Step son in motorbike crash

[cwhitehead]

Thirdly, the work car park is a nightmare, cars park so close either side of the exit you can't see a thing in either direction, and 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.

But the cars going down the "single lane" would not be going close to 30mph.

Common sence would tell you slow down incase on oncoming and people walking / pulling out.

I can see it from both sides and i think it may of happened no matter what was done but the biker stood more of a chance doing a sensible speed.

Also a big thing in this is the van hand reverse lights on he should have spotted this and slowed down to be fair.

 

[Haggisman]

I find it quite weird that even if it was 50/50 people don't lean towards the biker as he is most vulnerable,

Why should that make a difference to deciding blame?

 

[Haggisman]

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..

Where does the OP state it was a small van? I can't see that post, so for all we know it could have been a luton van or a LWB hightop transit. Those things are ****ing massive!

 

[latercomer2]

Its something that you'll never get agreement on - car drivers in the main will blame the biker, bikers will blame the car driver. Neither of them had a clear view and hence both should have been preceding with caution.

that said if both were doing what they did slowly then it probably would have been avoided.

And this is the reason I'm not allowed a bike

 

[Demon]

But the cars going down the "single lane" would not be going close to 30mph.

I'm afraid they do, they see the other end of the constriction (about 300 yards) is empty, they can't see the car park exit from the start of the constriction, and fly through at all speeds..

Common sence would tell you slow down incase on oncoming and people walking / pulling out.

Of course, in the case of the bike, I've called him reckless several times already. Aalthough people tend to think doing the speed limit is a safe speed which clearly it isn't always, hence why schools have 20MPH enforcement zones to help idiot people drive appropriately

I can see it from both sides and i think it may of happened no matter what was done but the biker stood more of a chance doing a sensible speed.

As per my work carpark, since I can't see out, you'd also summise from your logic that I might as well pull out at any speed then, because since I can't see, the majority of blame resides on the main road user (even if they can't see the car park exit until very close)..

Also a big thing in this is the van hand reverse lights on he should have spotted this and slowed down to be fair.

coulda/woulda/shoulda although you are right, the rest of us generally notice these things, even if subconciously (spider sense as we call it in here).. but again that doesn't alter the fact she had to do something as daft as him, it was a definite case of it taking two to tango..

Where does the OP state it was a small van? I can't see that post, so for all we know it could have been a luton van or a LWB hightop transit. Those things are ****ing massive!

Good point, he never discloses the size of vehicle, just stating it was a van, not a truck (i.e. Lorry).. But to be fair, it's almost moot, those examples are about the civil matter of insurance liability, not the same as legal liability, and when the topic has changed to how downright 'dangerous' either party are, does an open admission of bad insurance liability precedence mean much compared to the fact the Police aren't taking it further?

 

[4T5]

Why should that make a difference to deciding blame?

Because the biker is more vulnerable & the car driver is safe. Only if it's 50/50 though.
Personally I ride like the Grandad I am & don't go anywhere unless I know it's safe I just think in a 50/50 case it should sway towards the person who ends up in hospital.
I'd feel the same if the car driver was hurt & the biker walked away unhurt, Unlikely as it is I would then side with the hurt car driver in a 50/50.

Only my opinion though.

 

[Belmit]

then you MUST NOT pass

Ah, Gandalf v. Balrog.

 

[Liampope]

Ah, Gandalf v. Balrog.

Where's that gif when you need it?

 

[jaybee]

Would you be of the same opinion if the biker was replaced by a car on the "not-wrong side of the road"?

Are you trying to say a car overtaking a long line of stationery traffic is the same thing as a bike filtering past them all? Oh....dear.

 

[fornowagain]

Are you trying to say a car overtaking a long line of stationery traffic is the same thing as a bike filtering past them all? Oh....dear.

No not the same at all. It's worse, as your profile is so small.

 

[Liampope]

Are you trying to say a car overtaking a long line of stationery traffic is the same thing as a bike filtering past them all? Oh....dear.

No, people are saying that the riders actions do not even begin to qualify as safe filtering such as a motorcyclist is permitted to do. His actions were better described as wreckless overtaking of a stationary queue, no different in principal to if a car got tired of waiting in the queue, pulled out and steamed past the queue through the junction and hit another car. Hence the comparison. The rider should not have been in that location doing that speed any more than a car should have been. He was not filtering, he was overtaking.

 

[Banzai_Joe]

I think it classed as filtering as the line of traffic was stationery, but yes its all agreed that he was going too fast.

 

[Demon]

I know armchair punditry is obviously our forte,

But since the Police are taking no further action, you have to see that as clear proof that neither party where wildly endangering the lives of others..

He was only doing 1/2 the speed limit, overtaking when the oncoming lane was clear. The car was pulling out in a lane that for the direction of travel was clear to do so..

I'm getting the impression people are really laying into the biker as being a menace to the public or something..

 

[[TW]Fox]

Are you trying to say a car overtaking a long line of stationery traffic is the same thing as a bike filtering past them all? Oh....dear.

It wasn't filtering though was it?

 

[One]

All in all though the van is a nob that shouldn't have been reversing to make way. People that go out of their way to give up their right of way cause so many accidents. You see it all the time people stopping to let someone out and then getting rear-ended because they were doing something that isn't normal practise on the roads. People coming up to a junction to turn but letting the car out in front of them only for the driver coming out to be flumuxed and pull out into the path of other traffic.

Road users are retards and they should all stick to the rules because they just aren't smart enough to figure out what to do if the rules are changed.

 

[PapaLazaru]

All in all though the van is a nob that shouldn't have been reversing to make way.

I sincerely hope that you are not being serious.........

 

[Zefan]

I'm getting the impression people are really laying into the biker as being a menace to the public or something..

Would you care to show us all which posts are suggesting this? All anyone's said is it's his fault, not that he was really endangering anyone else!

 

[GravyMonster]

Road users are retards and they should all stick to the rules because they just aren't smart enough to figure out what to do if the rules are changed.

I assume you are a road user?

 

[Imy]

All in all though the van is a nob that shouldn't have been reversing to make way..

If it was safe to do so why not?

He didn't hit anyone himself and wasn't the direct cause of the accident. He didn't force the motorcyclist to overtake a queue of stationary traffic near a junction at speed nor did he force the car driver to pull out at that moment into the motorcyclist's path.

The same thing would've happened had he stopped just prior to the junction instead of blocking it in the first instance. If anything him reversing should've been a warning sign to the motorcyclist of potential danger.

 

[Banzai_Joe]

All in all though the van is a nob that shouldn't have been reversing to make way. People that go out of their way to give up their right of way cause so many accidents. You see it all the time people stopping to let someone out and then getting rear-ended because they were doing something that isn't normal practise on the roads. People coming up to a junction to turn but letting the car out in front of them only for the driver coming out to be flumuxed and pull out into the path of other traffic.

I understand what you're saying mate, but i've kind of done this quite a few times. If i let someone out of a junction i tend to check all my mirrors to see if its safe to let them out. I've even beckoned them on with hand signals when they can't see beyond my vehicle, but most have ignored me and chosen to edge out and look for themselves. This was where i feel the driver didn't exercise proper caution. I don't know if the van driver beckoned her out, but she just drove out anyway. If it were me i'd have definitely been very cautious.