Well. To be brutal, having watched the video a few times, it looks to me like you are at fault, having run a Red light or at least failed to stop when Amber (based on the synced light assumption) plus your behavior afterwards is pretty poor which is not going to help your case as it paints you as aggressive which may be extrapolated to infer you manner of driving may be the same.
Sorry this all happened ...Looks to me like you were clearly positioned for your right turn and the Royal Mail van driver just didn't see you as focussing on their right turn so looking away from you. As I can't see you in the video you must be hidden by the Royal Mail van so clearly in the correct place for your turn. If the Royal Mail driver admitted to seeing you and then deliberately drove across you I would think they could be accused of a serious driving offence. In all probability its the all too common story of bikes being invisible to many road users even if the rider is wearing hi viz. The van driver seems to me to be clearly the one at fault.
Not sure what vid you watched but RT was not turning right at all, he was going straight across the junction.
Trying to be objective about this, it looks to me as if the biker (Red Thunder) was late through the lights. Whether or not he crossed the line after they changed to red, or they were actually still amber is impossible to determine from the video. Even if still amber there is ambiguity as to whether or not it would have been safe for the biker to actually stop as that is entirely subjective. Either way, it seems clear to me that the biker was chancing it by crossing the junction very late as there's no obvious reason why he couldn't have anticipated the changing of the lights and hence be able to easily stop on amber. So my conclusion is he was pushing it and trying to get through, although ultimately that would be up to the courts to decide. However, it is also clear to me that whatever might be decided regarding the above, the van driver should NOT have turned right when he did. There is no excuse for assuming the bike would stop at the lights and making the turn based on that assumption. Driving requires that you avoid hitting other road users under all circumstances, even if they are not in the right e.g. due to being late crossing a junction and absolutely not when you have simply made an incorrect assumption about the other's intentions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how the biker negotiated that junction, the van driver was 100% at fault for turning into the path of oncoming traffic and actually hitting another road user as that is NEVER acceptable. Unfortunately, I suspect that the biker's late crossing of the junction will be used as a mitigating factor in determining blame and I suspect the final outcome is likely to be knock for knock. Even if so, Red Thunder should be grateful it's only damage to the bike. A sideswipe like that can often cause the rider's leg to hit the other vehicle, with disastrous consequences.
Ha Ha. No. I joined 2 years ago (and forgot about it). I spend most of my time on the Tiger 800 and Tiger Explorer forum. I just had a reminder email that I was a member on here so dropped in to have a look and saw this thread. I did watch the video a number of times before commenting
In the video the van moves before the light turns red so moved into the path of an oncoming vehicle, van at fault simple .
Watched the video with the girlfriend and 1st thing she said was 'looks like the bike cuts in-between the turning cars as/after the lights had changed??’ It was very close anyway. I reckon the RM Van expected you to stop as the lights were changing; you chanced it thinking he had seen you and would let you pass. Situation could of been avoided if you'd both of backed down and been safer. He's in the death machine after all and you're on the bike. You’re luckily you got away with just your bike being damaged tbh. I suspect Red Thunders video will complete the story. Regardless I hope you win mate and can repair your bike but as every insurance company is out to wriggle out of paying anything I suspect you won’t.
Just watched the video again, I watched it a few times when the thread came out but I have too admit only to the point of the of the hit itself, this time I watched it to the end. I think you should count yourself lucky you didn't get nicked for threatening behavior, regardless of who was right or wrong there is a good chance the insurance won't pay out due to your actions after the fact.
I've just watched the video to the end too......... I agree with the above poster. I don't think you punching the driver will do you any favours.
Didn't punch the driver...... At that point I was totally red mist but I never hit anyone....last time I hit someone was at school when somone insulted my family. That behaviour is very out of character for me, when the guys in my office first saw it, they honestly thought it wsnt me. I am the accountant that sits in the corner of the office drinking tea and asking everyone politely to do their timesheets! I had the bike for four days at that point and when the van driver cut accross me after he had seen me I was so insensed. It was like a normally calm chimp that was happily counting his toes had transformed into a gorilla that had just been kicked in the nuts and escaped his cage. Yes, I was swearing like a trooper and properly angry but I beleive justified. I have watched my video and that one numerous times and retrospectively thought how it could so easliy have been different. Although I can't see any movement of my camera, I believe I was looking in my mirror for first second of the traffic light turning amber, and then being too late to stop as I recall a car being behind me. The first car passed safely and I thought it obviouse the RM van would stop as it was on amber and he would be crossing my path, an unfortunate presumption. Once the car had moved, the RM van then followed and while I was in full view. It was at the point of collision the light turns to red. I will try linking my video soon, but I am ashamed of my language and that it does show me going through Amber much to my own increduility
Just to clarify, what looks like the punch ended up with me poining at him (vary angrily) and shouting that I had the bike for only a few days and that he had cut accross me while I had priority.
RT I would of acted the same way to be honest. Rightly or wrongly. When you feel your life and or your expensive machine has been risked you can't help it. Especially in the heat of the moment when you're absolutely sure you've been wronged.
Have a read of your policy small print, it's in a lot of policy's that you render your insurance void for violence or threatening behavior incident as it's a section 4 or 5 public order offense
It doesn't matter what your insurance says. If the van driver is at fault then his insurer should pay out. Now whether he is at fault is a matter for lawyers.
That's how it should be but I'm certainly no expert but think it works like this I could very well be wrong. If the van driver was at fault they will payout If the van driver was at fault but RT was over the limit they would not payout due to the fact RT was committing an offense? If the van driver was at fault but RT was threatening they would not pay out due to the fact RT was committing an offense? It might just mean if RT was at fault and was them threatening his own insurance won't pay him under his comprehensive cover. Hope it works out ok in any case
As Bob said "these times they are a changing".....a very good mate off mine was in a very similar situation, an old duffer gave him a load of source and rolled the window up, my mate punched it (the window that is) it broke.....28 days for his trouble. The only saving grace was that he was self employed so it wasn't as life changing as it could have been.
He only actually did just over two weeks, we were all as shocked as you are, they are just cracking down on stuff like that. I could also tell you about another guy I know, they gave him three months and took his bike for having a flip up number plate, they did him for "perverting the course of justice" It was all over the net for a while.
