Who At Fault ?

Some case law. Scroll down.
https://www.bmf.co.uk/news/show/10-tips-for-safe-motorcycle-filtering

 

Unfortunately Chris that’s how insurance companies work,they’ll take the easy, less time consuming way out.
Irrespective of who’s fault it was.

 

It's simply an insurance company doing what insurance companies do best - getting out of paying up by any means.
A few years ago, some idiot pulled out of a roadside parking space and drove straight into the side of my daughters car as she was waiting in a queue of traffic.
Despite the driver admitting it was her fault, her insurance comany tried to claim that my daughter had "driven too close to the parked car" (ignoring the fact she was stationary). Got sorted in our favour in the end after threatening to take the other driver to court.

 

My opinion:
You had already established your position as being on the main road and travelling with consideration to other road users and the conditions as presented
You were accros the junction when the car pulled out from a side road and struck you side on into the side of your bike.
You had observed the road was clear to proceed, unfortunately the car driver had not given the necessary consideration to other road users and pulled out into the road and struck you when you had no way of avoiding contact

If these statements are true, the. 100% car fault

Now, I know ow the train has sailed, the horse has left the station and the train has bolted....!
But a helmet camera would have caught everything in unbiased HD for you to present to your insurers
I am a big advocate for cameras as they have saved me on four separate occasions and saved me up to £13k
Worth their weight in gold, literally!

 

Were there any witnesses?

 

Chirs Wise...

Similar thing happened to me some years ago. Ended up being 50/50 claim

 

IN this country filtering is allowed provided it is done safely. The Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists (IAM) suggest filtering at a low speed so that you can stop on your side of the road within the distance you can see that is safe. Travelling at 5 MPH would be considered "safe" by IAM standards. (I am an Observer with the IAM so I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about).

Helmut suggest that
"She was perfectly within her rights to exit the side road". of course this is correct but the driver has a responsibility to ensure that her path is clear. You, on the main road, have the right of way and she should have obeyed the triangular sign saying "Give Way" and should have stopped at the give way broken white lines on the junction. Checked that get path was clear before proceeding.

If it becomes the norm that "Drivers are perfectly in their right to exit the side road" without taking the necessary precautions, then bikers are in a lot of trouble.

Insurance companies will do anything to try to wriggle out of paying a claim. The third party's insurance will automatically put the blame on you to limit their pay out.

The bottom line is, the driver failed to follow the High Way Code and caused the collision. You are perfectly in your rights to travel along a road without being hit by a car exiting a side road.

Helmut, remind me not to with you.

Phil

 

Thanks for that Phil. At the time of my post a number of facts hadn't come to light particularly that he was hit side on and not that he had gone into the side of the car (which I wrongly assumed). Regardless you still need to read the road and assume people will do strange things, the fact is that he didn't see the car coming out which again leads me to assume his vision was obscured by the stationary queue and therefore hers too was obscured. It certainly doesn't read like she just randomly pulled out at speed or without stopping, it sounds like a very slow collision as she pulled out of the junction into a gap that had been left by the queueing traffic to allow access in and out of said junction. I'm not defending either side, I'm merely stating that there is potential fault on both sides in lack of observation and awareness.
I would love to ride out with you any time, always up for constructive criticism and self improvement

 

Self improvement? Am I on the wrong site? But there is too far to go, it cannot be done, it is impossible I MUST REMAIN!

 

One point i have either missed or has not been mentioned is was the car pulling out of the side road to join the queue of traffic at the lights....or to turn across the road that was obscured by a the queue of traffic and since the queue was stationary there would very likely have been moving traffic coming from the other direction making the move rather hazardous and so the drive should have been taking extra care,
And if it was the former it could be argued that there was no need for them to project enough to project into oncoming traffic by turning or they wouldn't have hit the bike that was legally filtering in the middle of the road.

Personally i think i would be getting a legal specialist involved as there are a lot of variables to be sorted before laying the blame one way or the other.

 

What is the reasoning for paying a solicitor to pursue legally? Will the insurance company not pay out?

 

Insurance companies will use their own solicitor who will act in the insurance company's best interest not necessarily in the interest of the injured party. Some years ago I was tail ended at a "t" junction. The drive had assumed I had pulled away and moved forward. I had a witness who spoke on my behalf and the driver admitted responsibility, Clear suitcase, or so I thought. A few weeks later I received a letter from his insurance claiming that I had undertook the car and slammed on the brakes leaving him no chance but to drive into my rear. My insurance company buckled and was on the verge of coming to an agreement with the third party's insurance and leaving me with a bill for the repair to my bike. It was a Harley s the cost of repair was enormous. The moral here is don't rely on your insurance company's choice of solicitor. Find a legal company that specialise in motorcycle claims and employ them. Inform your insurance company that is what you are doing and the third party's insurance my see the light and settle without actually having to go to court.

Bonnie Phil

 

An odd perspective but, I believe, an instructive one........

Insurance is legalised betting. At Common Law, betting is considered undesirable - so it is unlawful rather than outright illegal. Adultery is unlawful, bigamy is illegal! You can’t sue your bookie if he welches on a debt. He pays out because his business depends on his reputation.

You can sue your insurer because it is has a statutory exception - because insurance is so desirable they made it compulsory. However, the basis of the contract remains a bet that if something comes to pass that neither party desires then in return for your stake (the premium) certain financial benefits will accrue. The bookie (insurer) maximises his profit by minimising pay outs, disputes etc., while maximising the number and value of punters.

Offloading a £1000 claim for £800 with a quick offer is good business. So is agreeing knock for knock I.e. each insurer bales out their own punter without running up any additional costs. Averaged across the business (where 50% of your punters are innocent and 50% are wholly to blame) it saves the insurer money otherwise wasted apportioning blame. For most modest repair claims it costs them more than it saves them. Personal injuries tend to be a different and much more expensive matter. Most punters realise all too late they have effectively claimed on their insurance and next year’s premium gets loaded albeit you don’t necessarily lose a year of NCD. Good business!

So, just understand your insurer is not ‘yours’. He is actually the bookie pissed off at losing a bet!

 

It's the cars fault mate get the insurance company to earn their money! insist!!

 

If you've got a witness who agrees with your version of what happened, then you stand a good chance of claiming against the car driver.
If you don't, then it's your word against theirs and it'll more thank likely go 50/50.

 

If I put myself in the car driver's position, someone has kindly left a gap for me to get out and on my way. The traffic to my right is queued up and stationary. How good is my view, from a relatively low seating position in my car, beyond the stationary vehicles to my right? Not good, I would think, but it is my opportunity to go.

Honestly, I think I would edge out slowly and hope that if I go slow enough, any bike/bicycle filtering down the outside would see me, realise that my view might be very restricted, and stop. And I'm a biker and cyclist, so I would be thinking hard about the possibility and trying to be as careful as I can. Would I stay in the side road not know when I'd get another chance? Probably not.

As a biker, I confess to being a big woos about filtering, so I'm not sure I would even filter. But assuming I did decide to give it a go, I'd be very sure I could see over the tops of cars (I certainly would not go past a van or lorry if I couldn't see), and I'd be very circumspect about going past a vehicle with a gap in front of it in case they're allowing another vehicle out. I witnessed a kid on a scoot being punted off in similar circumstances. He was going way more than 5mph though and stood no chance of avoiding it. He was ok though. But it made me wonder about the wisdom of filtering, for my own safety.

I wasn't there (obviously) and therefore don't know what visibility folks had of each other. And I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong, just my own thought processes in similar situations.

If something is not illegal, does that make it legal? In other words, is filtering something you are legally entitled to do, or is it more like 'if you do, on your own head be it'.

I did have a near-death experience years ago that I'll describe in another thread...

 

I have just completed my Advanced Motorcycle test and have had a similar experience in the past. It's the car from from the left which is at fault although the cars insurance will probably call it 50 50. You have the right to filter if the lines on the road are not solid.For the best you should have been on the other side of the road for safety reasons as you can see on coming traffic more easily and give you chance to avoid anyone doing a u turn or pulling out.
The car from the left should be sure the the road is clear before he or she joins the on coming traffic and if they have not seen you and knocked you off then he or she is at fault. Argue this with your insurers.

 

From reading all the posts it does seem to me that your insurers are being lazy and that the car driver is %100 to blame. Don't let them give it to you up the arse.

 

Definitely the driver turning on to main road.