had a accident this morning :(

ubersonic said:
You can never ever be 100% certain its safe to do so in that kind of situation, the court will see that the OP did everything possible/correctly according to the HWC and that if it wasn't for a nut job biker violating multiple highway code rules the would have been no accident, I mean look at all this:



The DO NOT is a legal requirements and violation constitutes a criminal offence (hence my illegal overtake comment) the DO NOTs may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see page 124) to establish liability.

Assuming the witness will go to court all the OP needs is semi competent legal representation and some testicles and he will walk it.
Click to expand...

Proving the biker was partially at fault does not mean the OP wasn't driving dangerously.

This isn't an insurance claim, it has 0 to do with the biker now. It isn't about pointing blame at 1 party, or 50/50. The police are interested in weather the OP was driving dangerously or not, he pulled out when he could not see clearly the road he was pulling out onto.

What he should have done was told the lorry to continue driving and only pull out once it was painfully clear both sides of the road were totally clear.

In reality this never happens because everyone would spend 10 minutes at every junction, but a court doesn't take into account common sense. It deals only with the law, and I would be very surprised if the law found the OP was driving totally safely - when he pulled out onto a road he could not see and was relying on a lorry flashing him to say it's okay to pull out.
 
Peerzy said:
Proving the biker was partially at fault does not mean the OP wasn't driving dangerously.

This isn't an insurance claim, it has 0 to do with the biker now. It isn't about pointing blame at 1 party, or 50/50. The police are interested in weather the OP was driving dangerously or not, he pulled out when he could not see clearly the road he was pulling out onto.

What he should have done was told the lorry to continue driving and only pull out once it was painfully clear both sides of the road were totally clear.

In reality this never happens because everyone would spend 10 minutes at every junction, but a court doesn't take into account common sense. It deals only with the law, and I would be very surprised if the law found the OP was driving totally safely - when he pulled out onto a road he could not see and was relying on a lorry flashing him to say it's okay to pull out.
Click to expand...

But he could see into the road and he could see that traffic had stopped to let him out, he could not predict that some nutter would come down the road in the wrong direction, this type of accident is the exact reason that its illegal to do what the biker did!
 
the lorry could not go very far ahead as to my left the car ahead of the lorry was stationary.. so he left a gap for me to pull out as the road/traffic ahead of him was stationary.
 
ubersonic said:
But he could see into the road and he could see that traffic had stopped to let him out, he could not predict that some nutter would come down the road in the wrong direction, this type of accident is the exact reason that its illegal to do what the biker did!
Click to expand...

You are suppose to look both ways when pulling out - this means down both sides of the road. He could not see the part of the road he was pulling out onto because the lorry was blocking his view.

If he could have seen the biker he wouldn't have pulled out, he couldn't because the lorry was blocking his view. In the eye of the law he should have waited for the lorry to move.
 
Peerzy said:
You are suppose to look both ways when pulling out - this means down both sides of the road. He could not see the part of the road he was pulling out onto because the lorry was blocking his view.

If he could have seen the biker he wouldn't have pulled out, he couldn't because the lorry was blocking his view. In the eye of the law he should have waited for the lorry to move.
Click to expand...

In order for it to be dangerous driving he had to do something wrong, in the eyes of the law he did nothing wrong, you do not have to anticipate somebody coming down the wrong side of the road, you just don't. A guy round here had a head on crash on a roundabout with a drunk Pole who decided to go round the wrong way and guess what, he was found not at fault.
 
I had a similar incident a few years back but I was in the biker's position, it ended up with the third party (who pulled out of the junction and hit the side of my car) being found liable.

There were no zig-zag lines in my case as it wasn't near a crossing, how much that will affect the outcome I don't know, just thought I would let you know.

In my case the car in front of me, on an otherwise clear section of 30mph residential road, decided to stop and flash out a car from a side-road on the left. I wasn't aware of what he was doing, just that he was slowing down as if to stop, the road ahead was clear so I moved over and continued past him, as I passed him the guy from the side road pulled out and drove into the passenger door of my car.

The guy who stopped and flashed out the third party clearly thought I was in the wrong as he drove past my stricken car with his hand held on the horn, he didn't stop and offer himself as a witness though for some reason.

Took a couple of years to settle, and I had to state that I was prepared to go to court if necessary, although it wasn't necessary in the end.
 
playworker said:
I had a similar incident a few years back but I was in the biker's position, it ended up with the third party (who pulled out of the junction and hit the side of my car) being found liable.

There were no zig-zag lines in my case as it wasn't near a crossing, how much that will affect the outcome I don't know, just thought I would let you know.

In my case the car in front of me, on an otherwise clear section of 30mph residential road, decided to stop and flash out a car from a side-road on the left. I wasn't aware of what he was doing, just that he was slowing down as if to stop, the road ahead was clear so I moved over and continued past him, as I passed him the guy from the side road pulled out and drove into the passenger door of my car.

The guy who stopped and flashed out the third party clearly thought I was in the wrong as he drove past my stricken car with his hand held on the horn, he didn't stop and offer himself as a witness though for some reason.

Took a couple of years to settle, and I had to state that I was prepared to go to court if necessary, although it wasn't necessary in the end.
Click to expand...

The difference is your case was with the insurance company, the OP's is with the police. If he refuses the course it will 100% go to court.

@ubersonic - We'll agree to disagree, to me £184 is worth paying just to make this go away. It's easily gonna cost him a day off work and hours with a solicitor. My time is worth more than £184, and it's a massive risk. He'll only win back his £184 effectively, but he stands to lose a driving a conviction and thousands.

I think the OP is being treated very harsly, and isn't at fault, but it wouldn't stop me paying £184 for it to all just go away.

Pick your battles and all that.
 
Last edited:
wijcc said:
I have contacted and spoken to a "specialist" motoring solicitors firm. I emailed and circumstances of the incident and the pics I had. He stated that -
If I decided not to take the course and it was ti go to court I had a very good chance of winning the case with the details I have given him. If it did go to court the cost of his firm representing me would be £2500+Vat approx.. and he also thought that a specialist would be needed to recreate the circumstances of the accident, examining the skidmarks etc.. which would bump the overall cost of the case to £4000~… and there is a possibility that even if I was to win the case that I would not be able to recover all this cost..
Click to expand...

Not really surpising that they've said this, wether you win or loose - they're quids in. Bare that in mind.
 
I emailed the police handler yesterday, asking whether they would re-evaluate the case if I sent in the pics and if attending the course equates to admitting liability in any insurance claims.. the response was:

I have passed a copy of your email to my Manager who has reviewed this matter.

He has instructed me to advise you that our decision stands. The points you outlined had previously been considered but it was felt that as you were emerging from a junction the greater responsibility lay with you.

The Driver Alertness Course is offered to improve driving skills and awareness and by accepting a Course it is not automatically considered to be an admission of liability.

However if you still feel you are not guilty of the offence of Driving without due care and attention, and you do not wish to complete the Course, this offence can be reverted for summons. If this happens the Crown Prosecution Service will review the evidence and if they agree this matter will go to the Magistrates Court where the evidence will be presented and a decision made as to whether you are guilty or not. If the matter goes to court you will also have the opportunity to dispute the evidence if you wish to.
Click to expand...
 
It must be car accident season as there's been a couple threads lately plus I just got pulled out on by some doddery old git at a roundabout resulting in me smashing into the side of his motor. Give way to the right ey? Someone never told him that. Hey OP we can be car crash fwends :p
 
its not about the money Peerzy... its more about the principle and that fact that it will be on my record for the next 7 years grrrrrrr. And also why the motorcyclist should “get away” with it scott free.

But i am very much leaning towards taking the course.. everything shouts to take the easy way out and take the course.. but something inside me (maybe my stubbornness) says fight grrrrrrrrrrrrr
 
Take the course, find out where the motorcyclist lives, and burn his house down?*

You get the "easy way out", and he doesn't get off scot-free.

I'm getting very tempted to do this following my recent accident** (strangely enough also involving a motorcyclist in very similar circumstances, except I was turning right).

I know this isn't the case for all motorcyclists, but it does seem that the law is very much geared towards protecting them from the consequences of whatever stupid stunts they decide to pull to get to their location 2 minutes quicker.

Before the "yes but if they're in an accident they're more likely to be injured" brigade appears. I'm well aware of that fact. Surely that should convince them not to ride like complete pillocks, rather than being given free reign to completely disregard the highway code?

Again, I realise that the vast majority of bikers do ride sensibly, just the same as I realised there are car drivers who drive like they have the mental capacity of a brain-dead amoeba, however the bikers tend to get away with it more as they are considered to be more at risk...

* Don't actually do this - and if you do, don't get caught... if you do get caught, it wasn't my idea! :p

** I'm not... well, not really...
 
Last edited:
wijcc said:
its not about the money Peerzy... its more about the principle and that fact that it will be on my record for the next 7 years grrrrrrr. And also why the motorcyclist should “get away” with it scott free.

But i am very much leaning towards taking the course.. everything shouts to take the easy way out and take the course.. but something inside me (maybe my stubbornness) says fight grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Click to expand...

Ah if it's not about money then and £4000 is nothing to you then fight it. I was under the impression your money and time had a value to you but if your rolling in it and can afford countless days off work, hours on the phone and in meetings and thousands on fees then go ahead mate.

Pick and choose your battles.
 
Peerzy said:
Ah if it's not about money then and £4000 is nothing to you then fight it. I was under the impression your money and time had a value to you but if your rolling in it and can afford countless days off work, hours on the phone and in meetings and thousands on fees then go ahead mate.

Pick and choose your battles.
Click to expand...

I meant the £200~.. it makes far more to go with this option then risk losing more (points on the license etc)... i will most likely decide to go on the course have to till next tuesday to decide
 
It's a kick in the balls I agree, and it's not common sense and it's everything that's wrong with this country (Copyright DailyMail) but it's the best and most sensible way for you to deal with the situation.
 
update: my claim/case still has not been resolved.

If I am found to be liable should i claim for the damages/repairs on my car or just pay for it out of my own pocket. Given that the 3rd party will claim on my insurance will claiming on my insurance for damage to my own car affect my premium for next year.. (i have full comp insurance with 5 or 6 years protected ncd)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom