Step son in motorbike crash

While he should have spotted something happening with the van reversing, that version of events kinda shows that she was negligent when pulling out.

Hope all goes ok from an insurance POV, have they said anything other than initial contact yet?
 
Banzai_Joe said:
Riiiiiiight then.....just spoken to Peter and this is what actually happened.
Single lane of traffice queueing up to lights.
About 100yds before the lights is a side road on the left.
The white van was obsurring the entrance/exit to the road so he reversed to allow a woman to pull out and turn right. This happened as Peter was overtaking down the outside of the traffic. There was no oncoming traffic and he was doing about 30-35mph. He said the woman just pulled out and as there was no oncoming traffic she obviously didn't bother looking right and WHAM! Peter went straight into her drivers side. He said he had no clue she was there or chance to stop, no skid marks (except in his pants) just WHAM, then he flew over the bonnet.
The car is indeed totalled according to the police as is his bike. (this is her third write-off including a range rover :eek: :rolleyes:)
The police have witness statements and personally i think the woman is in the wrong.
Peter maybe should have exercised a little more caution and gone slower, but maybe that's just his inexperience. What she did was negligent. If the van obscurred your view then surely you'd edge out rather than blindly just go for it. For the very reason of avoiding what happened.
This has happened to me a few times in the past tbh. Actually the other week i was berated by a bloke cos i didn't let him out, but there was a cyclist coming past me on my right, so the same kind of accident could have happened. I looked in my mirror before deciding whether to let the bloke out, thought it too dangerous and decided against it.

So, now you know what truly happened, what do you guys think?

Lol, Peter's excess is £800, the bike is worth £900, however if his insurance win then he doesn't pay anything does he?
Click to expand...

I have to say that I'm more torn when you add this detail.. As a motorcyclist, any gap in traffic or junction is a hazard, especially the van reversing, and you have to take some pre-emptive action to minimise risk.. that and the 30-35MPH is admitting speeding, combine the two and he was exceedingly wreckless..

But, you are also correct, the woman should not have pulled out if her view was obstructed, and I guess your stepson would technically have right of way, so she's just as negligent IMO, so I'd base it purely on right of way.. if that was your stepsons, then I'd side with him..
 
He wasn't illegally speeding, its a 60mph road. Yes, he was approaching the lights but at 100yds away 30-35mph not excessive i don't think.
It may well have been that the timing was so unfortunate that both he and the woman were passing the same blind spot of the van (seeing as its taller and longer than most cars) at the same time and so coulldn't see each other at all.
To all the riders out there, is your peripheral vision on a bike better than in a car? It seems so, but then i guess you have to concentrate more on what's in front as well?
 
Last edited:
The added detail makes it sound more like Peter's fault to me.

She's approached a T-junction, wanting to turn right. Traffic is stopped to her right and a van driver has left her room to make the turn. Traffic is also clear to the left. She couldn't have seen Peter until her head was level with the van's driver door at which point the front of her car would've been well past it.

If Peter had been going slower, he would've had time to notice the gap in traffic (or the van reversing), suspect a junction may be there and slow down some more to check for someone turning before continuing on.

I hope he recovers soon though.
 
Thanks Imy,
but the way i see it, is that Peter could have used more caution but she pulled out regardless into his direction of travel. She effectively 'trusted' the van driver, who let her out but didn't bother to check his mirror. If he had, then maybe he'd have seen Peter coming on his outside. Again, this is what happened to me and so i didn't let the driver out (to his frustration, but it possibly avoided a collision).
Yes if Peter had been going slower he would have noticed the gap, but if her view was so blocked she should have nosed out. Then Peter would have had more chance of seeing her and more chance of either braking or swerving to avoid her.
 
Banzai,

Firstly, yes your peripheral vision is better on a bike, But you cant see through vehicles, and the van will have been blocking his view.

But 30mph is far to fast to be filtering, you just dont know what is going to happen. I have passengers jump out of cars, pedestrians run accross roads, cars pull out from junctions and to be filtering fast enough to write a car off is bordering on reckless driving.

I do hope your step son has a good recovery, but I can see this one going against him if the other party pushes for it. If they offer 50 / 50 bite their hand off!
 
Banzai_Joe said:
Thanks Imy,
but the way i see it, is that Peter could have used more caution but she pulled out regardless into his direction of travel. She effectively 'trusted' the van driver, who let her out but didn't bother to check his mirror. If he had, then maybe he'd have seen Peter coming on his outside. Again, this is what happened to me and so i didn't let the driver out (to his frustration, but it possibly avoided a collision).
Yes if Peter had been going slower he would have noticed the gap, but if her view was so blocked she should have nosed out. Then Peter would have had more chance of seeing her and more chance of either braking or swerving to avoid her.
Click to expand...

For all any of us know she may have nosed out, as Imy said, she wouldn't have been able to see him coming until the bonnet of her car was well past the van (and into your stepson's path), and due to his speed, he may well have not seen the front of her car until it was too late to do anything about it.
 
I was going to go with it being entirely her fault. But if he was on the wrong side of the road, that makes things a lot less clear-cut IMO than if he was on his side of the road. Overtaking past junctions is a big no-no. If this were a two-laned carriageway leading up to some lights, e.g. one lane for right turn one for straight on, and he was filtering down the middle and she pulled out either to turn right at the lights or to turn right onto the other side of the road, then she would be in the wrong.. but hitting a bike performing what is essentially an unsafe overtake is not more in his favour than 50:50.
 
I would have said it was her fault, from what i read she is merging on to a main road, so it would normally be logged as who ever was merging on to the road should be taking the time to check it is safe to join the que.

its the same as if he was speeding, regardless that he was doing 70/80/90pmh it would still be the person merging that would be liable as they should be sure its safe to merge with the current flow of traffic

*i might of missed something as i was skimming over the details :)
 
Maz said:
What else was she meant to do? Van driver was letting her out, traffic was busy the only way she could have joined is if someone let her out!

She should have joined right hand lane and then moved into left, but still doesn't change the fact that her move wasn't an illegal one or anything and the motorcyclist was clearly filtering too fast.

I am a motorcyclist and this is a hazard that I would have spotted, as would probably 80% of motorcyclists.
Click to expand...


Based on the account so far I suggest this is absolutely incorrect and that the woman has been negligent. You can't just pull out into an unsighted lane and assume everything is going to be ok.

There are solicitors that specialise in bike accidents, I'd get in contact ASAP.
 
Hope the guy recovers fully and learns a lesson. I also see it as pretty shocking riding to be sailing past a stationary queue of traffic at 30-35 through a junction he can't even see if anything is coming out from. It's not the van driver's responsibility to decide if it's safe to let the car out or not - a junction should be left clear by default in a queue of trafic - the van driver was just rectifying a mistake by reversing to clear it. The rider should absolutely have counted on someone pulling out, especially if the oncoming lane was clear, and shouldn't have been filtering at anywhere near that speed. As has been said, even if the woman pulling out was being cautious, she has to nose out before she can see right at all. You say your step son went over the bonnet rather than into a door, so sounds like she could have been nosing out cautiously anyway. An unlucky combination of circumstances for sure, but the rider is most to blame for the accident imho. Imagine if it were a car that decided to overtake a queue of stationary traffic past a junction and hit somebody - there'd be no question of who's fault it was. The rider has done essentially the same thing here.
 
Banzai_Joe said:
He wasn't illegally speeding, its a 60mph road. Yes, he was approaching the lights but at 100yds away 30-35mph not excessive i don't think.
Click to expand...
Dodgy to my mind, filtering past a stationary queue of traffic, overtaking a junction with limited visibility. Classic accident, I'd say his speed was excessive. He should have assumed he was invisible to any car pulling out. Again the van blocking the line of site is a warning to slow down for a good look, the slightest hint of a gap. Tbh, if you're filtering like that drivers just don't expect you to be there. No idea how the insurance will see it, but 50/50 would be more than fair imo.
 
Last edited:
To me that is entirely his fault. Even if she "edged out" slowly and carefully she would have been obstructing him way before actually being able to see him, and he would still have crashed into her. The only way this could've been avoided is if she didn't pull out at all, or if he was not filtering or at least doing so at a slower speed.
 
50:50 given the latest version of events.

In the dual carridgeway scenario, she changed lanes without looking. But in this, he was on the wrong side of the road at his risk. I would suggest the car driver might even have a argument for it going their way.
 
therealnerd2 said:
In the dual carridgeway scenario, she changed lanes without looking. But in this, he was on the wrong side of the road at his risk. I would suggest the car driver might even have a argument for it going their way.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this as well. Sounds like he was flying up the outside on the wrong side of the road and she wasn't expecting him to be doing so.
 
It's the same to me even if the road was wide enough that he wasn't on the wrong side. The fact is he was overtaking a queue, going 35mph faster than the queue, and sailed stright through a junction and hit a car. I'd hesitate even to describe that as 'filtering', such as a motorcyclist is permitted to do, hence my comparing it to a car doing the same above. Just imagine if he wasn't slowing for the lights up ahead - he may have gone past that junction at 60+ and had a very different outcome.
 
He wasn't filtering, he was overtaking. Filtering is travelling 5-10mph faster than the surrounding traffic and that is on roads without junctions. You use extreme caution at junctions when you are just filtering, and at overtaking speeds as he found out you are travelling too fast to stop safely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom