Well Duck…

[Clio_fool]

He sounds like a really safe rider! Hopefully a really big wake up for him and will prevent his untimely death mashed into someone's vehicle.

 

[SharpyClio]

He sounds like a really safe rider! Hopefully a really big wake up for him and will prevent his untimely death mashed into someone's vehicle.

People where all saying “don’t take his helmet off” and I said “it’s come off on its own” as I was first over to check on him. It was up on his forehead, he took it off the rest of the way.

 

[NTG999]

I was a witness (in the queue of traffic) when a similar situation occured; speeding overtaking motorcycle, I was interviewed by the police and I asked who would be at fault. The policeman, at the time, said that the guide is the Highway Code which is mirror, signal, maneuver, not mirror, signal, mirror, maneuver; so if he wasn't in your mirror when you checked....
PS, I have a brand new set of wheel arch liners 😁

 

[McGherkin]

i wasn’t moving changing lanes, had that been the case I would have been liable and accept that.

Leaving your lane doesn’t just mean changing lanes like on a motorway. You chose to deviate from the ‘normal’ route of continuing along the road, and entered a different one (the oncoming lane you are crossing). When doing so, you have to check the lane you are moving into is clear. That’s what Cookson’s on about.

Unfortunately what is morally correct and what is correct in the eyes of the insurance is not always the same.

 

[SharpyClio]

Leaving your lane doesn’t just mean changing lanes like on a motorway. You chose to deviate from the ‘normal’ route of continuing along the road, and entered a different one (the oncoming lane you are crossing). When doing so, you have to check the lane you are moving into is clear. That’s what Cookson’s on about.

Unfortunately what is morally correct and what is correct in the eyes of the insurance is not always the same.

Which I did and when I did he wasn’t there… 6 seconds it would have taken him to cover the ground from being out of sight to being in my door.

 

[Flob]

Being an advanced rider (albeit no longer a member), that's exactly what they teach you when both overtaking and filtering, when approaching a junction with queuing cars anticipate / assume a car with make a turn, slow down and once the risk has passed proceed.

Yes that is what they teach you, but the advanced rider course doesn't teach the law, they teach you imo common sense.

It would have helped you a lot if the police had done him for dangerous driving, or if you had him on record admitting liability.

Morally you are in the right, unfortunately I side with @Cookson. Lets say the rider was filtering at legal speeds, you indicate but don't check properly and he hits you as you make your turn. Who is to blame then? Now I know you did look, and I know he was speeding... but how can you prove that?

When I ride, the number of people who change lanes, do a U-turn, pull out in front of me without looking is mental... generally they all think its my fault because they were indicating like that gives them right of way, it doesn't.

Your actions did cause another road user to change their speed or direction (rapidly as it turns out ). It is not against the law for the rider to be on the wrong side of the road, or to filter.

I really hope that the witness statements and cctv are enough for your insurers to side with you, that the rider was dangerously driving and that the accident for you was unavoidable.

 

[Flob]

To muddy the water further, since the new road laws were introduced they seem to have effectively placed blame on the larger vehicle in most cases

Some years ago I was speeding, and an indicating stationary car turned across the front of my car. He was found at fault because there was no evidence that I was speeding.... I think it also helped that he was an uninsured taxi driver...

Good luck mate and glad you bought the car back!

 

[McGherkin]

Which I did and when I did he wasn’t there… 6 seconds it would have taken him to cover the ground from being out of sight to being in my door.

But unfortunately in the case of checking your mirror it doesn’t matter.

When my first car got written off, I was trying to cross two standstill lanes of traffic and a bus lane. I stopped in the middle of the road after the traffic let me out and looked as far up the bus lane as possible - Nothing. Pulled across and was hit in the rear by a taxi flying along the bus lane in excess of the limit. I had the police and several witnesses in my favour, I could not have done anything more than I did, and in fact after that the junction was closed because it was deemed too dangerous. Still went down as my fault, I entered the bus lane.

You don’t have any proof that the bike was speeding, you just turned across an overtaking vehicle and generally in the terms of insurance, that’s it. Having CCTV gives you a glimmer of hope but I wouldn’t expect the biker to get lumped with it sadly.

 

[Oxyuris]

id add that similar but also very different. Not a 60, a marked junction, built up area, lots of people about / walking etc, double whites would have been crossed, speed likely involved based on witness reports I indicated as the CCTV will show. So while I may have to accept some liability the weight must be against the rider given the scenario and the risks he was taking, I’m wondering if the cctv will show that the rider was not likely in my field of view when I would have done my checks given his speed.

As with most collisions it will need to be viewed on its own merits, what has been before does not necessarily set a precedent.

Hmm, sorry. I've just re-read what I wrote, I did it quite quickly as I was doing something else and I probably should have made it clear that I don't blame you for the collision. Bikers in general have to take care of themselves as you don't win anything by being in the right about a collision while learning to walk again. From your description the overtake was unnecessary and put him into a dangerous situation. Also a right turn is a normal action but an overtake in a built up area is unusual.

But the facts of the matter are that you made a right turn into the path of another vehicle, nothing more nothing less. That's surely the view the insurance companies will take and if this then ends up in court, and it's a big if because generally they don't, then your legal person is going need to show that the biker's actions were so reckless that he wasn't owed any duty of care.
I think the comparison with a car in the same situation is disingenuous because we don't own other car drivers as bigger duty of care because they are not vulnerable road users. So as I said I think it'll end up 50/50 unless the biker takes responsibility and you will have a hard time arguing otherwise but I do understand why you feel the way you do.

 

[SharpyClio]

What I want to make clear to everyone is that I appreciate the input, a week on and my responses are less emotional and this has really helped me understand it and my position / involvement and the possibly outcomes.

im conscious I haven’t always come across well so I apologise for that. Like I said I will update as it plays out and at least if it is found to be me at fault I’m more prepared for that than I would have been.
Cheers

 

[Flob]

What I want to make clear to everyone is that I appreciate the input, a week on and my responses are less emotional and this has really helped me understand it and my position / involvement and the possibly outcomes.

im conscious I haven’t always come across well so I apologise for that. Like I said I will update as it plays out and at least if it is found to be me at fault I’m more prepared for that than I would have been.
Cheers

I think you have come across well through out mate.

 

[Short Norman]

I agree, hope you get the outcome you deserve (by that I mean a positive one)

 

[SharpyClio]

I think you have come across well through out mate.

Balls… I’ve apologised for no reason… sorry about that. 😂

felt a bit defensive sometimes.

I agree, hope you get the outcome you deserve (by that I mean a positive one)

jail and throw away the key!!!

 

[thecrim22]

What I want to make clear to everyone is that I appreciate the input, a week on and my responses are less emotional and this has really helped me understand it and my position / involvement and the possibly outcomes.

im conscious I haven’t always come across well so I apologise for that. Like I said I will update as it plays out and at least if it is found to be me at fault I’m more prepared for that than I would have been.
Cheers

I think you have come across well through out mate.

b****cks i think he has come across as a complete c**t as he has yet to inform us if friend/neighbour has big tits or not🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[SharpyClio]

b****cks i think he has come across as a complete c**t as he has yet to inform us if friend/neighbour has big tits or not🤣🤣🤣🤣

You never know who is lurking….

 

[R3k1355]

What I want to make clear to everyone is that I appreciate the input, a week on and my responses are less emotional and this has really helped me understand it and my position / involvement and the possibly outcomes.

im conscious I haven’t always come across well so I apologise for that. Like I said I will update as it plays out and at least if it is found to be me at fault I’m more prepared for that than I would have been.
Cheers

Anyone else would have been exactly the same.

I guess you never realise till it happens that it's (now) rarely 100% the bikers fault, even when they were being a prick and putting themselves in danger.

 

[SharpyClio]

Its been a while since I have updated this one, plenty of back and forth going on but it remains unresolved. There has been an offer of 50/50 which we have agreed to reject - the 3rd party insurer are not forth coming with basic items, looks like it may well end up in court.

 

[Rob]

Its been a while since I have updated this one, plenty of back and forth going on but it remains unresolved. There has been an offer of 50/50 which we have agreed to reject - the 3rd party insurer are not forth coming with basic items, looks like it may well end up in court.

Can’t believe it’s still going, did you ever get the cctv footage?

 

[SharpyClio]

Can’t believe it’s still going, did you ever get the cctv footage?

Its largely due to the lack of responsiveness of the other person and their insurer, every time we ask for anything it either never turns up and we have to chase or it takes weeks and weeks. Im getting the sense the other person is burying their head in the sand and hoping it goes away.

I have not seen the footage but understand my solicitors have it, along with witness statements etc.

 

[Rob]

Its largely due to the lack of responsiveness of the other person and their insurer, every time we ask for anything it either never turns up and we have to chase or it takes weeks and weeks. Im getting the sense the other person is burying their head in the sand and hoping it goes away.

I have not seen the footage but understand my solicitors have it, along with witness statements etc.

I’d be asking to see it before you go to court. That s**t could paint you in a poor light and you might not want to. It could also paint him as a total idiot, but until you’ve seen it, how can you be confident in going to court?

 

[SharpyClio]

I’d be asking to see it before you go to court. That s**t could paint you in a poor light and you might not want to. It could also paint him as a total idiot, but until you’ve seen it, how can you be confident in going to court?

The solicitors have said they are confident of a successful outcome based on what we have. I might ask to see it though.

 

[loggyboy]

Civil court will also go 50:50 as burden of proof is much different to criminal court. I'm very surprised your insurers are willing to take it to court, may well be a ploy to try and tip to 40:60 or 30:70, but chances are if 3rd party dig heels in yours will cave and go with 5050 just to put it to bed. Im assuming theres not 5 or 6 figure claim in the balance?

 

[SharpyClio]

Civil court will also go 50:50 as burden of proof is much different to criminal court. I'm very surprised your insurers are willing to take it to court, may well be a ploy to try and tip to 40:60 or 30:70, but chances are if 3rd party dig heels in yours will cave and go with 5050 just to put it to bed. Im assuming theres not 5 or 6 figure claim in the balance?

If it goes 50:50 then I am no worse off than now really. I would guess that based on the evidence it looks favourably on me, otherwise I would totally expect the 3rd party insurer to be pushing for it more in their favour and mine to just be pushing to accept. Their first offer was 50:50 so I guess there is good grounds to carry on.

I am not aware of the claims value involved but I would doubt it would be 5 or 6 figures.

 

[loggyboy]

If it goes 50:50 then I am no worse off than now really. I would guess that based on the evidence it looks favourably on me, otherwise I would totally expect the 3rd party insurer to be pushing for it more in their favour and mine to just be pushing to accept. Their first offer was 50:50 so I guess there is good grounds to carry on.

I am not aware of the claims value involved but I would doubt it would be 5 or 6 figures.

Only if 1 or both are claiming for injuries.

 

[SharpyClio]

Quick update, the 3rd party insurance has gone quiet and now won’t respond to any requests for information. My solicitor has asked for the 3rd parties name and also for his account of the accident but they just don’t reply.

My solicitor has now gone to the police for the 3rd parties name and if they don’t have them they will do a FOI request to get the details. This is all for the court proceedings,

So it’s all a bit frustrating tbh.

 

[Heez]

Quick update, the 3rd party insurance has gone quiet and now won’t respond to any requests for information. My solicitor has asked for the 3rd parties name and also for his account of the accident but they just don’t reply.

My solicitor has now gone to the police for the 3rd parties name and if they don’t have them they will do a FOI request to get the details. This is all for the court proceedings,

So it’s all a bit frustrating tbh.

Chances are if it does go to court they won’t turn up and be found 100% responsible. Or at least in my mind the TPI are just dragging their heels to not pay out.

 

[R3k1355]

Why are the third party company being such dicks??

Surely this is day-to-day business for an insurance company?

 

[SharpyClio]

It’s a bit odd, I suspect the lad isn’t responding and is hoping it’ll just go away so the insurance company is kinda doing to same, it’s not great they won’t even send the lads name though.

As it stands we are preparing to go to court.

 

[loggyboy]

In a way that sounds like a positive scenario, as mentioned - if the doesn't turn up you win. Or their reluctance to communicate is a sign he wasn't properly insured, bike wasn't tested, or he wasn't driving in accordance with his license etc which in court would mean the MIB would step in to settle it.

 

[SharpyClio]

Well its been a while! This is still rumbling on but feels like its entering the end game - After much difficulty a final offer has been submitted by my solicitors to the 3rd party insurer (who continue to be silent), they now have 20 working days to respond, if they don't respond we go to court.

Given the witness statements, CCTV evidence, lack of communication from the 3rd party or his insurers im bracing myself for court but hoping they just throw in the towel. My solicitors are more than happy that we would be successful in court and have gone so far as to say the poor comms from the 3rd party and his insurers shows they do not feel they could win.

Next update in c20 working days.

 

[SharpyClio]

Pretty quick turn around, the 3rd party insurer has responded accepting liability and making an off of final settlement for the claim.

Pretty much there now.

 

[Clart]

Crazy its still on going after nearly 2 years

 

[R3k1355]

Bet they were just hoping you'd give up and go away.

Thought of solicitors cost on top of the insurance claim probably brought them around.

 

[SharpyClio]

Just had a final letter from my insurance company.

Speaking with my solicitor there are a few things that they think were mitigating factors in the decision for the 3rd party to accept liability,

- Breach of 4/5 rules of the highway code
- If going straight on would have been on unbroken white lines and a level crossing
- Given the values involved, his lack of legal cover and our insistence to proceed to court
- precedents of other incidents like this that have had the passing vehicle at fault

So thats that, I will get a refund on my insurance for the last 18months as they underwrite at risk so a nice little bonus.

 

[McGherkin]

That’s a big win. Could very easily have gone 50/50, as most of these cases do. No doubt the witness evidence helped.

My non fault claim years ago took 2 years to resolve, I swear insurers put as little time/effort into it as possible. Disgraceful really that it takes so long to sort it out, but at least you’ll get some of your premiums back.