Poll: who is at fault here

[Colonel_Klinck]

The trouble is as the biker you need to be looking in too many places at once. Is someone going to pull out, move over, open a door etc.

Very true and from countless hours of riding motorbikes in London traffic I know you really do need to be fully switched on at all times when filtering but for me he should have seen her and stopped sooner. He could clearly see her over the car roofs but just didn't react fast enough. Maybe he isn't that experienced but as its a helmet cam he's got her in his visual line the whole time.

 

[LostCorpse]

assume the camera is likely at a higher line of sight than his eyes?

 

[Voltar]

Unfortunately one of those threads where absolutely everybody is correct. Knock for knock is the only answer.

I’m amazed it took this long for anyone to consider a split liability outcome and I agree that it is the most likely outcome.

The bike would bear the greater burden of the split I should think. His representatives would make a Part 36 for 50/50 and go from there unless they wanted to roll the dice at trial with the woman being the author of her own misfortune and him saying there was absolutely nothing he could have done to avoid her.

Filtering is not really an issue, it’s allowed.

For the poster trying to score points about HC and legislation- this is Negligence i.e. Common Law.

It’s lucky neither appeared to suffer serious injuries as a result of this collision!

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

I voted that the lady was at fault. This is because I have crossed roads with busy 2-way traffic, but I'll find an island/bollard first (if I see that before a paedestrian or zebra crossing. This means that I can cross the road in 2 takes. Cross the 1st lane, pausing at the island/bollard, before looking in the other direction to cross the other lane.

 

[tom_e]

assume the camera is likely at a higher line of sight than his eyes?

Depends could be mounted on top of his helmet or by his chin

 

[GGizmo]

Why do you keep saying parked cars?
I don't think a car in traffic is classified as parked.

I had to re-watch it. You're right. It's two lanes of cars blocked.

My main point still stands. If people think it was a good idea to be going 20mph in that situation then they are taking a risk.

I drive defensively because I assume most people aren't looking where they are going. At 20mph he's assuming everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing. But the real world isn't like that. Expect the unexpected.

I still say because he crashed in to her then he's liable. He should have been going slow enough to see her and anticipate she might walk out.

 

[Hades]

In my opinion, although she certainly contributed to the accident, the majority of fault goes to the biker who was riding too fast for the conditions (conditions = stationary cars both sides with poor visibility between them).

 

[Rainmaker]

I had to re-watch it. You're right. It's two lanes of cars blocked.

My main point still stands. If people think it was a good idea to be going 20mph in that situation then they are taking a risk.

I drive defensively because I assume most people aren't looking where they are going. At 20mph he's assuming everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing. But the real world isn't like that. Expect the unexpected.

I still say because he crashed in to her then he's liable. He should have been going slow enough to see her and anticipate she might walk out.

She literally dashed out from between parked cars. You can't hold 'the ordinary, careful competent motorist' to advanced standards, else 99% of collisions would result in charges. The vast majority of 'accidents' are attributed to 'failed to look/see' (over 60%). He could also have avoided her if he'd stayed at home that day, or left five minutes earlier, or driven a car instead of riding a bike... None of which makes him liable in law, which is the question in the OP.

 

[GGizmo]

She couldn't argue that. If you can't see you don't step out. It is literally that simple. She completely failed to look.

He's the one driving and ran in to her.

He was going too fast for the situation.

 

[Rainmaker]

He's the one driving and ran in to her.

He was going too fast for the situation.

Oy. She was also going too fast for the situation, right into a road full of active traffic and while looking the other way. To be clear, he didn't run into her, she ran into him. He didn't mount the pavement, she ran into the road. Too many of the replies here are emotive rather than factual.

 

[Dis86]

He's the one driving and ran in to her.

He was going too fast for the situation.

Again, this has already been explained. She stepped out without due consideration of hazards and any attempt to mitigate the situation. She stepped out in to a live carriageway. She failed at the most basic aspects of road safety. He was riding legally within the confines of the law and guidelines.

 

[Hades]

Oy. She was also going too fast for the situation, right into a road full of active traffic and while looking the other way. To be clear, he didn't run into her, she ran into him. He didn't mount the pavement, she ran into the road. Too many of the replies here are emotive rather than factual.

How would this position change if it was a little kid running out? Kids are less experienced and cannot be expected to take the same precautions as adults. This is one reason why you must filter at an appropriate speed only.

 

[jaybee]

I'm not sure how this is even a debate. The women is at fault. Filtering is not illegal and I was even taught how to do it during my motorcycle training. How on earth is a human meant to react and stop a motorcycle in the space of a few feet notice.

 

[Rainmaker]

How would this position change if it was a little kid running out? Kids are less experienced and cannot be expected to take the same precautions as adults. This is one reason why you must filter at an appropriate speed only.

It wouldn't change. The child is at fault, but not legally culpable due to their age. When did you last see someone arrested for knocking down a child who ran into the road?...

 

[jaybee]

lol have you guys expanded the comments and seen the picture someone has edited with the yellow writing highlighting a certain individuals car? lmao

 

[Hades]

It wouldn't change. The child is at fault, but not legally culpable due to their age. When did you last see someone arrested for knocking down a child who ran into the road?...

He shouldn't be arrested for knocking over the woman either. But it's still (mostly) his fault imho.

 

[Hades]

lol have you guys expanded the comments and seen the picture someone has edited with the yellow writing highlighting a certain individuals car? lmao

Yep, I did giggle.

 

[Richie]

How on earth is a human meant to react and stop a motorcycle in the space of a few feet notice.

By riding slower?

 

[Deleted User 234324]

You don't need to go out and test it, you can simply back up your claim using legislation.gov.uk if you wish. If you could, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong - something you seemingly can't. BTW, you're not the only one who drives/rides like that, I'm an advanced course instructor... That doesn't mean the woman isn't at fault here.

I was only going by what I had read and my interpretation of what it meant. There's no right or wrong either way, take responsibility for your own actions and expect other road users to be idiots.

 

[jaybee]

By riding slower?

There is no official speed one must filter at for stationery traffic but common sense should ideally prevail. I don't think he was going too fast at all. I mean yeah he could have been slightly slower, but I doubt 5mph less would have resulted in a different outcome. Don't look, get banged.