Dude, its nothing like that. Come on....see sense.
Step son in motorbike crash
- Thread starter Banzai_Joe
- Start date
Dude, its nothing like that. Come on....see sense.
Soldato
There's two basic faults. The driver shouldn't attempt to impinge on the right of way fom a side road before making sure the way is clear, which she couldn't have done safely with the van there. And the rider shouldn't have overtaken a junction at speed, especially if he couldn't see if it was clear.
Man of Honour
You're not getting it... because of the van obstructing his view he wouldn't have been able to see her before she was already totally in his way. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that 
Soldato
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.
As bad as you make him out to be, pulling out 'blind' out of a junction is equally as wreckless, so what does she deserve?
We all agree he was exceedingly reckless and could have done plenty to have avoided this, however, even if he had been doing 20MPH or less (considered OK filtering speed), she still would have pulled out and hit him..
Whichever way you want to dress it up, it's very much two people making grave errors.. how you seem so vitriolic to one side shows a spectacular degree of prejudice IMO.
And it seems the Police aren't taking it any further, which should tell you all you need to know..
Last edited:
Agree with this.
No the responsibility isn't with you. The responsibility for your life is and it is very wise to think this way but if your mind lapsed and you didn't think to watch your back and someone did pull out on you, would you have the same opinion that it was still your responsibility?
You're not getting it... because of the van obstructing his view he wouldn't have been able to see her before she was already totally in his way. I'm not sure what you're not getting about that
Regardless of what vehicle was blocking their view he'd still see the front end of her car had she edged out slowly. She wouldn't be totally in his way, no where near in fact. How much of the front end of her car he saw would have depended on how fast/slow she edged out.
If she pulled out fast it would effectively like the whole car suddenly just appeard in front of him, leaving him with no options to avoid it.
Seeing her bumper slowly peeking out from in front of the van, then her bonnet etc would have given him a chance at least.
How is it that you're not getting that? Whatever was blocking their view is irrelevant, edging out would have given him a chance. And more chance would have come had he been riding slower for sure.
50:50 imho but i can't see how you think it wouldn't have made a difference.
Its an interesting debate, and even though there are disagreements i hope we can all keep it from becoming a flamefest.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
With a Siren and a Class 1 police rider not an 18 year old?
Yea, totally the same outcome I would imagine.
[TW]Fox;21996151 said:
Lol, not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic fox, but i would imagine it would have been the same, seeing as the woman pulled straight out without warning to the rider. Barring the blaring siren of course.
Don't take what I said the wrong way. I'm a biker aswell as a car driver, and have been for years. It's a very basic mistake, and I'm sure all the bikers on here will happily confirm, it's something that happens a lot.
The question is the grey area regarding prooving whether the woman drove out quickly or edged out. Would have been an epic swerve and wet pants moment either way if you're going 30-35 mph.
Edit: In response to the above. The point is the police rider would have had everyone's attention, and probably wouldn't have passed blindly at 30-35mph past a junction on the wrong side of the road.
Soldato
Crikey that's some damage! Hope the boy is on the road to a good recovery.
I really can't see how people can continue to be blaming the car driver, especially after the photo which makes it clear the rider was on the wrong side of the road. Banzai you keep saying the driver should have checked both ways. She did surely - traffic to the right had stopped to let her out (the van) and there was no traffic coming from the left, so off she went and pulled out as 99.99% of us would have done. She should not have had to anticipate a biker steaming through the junction on the wrong side of the road coming from the right. It is irrelavent, as Zefan says, how cautiously she pulled out. Even if she'd been really slow, if the bike was close enough he'd have hit. The point is the biker shouldn't have been there at that speed at all playing russian roulette with the junction. He should have 100% expected a car to be pulling out of the junction (that's what tends to happen at them) and came to a near stop when filtering past the van so that he could see it was safe to proceed past the junction.
Have a look at this article on filtering...
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums/Categories/Topic/?topic-id=357452
In particular...
Some people here are seriously underestimating just how slow and catious you are required to be when filtering anywhere near a junction/crossing/lights. Sadly this kid fell way short and I really hope he recovers fully, learns a lesson and continues to enjoy riding.
I really can't see how people can continue to be blaming the car driver, especially after the photo which makes it clear the rider was on the wrong side of the road. Banzai you keep saying the driver should have checked both ways. She did surely - traffic to the right had stopped to let her out (the van) and there was no traffic coming from the left, so off she went and pulled out as 99.99% of us would have done. She should not have had to anticipate a biker steaming through the junction on the wrong side of the road coming from the right. It is irrelavent, as Zefan says, how cautiously she pulled out. Even if she'd been really slow, if the bike was close enough he'd have hit. The point is the biker shouldn't have been there at that speed at all playing russian roulette with the junction. He should have 100% expected a car to be pulling out of the junction (that's what tends to happen at them) and came to a near stop when filtering past the van so that he could see it was safe to proceed past the junction.
Have a look at this article on filtering...
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums/Categories/Topic/?topic-id=357452
In particular...
Some people here are seriously underestimating just how slow and catious you are required to be when filtering anywhere near a junction/crossing/lights. Sadly this kid fell way short and I really hope he recovers fully, learns a lesson and continues to enjoy riding.
Liampope, that was a really informative read mate thanks.
It does indeed seem that Peter may well have been in the wrong, almost completely.
Whilst i still can't fully agree with the fact that she can pull out and 'hope for the best' when natural caution would prevent me from doing so, i'd still edge out, it does seem like the law will be on her side.
That's fair enough, your example of Farley v Buckley is almost identical to what happened on this occasion so if her solicitors dig that up he's screwed, lol.
Thanks again, excellent read.
It does indeed seem that Peter may well have been in the wrong, almost completely.
Whilst i still can't fully agree with the fact that she can pull out and 'hope for the best' when natural caution would prevent me from doing so, i'd still edge out, it does seem like the law will be on her side.
That's fair enough, your example of Farley v Buckley is almost identical to what happened on this occasion so if her solicitors dig that up he's screwed, lol.
Thanks again, excellent read.
I have some issues here:
1: People keep mentioning that the biker was on the "wrong side of the road". This is completely irrelevant. Stop making that out to be relevant. He was overtaking stationery traffic. This is not against the law. It's a major reason people ride bikes to skip traffic. We all know and accept this. He was not wrong to be on the other side of the road. Even cars can be on the "wrong side" when overtaking. Stop calling it the "wrong side of the road" like he should be punished purely due to this fact.
2: People keep mentioning this:
No she is not. And no the biker is not. So both should take appropriate action based on the situation. The biker should approach with caution (in his mind, perhaps he was, he may well have slowed down to 25mph say from 40). The car driver in that situation should NOT have pulled out, AT ALL, PERIOD. I don't care that the van had reversed back. WAIT. The van driver would have get bored and move on and then you can reattempt the same thing when you can see properly up the road, or even wait for a gap and exit the junction safely. You don't just edge out blind. Edging out blind should only be done on junctions where you absolutely must edge out blind, like due to hedges/blind corner etc. She had a choice here to wait for the Van (obstruction of view) to pass so she could safely pull out. She was impatient.
She has written of 2 cars before. Says it all. I hate how bikers always get picked on and stereotyped for a) speeding b) filtering. Filtering is percieved to always be an excuse for car drivers. "Oh yeah but he was filtering which is dangerous mmmkay?". No. Grow up. It's 2012. Bikes filter. All the time. Get used to it. Act appropriately. Stop using it as an excuse for your stupidity. Open your eyes.
1: People keep mentioning that the biker was on the "wrong side of the road". This is completely irrelevant. Stop making that out to be relevant. He was overtaking stationery traffic. This is not against the law. It's a major reason people ride bikes to skip traffic. We all know and accept this. He was not wrong to be on the other side of the road. Even cars can be on the "wrong side" when overtaking. Stop calling it the "wrong side of the road" like he should be punished purely due to this fact.
2: People keep mentioning this:
No she is not. And no the biker is not. So both should take appropriate action based on the situation. The biker should approach with caution (in his mind, perhaps he was, he may well have slowed down to 25mph say from 40). The car driver in that situation should NOT have pulled out, AT ALL, PERIOD. I don't care that the van had reversed back. WAIT. The van driver would have get bored and move on and then you can reattempt the same thing when you can see properly up the road, or even wait for a gap and exit the junction safely. You don't just edge out blind. Edging out blind should only be done on junctions where you absolutely must edge out blind, like due to hedges/blind corner etc. She had a choice here to wait for the Van (obstruction of view) to pass so she could safely pull out. She was impatient.
She has written of 2 cars before. Says it all. I hate how bikers always get picked on and stereotyped for a) speeding b) filtering. Filtering is percieved to always be an excuse for car drivers. "Oh yeah but he was filtering which is dangerous mmmkay?". No. Grow up. It's 2012. Bikes filter. All the time. Get used to it. Act appropriately. Stop using it as an excuse for your stupidity. Open your eyes.
Soldato
Don't agree, she also played russian roulette by pulling out unsighted. It's a similar situation where you are pullling out of a carpark and parked cars obscure your view in both directions, if you edge out/pull out/do whatever, you are playing russian roulette.. Obviously she wasn't expecting the biker to be there, but the reality is, it is something you are supposed to take into account.
Tempered with this part of that 'forum posting'
"There are a number of examples of bad legal precedent, which almost always appoint the majority of blame on the motorcyclist. Essentially the courts appear to have ruled that motorcycling is a risky and dangerous business and the rider as the vulnerable road user is typically to blame when an accident occurs."
ANd the fact he wasn't overtaking a lorry/bus/skip or other large vehicle, he would have had a normal view of the road (well normal in so far as overtaking cars, the OP stated the van was a small van). What he did was extremely poor, with extremely poor vigilance, but the car driver played the same russian roullette game IMO.
Who here remotely underestimates it? I don't see anyone saying 30-35 MPH was anything but reckless..
I do share your sentiment at the end though, wholeheartedly...
Soldato
Liampope, that was a really informative read mate thanks.
It does indeed seem that Peter may well have been in the wrong, almost completely.
Whilst i still can't fully agree with the fact that she can pull out and 'hope for the best' when natural caution would prevent me from doing so, i'd still edge out, it does seem like the law will be on her side.
That's fair enough, your example of Farley v Buckley is almost identical to what happened on this occasion so if her solicitors dig that up he's screwed, lol.
Thanks again, excellent read.
The article does make the point that much of the legal precedents related to filtering incidents are 'bad' and many do seem to arguably unfairly apportion blame to the rider, but sadly that's the way it is. In this case, though, I personally agree the Farley v Buckley finding is pretty fair. The only way a rider can safely filter through that sort of scenario is by coming to a near stop when passing the large vehicle in order to see if it's safe to continue through the junction. Only the very most bike-aware drivers would do anything other than pull straight out in a situation like that when traffic to the right is stationary and there is no traffic to the left. Only that tiny fraction of drivers might anticipate a rider barelling through at speed overtaking the stationary queue seemingly oblivious to the junction. It really is down to the rider to ensure he is filtering with extreme caution.
Soldato
I can't agree the driver and rider were taking the same level of risk and had the same duty of care. A car pulling out of a junction is perfectly standard practice - it's what happens at junctions. The rider should absolutely count on it happening and ride accordingly. From the driver's point of view though I think it's perfectly reasonable and standard not to expect a biker to be overtaking a stationary queue of traffic at 35 mph on the outside indending to go straight through the junction. It's simply not something that should happen and so not part of a reasonable duty of care to anticipate. The court agreed in Farley v Buckley, and quite fairly, imho.
Soldato
Would you be of the same opinion if the biker was replaced by a car on the "not-wrong side of the road"?
The note you are referring to doesn't actually specify what counts as a "large vehicle", in fact it uses a pickup truck as an example.
Clearly the van was "large" enough that he couldn't see the car emerging from the junction in front of it.
Edit: Where does the OP state it was a small van? I can't see that post, so far all we know it could have been a luton van or a LWB hightop transit. Those things are ****ing massive!
Last edited:
Soldato
Firstly, they where all examples of 'bad' precedent, so how you think that shows a 'fair' ruling is one thing..
Next, that was overtaking a large vehicle - again not the same as the OP's step son's incident..
Thirdly, My works car park esit is a nightmare, cars park so close either side of the exit that you can't see a thing in either direction, and in addition, cars are parked on both sides of the main road making it effectively a single lane in the main..
lets say I just pull out blindly(or edge out) and hit a car travelling up the road.. how is that any dramatically different to this situation? I couldn't see either way, so therefore by your logic, the ownus would have to be on the car travelling up the road, who should stop for all exits that could have people potentially pulling out?
I know the 'difference' between those situations, however the mechanics are very similar..
Even a car can easily impede your view to make it unsighted for brief moments, lets not get pedantic, I think the fact they used any qualification at all referring to large vehicle indicates it's implying when you have advance notice you will lose visability for an extended period of time, or else why even mention large vehicle... all cars create temporary loses of direct sight as you pass them..
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I find it quite weird that even if it was 50/50 people don't lean towards the biker as he is most vulnerable, She gets her car dented/totaled but walks away unharmed, He gets thrown through the air & ends up with broken bones.
I think to be fair even if it's 50/50 I would still blame the motorist for being careless with her vehicle where as the lad has just shown inexperience.
Biker. < No surprise there then a.
Remember somebody pulled out on me on a clear blue sky day when I was doing 30-32 wearing a 2 week old hi vis vest, He said he didn't see me where as I think he had just made his mind up to pull out after the car that was 3 lengths in front of me had passed him. It's right he didn't see me as he didn't ******* look properly.
Also old bill didn't charge him with careless driving or owt.
I think to be fair even if it's 50/50 I would still blame the motorist for being careless with her vehicle where as the lad has just shown inexperience.
Biker. < No surprise there then a.
Remember somebody pulled out on me on a clear blue sky day when I was doing 30-32 wearing a 2 week old hi vis vest, He said he didn't see me where as I think he had just made his mind up to pull out after the car that was 3 lengths in front of me had passed him. It's right he didn't see me as he didn't ******* look properly.
Also old bill didn't charge him with careless driving or owt.