Sorry if this gets a bit long winded...
Let me set the scene: The A27 through Worthing is well known for its traffic jams at rush hour due to 2 sets of traffic lights in quick succession followed by another (new) set on a large roundabout (put there by the Council in all its wisdom to 'help' the flow of traffic (!?!) but actually making it ten times worse...well Duh!) Between these sets of T/L there are right turn lanes and pedestrian islands (P/I)all the way along. At the top of the road I turn right out of there is a P/I at the end of the right turn box.
The best way of having any chance of getting to work on time is to wait for a gap in the traffic or for someone to let you out, move into the middle and wait for another gap/generous motorist so that you can go merrily on your way.
My brother used to own a m/c so I am very aware of keeping my eye out for them when driving. Because of this, if someone lets me out, I always check the road is free of m/c and inch my way out before checking in the other direction for more m/c.
This morning I was let out by a car driver. Behind him was an articulated lorry which restricted my view of the road behind him. Because of this I crept out into the road and when my bonnet was nearly in the middle I checked in the other direction for more oncoming m/c (of which there was one a bit further down the road). When I turned back (still inching forward slowly) I caught a flash of movement as a m/c ground to a sudden halt about 2ft away from my car.
My question is, if he'd hit my car and gone flying who would have been at fault? Me for not having seen him coming due to my vision being limited by the lorry and other traffic, or him for passing pretty much stationary traffic including a large lorry that he couldn't see round on an approach to a T junction and squeezing between the lorry and a pedestrian island?
Cheers!
--
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished
|
An insurance company, not wishing to spend too much time and money on the investigation would have suggested a knock-for-knock result. It could be argued that neither party should have proceeded unless they each could be certain of a clear route ahead.
The motorcyclist was clearly being a lunatic by overtaking where there are junctions and it is at his door that I would put the blame.
The fact that you were able to exit the side road at all does suggest that other drivers were being polite to you.
The scenario that you have put, I think, only happens too often with disastrous consequences.
|
I agree with Red Baron.
What else could you have done ?
You were observent and pulled out slowly enough for the biker to see you. Even though you did nothing wrong, it would probably be knock for knock - as Red Baron says.
Was the biker hostile towards you ?
|
|
Don't wish to upset you but the insurance company would have said you were at fault by proceeding without clear vision. The other party may have been at falt too but you would have taken the blame and resultant loss in ncd. Sorry.
|
Don't wish to upset you but the insurance company would have said you were at fault by proceeding without clear vision. The other party may have been at falt too but you would have taken the blame and resultant loss in ncd. Sorry.
I agree with robcars. We've all done it and had near misses with doing it too, but the biker has the right of way.
|
|
|
|
Was the biker hostile towards you ?
No. I did try and make eye contact when he had had stopped but he didn't look at me.
--
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished
|
|
You;you were crossing his path.
|
Doesn't the Highway Code say something about slowing down when you approach a side turning, and being prepared for vehicles emerging that may not have seen you? My instructor of long ago called it "covering the brake and clutch".
Was the MC slowing down? It sounds more as if he was speeding through regardless.
|
|
How did he manage to stop in that case?
|
|
|
|
How did he manage to stop if that was the case?It sounds as tho' he was being careful.
|
>>No. I did try and make eye contact when he had had stopped but he didn't look at me.<<
Good.
I guess (s)he recognised it was at least partly their mistake.
Most of the bike forums report that these are settled knock for knock, depending on witnesses.
If the bike was traveling fast enough to have thrown the rider over your bonnet, then I would say they were travelling too fast for the conditions.
I still don't think you did anything wrong - you proceeded cautiously in heavy traffic. The biker should be doing the same.
I hope other car drivers show the same consideration to bikers when I'm on two wheels.
|
|
|
I live about 100 yards from the stretch of road in question and have to do a fairly unpleasant right turn out onto it every morning too. I can vouch for the fact that pulling out carefully to the middle of the road and waiting for a gap or someone obliging is the only practical way of dealing with a right turn here (other than leaving for work before 6 am when you can normally pull straight out, but let's not go there).
In order to make room for the various turn lanes, islands etc the two traffic lanes are segregated by an area of hatching about six or seven feet wide, edged with broken lines (& thuis legal to enter) so the motorcyclists who zip up and down are riding on the hatched area and the turn lanes, merging with the traffic lanes to go round the islands. Most do so very sensibly; however (as with most things) a minority who should have left earlier come zipping down the middle doing a wholly inapparopriate (if not actually illegal) speed, so a prang of this kind is a very real possibility. I have on occasion observed near-head on collisions where motorcyclists overtaking have encountered cars trying to use the turn lanes for their intedned purpose.
I've wondered about the fault in the situation described in the OP and had thought that perhaps knock-for-knock would be appropriate, although I would like to think that the speed of the motorcyclist would be taken into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>would have suggested a knock-for-knock result
Knock for knock is in no way related to blame or sharing of blame.
|
Knock for knock is in no way related to blame or sharing of blame.
>>
Didn't realise that. So presumably it is used when the two (or however many) sets of insurers cannot agree who was at fault, in circumstances where it is not clear where the fault lies?
|
No. It is simply an agreement between the insurance companies that they will pay their own costs irrespective of blame
- the argument being that this time you pay me £5, next time I pay you £5 which made it all irrelevant but we spent a fortune on admin. So if we pay our own costs it still costs the £5 but we save on all the admin.
[It also stops a group of insurers forcing another to the wall, but that was some time ago]
Blame will be decided apart from the K4K decision. Normally the insurers put no effort in at all and simply go by whoever recovered their excess and other uninsured losses from the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Thankfully it seems you were both being careful, but I would suggest you try and find a different way on to the main road.
I live in a small village, but the main road connects two towns, and is 30MPH!!! with a majorly busy park and several schools nearby, I find MOST bikes oblivious to the rules applying to them.
Only last year I pulled out right from my road,a bike that was going so fast, I hadn't seem them coming over a slight hill,that by the time I was on the correct side they'd slammed on the brakes, swerved around me and a bollard and proceeded to give me the finger.
Now I take more precaution and deliberately pull out on any vehicle excessively speeding,(emergency vehicles exempted)
|
....."and deliberately pull out on any vehicle excessively speeding"....
How very thoughtful of you.....
|
|
|
>>deliberately pull out on any vehicle excessively speeding,(
Plonker.
|
|
|
Now I take more precaution and deliberately pull out on any vehicle excessively speeding,
We'll have a BackRoom trip.....
visit you in the mortuary
|
|
I think he's winding people up, look like it's working...
|
|
|
|
Thankfully it seems you were both being careful, but I would suggest you try and find a different way on to the main road.
Like I said, I live 100 yards from one of the junctions onto this road and the trobule with doing that is that the alternative routes involve going around two sides of a triangle shaped roughly like a church spire, adding about a mile and half and about 20 minutes to the journey, and going on roads even more congested than the A27.
It is a horribly congested area, mainly because the planned bypass was scrapped several years ago on grounds of cost and opposition to various aspects of the planned route. Thus we have pretty much all the traffic between Brighton and Portsmouth going through a densely-populated residential area, but unless/until they can come up with an affordable way of bypassing the entire town (and it's not going to be easy) we shall have to lump it.
|
|
|
|
My question is, if he'd hit my car and gone flying who would have been at fault?
Do you mean who would actually have been most at fault or who would have been judged (by whoever) as being most at fault? Rarely is an accident totally the fault of one person. In any case I don't think it does any good wondering who would have been judged to have been at fault. We all have near misses from time to time. Just be thankful that no collision occurred.
--
L\'escargot.
|
"Rarely is an accident totally the fault of one person"
Oh yeah? See below.
"Now I take more precaution and deliberately pull out on any vehicle excessively speeding"
|
"Rarely is an accident totally the fault of one person" Oh yeah? See below. "Now I take more precaution and deliberately pull out on any vehicle excessively speeding"
I stand corrected BBD. Fortunately (I think!) not too many people drive like that.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Wasn't the motorcyclist overtaking on the approach to a junction and isn't that one of the No-Nos in the highway code?
|
|
|
It seems that a bike going at least 60mph, through a 30mph zone, past a park and near a school and then giving me the finger for having the audasicity to pull out onto a main road has all the sympathy!!! weird
Yes I will pull out on excessively fast vehicles, deliberately, but not at the expense of mine or other persons SAFETY,not even the PLonker, who is speeding excessively.
And yes with nearly 25 years experience, I can tell excessive speeding,in a 30 zone
|
>>I will pull out on excessively fast vehicles, deliberately,
Plonker.
|
Who would have been at fault?
The driver for pulling out without ensuring that it was safe to do so.
However if the Police had been involved the motorcyclist may have been procecuted IF he had crossed a solid white line(s) to pass the lorry and car.
|
|
|
|
...Yes I will pull out on excessively fast vehicles, deliberately, but not at the expense of mine or other persons SAFETY,not even the PLonker, who is speeding excessively......
Just wondering - is this an attempt to 'teach them a lesson'?
If so, shame on you. I doubt you would get much sympathy from others here if such action caused an accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
