Soldato
Agreed, filtering is usually 10 or so mph above the speed of traffic. In my opinion the driver will take 100% of the blame but in truth your step son should have been aware enough to avoid it.
Step son in motorbike crash
- Thread starter Banzai_Joe
- Start date
Agreed, filtering is usually 10 or so mph above the speed of traffic. In my opinion the driver will take 100% of the blame but in truth your step son should have been aware enough to avoid it.
Associate
Sorry to hear about the accident. I'm sure he'll make a good recovery - tell him to work hard on the physio after his op, it will improve.
Regarding the accident it certainly doesn't sound clear cut. Report it to your insurers and let them start the fighting. They will probably have a solicitors they use for claims, so see if you have a case to be referred.
Regarding the speed of his filtering, I was always taught the 20:20 rule, never filter when traffic is travelling faster than 20 mph, and never filter more than 20mph over the traffics speed. The benefit of hindsight...
Hope he recovers well, I wish him all the best
Regarding the accident it certainly doesn't sound clear cut. Report it to your insurers and let them start the fighting. They will probably have a solicitors they use for claims, so see if you have a case to be referred.
Regarding the speed of his filtering, I was always taught the 20:20 rule, never filter when traffic is travelling faster than 20 mph, and never filter more than 20mph over the traffics speed. The benefit of hindsight...
Hope he recovers well, I wish him all the best
Associate
I had an accident recently, wasn't my fault and other insurers accepted 100% blame, learner driver at a t junction failed to stop and drove straight into my passenger side spinning my car
Insurance said it was pretty clean cut as she was on a minor road and I was on a major road I had right of way and there was nothing I could have done to stop it. Other drive did fortunately admit full liability at the scene to the police.
So hopefully they see your step son's incident the same as they saw mine.
Insurance said it was pretty clean cut as she was on a minor road and I was on a major road I had right of way and there was nothing I could have done to stop it. Other drive did fortunately admit full liability at the scene to the police.
So hopefully they see your step son's incident the same as they saw mine.
Man of Honour
I hope they don't - the only things the two incidents have in common is a junction and a car, the rest is entirely different. If they do see it the same way then I don't want to live on this planet any more.
Man of Honour
Bit drastic.
I partly agree, but you could then argue the other way too.....she flew out of the junction and he wasn't expecting her to be doing so.[TW]Fox;21992783 said:
Anyway, hopefully this amy give more of an insight those more experienced in this kind of thing.
Apparently he landed near the medics bags
Last edited:
Thanks paddy, that sounds like a fair rule tbh 20:20....yeah, good call.
Agreed. I think this is where his youth and inexperience comes in.......and hence the high price of insurance for young drivers.
Don't know the ages of the car driver, but as i've said its her 3rd write-off, so maybe she's not the best example of a responsible driver either.
I partly agree, but you could then argue the other way too.....she flew out of the junction and he wasn't expecting her to be doing so.
Anyway, hopefully this amy give more of an insight those more experienced in this kind of thing.
That picture might just win you the case.
No he hasn't, he wasn't in a car. Filtering in a car is simply not possible due to the width of the vehicle, there is no comparison. Turning your argument upside down, if it had been a push bike in the same situation I suspect there would be rather less support for the car driver.
I agree it sounds like he was riding too quickly through traffic, but if a car edges out of a junction very slowly you get plenty of warning. If the driver simply pulls out assuming the path is clear then they are as much at fault as the rider.
This is going to seem harsh, but what the hey.
He overtook a long line of traffic at 30-35 mph past a junction that he can't see into? I'm surprised this is the first time he's been in hospital with injuries like these. That's just stupidity.
If the truck reversed to let someone out, then the traffic was clearly at a standstill on his side of the road. Excessive speed, and I hope he gets done for dangerous driving tbh. Glad it was a car that came out infront of him and not a person crossing the road.
Think of the children comments are not required.
You wonder why bikers get a bad name.
He overtook a long line of traffic at 30-35 mph past a junction that he can't see into? I'm surprised this is the first time he's been in hospital with injuries like these. That's just stupidity.
If the truck reversed to let someone out, then the traffic was clearly at a standstill on his side of the road. Excessive speed, and I hope he gets done for dangerous driving tbh. Glad it was a car that came out infront of him and not a person crossing the road.
Think of the children comments are not required.
You wonder why bikers get a bad name.
This is going to seem harsh, but what the hey.
He overtook a long line of traffic at 30-35 mph past a junction that he can't see into? I'm surprised this is the first time he's been in hospital with injuries like these. That's just stupidity.
If the truck reversed to let someone out, then the traffic was clearly at a standstill on his side of the road. Excessive speed, and I hope he gets done for dangerous driving tbh. Glad it was a car that came out infront of him and not a person crossing the road.
Think of the children comments are not required.
You wonder why bikers get a bad name.
Fair point mate, i'll not sit and defend him purely because he's my step-son, but for as much as people are saying he was in the wrong, there are as many saying it was the woman's fault. Her history of car crashes may indicate her driving style. Witnesses said she didn't look or nose-out, she just went for it.
It was a van., not a truck. Sounds pedantic, but he'd be a real idiot if he didn't see a truck reversing, a van? maybe less obvious if he was concentrating on the road directly ahead, i don't know.
I now agree with most that Peter was going too fast for filtering, but i honestly think this is down to lack of experience rather than showboating or being blatantly negligent etc.
I'm sure he'll learn from this.
Soldato
I am often the push bike in situations like these, and have to be very careful for cars coming out of side roads towards me. There is no way the car driver should expect me to be there, or can even see me. I'm on the wrong side of the road and the responsibility is mine to see junctions and prepare for cars possibly pulling out.
Yes, but its equally the car drivers responsibility to check the road is clear BOTH WAYS before pulling out.
edit: just to reiterate, the police are not taking any further action, so they obviously don't think a driving offence has been committed.
Man of Honour
I'm struggling to understand how it would've been any different if she had slowly edged out. She's still going to "suddenly" appear round the corner of the van if you're going at 30mph past traffic. I really don't think her edging out slowly would've made the slightest difference.
You're saying she should have checked for traffic coming both ways, but how could she have done so without blocking his path? Even if she slowly edged out the entire bonnet of her car will be in his way before she gets the chance to see him! Is she supposed to have some sort of magical ability to see around corners?!
You're saying she should have checked for traffic coming both ways, but how could she have done so without blocking his path? Even if she slowly edged out the entire bonnet of her car will be in his way before she gets the chance to see him! Is she supposed to have some sort of magical ability to see around corners?!
Last edited:
Edging out would have allowed HIM TO SEE HER surely, and depending on his distance from her at that time could have given him chance to brake or swerve to avoid.
It's what i would have done without a doubt. I would never have just shot out and across if i couldn't see. Edging out she still may not see him, but he'd then see her.
Ok, if he was going say 15mph and he was a van's left away when she pulled out, he would have still hit her. There wouldn't have been as much damage but there would almost certainly have still been impact. If she'd edged out AND if he'd gone slower then he may have seen the nose of her car and braked or swerved.
Soldato
Any reasoning behind that? If anything I'd be inclined to go the other way; based on that damage it looks like he hit the corner of the bonnet rather than the side - ergo she was already turning and so the front of her car had reached the other side of the road.
That means 2 things:
The biker was on the wrong side of the road
He should have been able to see the car emerge from behind the van and move across the traffic well before it moved into his path, and had he been travelling at a reasonable speed stop or avoid it.
It sounds like he was overtaking. There's plenty of space for a car to overtake, so it's a perfectly valid comparison.
A pushbike would almost certainly be travelling a lot slower and so be able to stop in time.
Not if there's a van in the way
There was a van in the way...
Man of Honour
But because of the van blocking the view she would've had to be quite far out for him to see her, or he would've had to be very near the corner! She was either looking out for him and in his way, or not looking out for him and in his way. I don't see how slowly she edged out would make a difference, she was going to be obstructing his path in either case.
:edit: It's like saying I can drive down a street with cars parked either side at 40mph then claim it was a child's fault for running out between the parked cars and getting hit by my car. It was my responsibility to slow down as I could not anticipate hazards.
Last edited:
Blimey, no wonder insurance can be so hard to sort out, there is clearly a division of who thinks who is at fault here.
I'm surprised the police haven't made a statement regarding their opinion on who is at fault, after all they should have the most experience with RTA's.
I'm surprised the police haven't made a statement regarding their opinion on who is at fault, after all they should have the most experience with RTA's.
Lol, are you serious?
You can't see/tell the difference between someone slowly appearing from around a corner as you approach it and someone suddenly jumping out at you?
This is essenitally the same difference with the accident?
He clearly shouldn't have been travelling at 30-35mph. She absolutely should NOT have just pulled out without edging out.
Again, she may not be able to see, but it gives any oncoming bike/motorbike the chance to see her and brake/avoid.