and he hit a vehicle head on so could well be at fault, almost certainly gonna require a fight.
I thought overtaking is not permitted across the diagonal/zigzag..
The rule states that you're not allowed to 'overtake the lead moving car or the lead car stopped for the pedestrian crossing', neither of which can be proved to apply (the lorry may have been the lead car, however there's no proof and he was also not yet at the crossing), fine line but enough that it will go 50/50 rather than anything else (imo)
Caporegime
this
likely to end up going 50/50 tbh. Blame can be laid on both peoples door as both were doing things they were told not (pull out without looking and overtake on the wrong side of the road)
Unless the 3rd party witness can back up that maybe the motorcyclist pulled out from behind his lorry leaving the OP no time to react ? in which case the claim may go in his favour if the insurance co argues he did look, but wouldn't have seen the biker due to the large size of the lorry.
Last edited:
Caporegime
depends upon what they are bordered by :
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070306
If its not got solid lines its fine to cross "if necessary and safe"
I'm not sure rule 130 applies to 'zig-zag' lines, rule 191 specifically mentioned those and is quite different to 130:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339
Soldato
That is not the same as a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339
is the page you want
Edit: Skill beat me while I was navigating
but rule 167 may help his case.167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
where the road narrows
when approaching a school crossing patrol
between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
Last edited:
Caporegime
hmm good point about the pedestrian crossing.
It does however say :
was the lorry stopped to give way to pedestrians or just to let the OP out ?
It does however say :
was the lorry stopped to give way to pedestrians or just to let the OP out ?
The pedestrian crossing is a good way beyond the junction, it's quite clear he was letting the OP out, however that doesn't really matter,
No-one is saying the motorcyclist was in the right, he was (most likely) breaking rule 191, however the OP was pulling out of a give-way junction onto a stretch of road he could not observe and ended up in someone else's path, hence there is some blame on him.
So basically both doing things they shouldn't be, both at fault, simples
No-one is saying the motorcyclist was in the right, he was (most likely) breaking rule 191, however the OP was pulling out of a give-way junction onto a stretch of road he could not observe and ended up in someone else's path, hence there is some blame on him.
So basically both doing things they shouldn't be, both at fault, simples
Soldato
Sorry to hear it - glad all parties are alright. I hate seeing accidents and some people are just mental on the roads in London.
Sounds like unobservant riding by the bike. He really should have slowed up if he noticed the lorry slowing / stopped at a junction, although how you could estimate his speed if you couldn't see him and he was coming towards you is anyone's guess.
That said, I would think it will go 50/50.
That said, I would think it will go 50/50.
Soldato
tbh
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,902
This is how it looks to me aswell. Hope you don't get the blame OP.
