• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

motorbike filtering accident

So let me get this straight.

Your words against hers.
Physical evidence inconclusive.
Legal precedents says 80/20 in favour of he claimant and you have a 50/50 on the table.

Look at this objectively, yes objectively, and not from your eyes, and see what a bargain you have here on the table. You think a judge, looking at the above will think different?

Stop wasting legal cost and bite this one on the head.
 
If it did proceed to court I have been told it would come out of my pocket. Ijust think little has been done by my solicitors. The witness may not want to say whos at fault but he saw the accident, saying that she collided into me is not stating fault just telling the truth.
I am more frustated not because I was injured badly but it has affected my confidence around cars in general. I just want justice is that so wrong?
 
Justice would be served by the CPS and criminal courts, not by you through civil courts.

I know it sucks but the TRUTH of the matter is if you have no independent witnesses, no conclusive physical evidence, no bullet proof expert evidence from an accident reconstruction expert and if the police accident report is also inconclusive then you are not going to better 50/50.

You can claim for your injuries, you can claim for therapy that you need to test your confidence back, that is to argue with after the liability is resolve, that part is call quantum.

Unless you have solid proof, not merely your words, then it would be a VERY hard case to win 100%, unless she doesn't turn up to court on the day.
 
Last edited:
Dogbreath said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting it was illegal. It was just risky, and therefore he's 50/50 liable for the accident. Fair enough, imho.
 
Thanks. I do understand that. I guess its more frustrating as its out of my hands. I will speak again to my solicitors and I will also raise a complaint about their conduct as I feel they should have given me all the information as and when it became available. Especially when they charge so much :-)
 
bonus_2002 said:
Thanks. I do understand that. I guess its more frustrating as its out of my hands. I will speak again to my solicitors and I will also raise a complaint about their conduct as I feel they should have given me all the information as and when it became available. Especially when they charge so much :-)
Click to expand...

Feel free to make a complaint, that's your perogrative but did you not take out a CFA?
 
If you settle for 50/50 now they pay your costs, the thing about CFA is if you lose, as part of the CFA you take out insurance to pay your solicitors costs if that happens.

Without CFA and you lose, you will be seriously out of pocket.
 
Whatever happens, I hope you recover soon, and ask your solicitor to get medical expert report and push for the therapies that you need to help you get better quicker. :)
 
Last edited:
Dogbreath said:
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.
Click to expand...

At what point did I say it was illegal?
 
Domi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since 1966 things have changed though!

In Leeson v Bevis Transport (1972) the motorcycle and emerging vehicle were found equally responsible. The court said that the motorcyclist did nothing wrong in overtaking the line of stationary vehicles, but needed to keep an effective lookout, whilst the van driver should have been aware of the possibility of vehicles overtaking in this way.

And in Davis v Schrogin (2006) the biker was found 100% in the clear, when the judge found that, and I quote, "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occured if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action."
 
ubersonic said:
Since 1966 things have changed though!

In Leeson v Bevis Transport (1972) the motorcycle and emerging vehicle were found equally responsible. The court said that the motorcyclist did nothing wrong in overtaking the line of stationary vehicles, but needed to keep an effective lookout, whilst the van driver should have been aware of the possibility of vehicles overtaking in this way.

And in Davis v Schrogin (2006) the biker was found 100% in the clear, when the judge found that, and I quote, "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occured if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action."
Click to expand...

Yeh, things have changed. You'll find that the car driver solicitors will pull out an old case where a biker lost a filtering case. The biker solicitors will pull out a biker won filtering case. So the Judge will only see a 50/50 as both have vaild arguments either way.
 
I simply implied that given the facts as the OP had put them that a 50/50 offer seemed a pretty decent one and he should probably take it. I made no mention of anything illegal and the 'wrong' side of the road you seemed to have picked up on in my reply to reach this conclusion merely mirrored the OP's own words....

'And her sole claim is that I was driving on the wrong side of the road. This I have admitted to'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom