Another 'who was in the wrong?' thread.

Vertakill

Ok, this has been annoying me for a while now so I thought I'd see what other people's views are.
I've put all my MS Paint skills to the test for this one, so don't laugh.

From Red cars POV:

- Red car is first in a line of traffic with their indicator on, stopped, waiting for break in traffic in order to cross over into the petrol station whilst sitting close to the central white line.

- Red car sees Pink car slow down and wave in order to notify Red car that they're slowing down to let them cross.

- Red car checks all spots and waits approx 2 seconds for the break in the oncoming traffic to appear, and then moves out.

- Red car turns right and heads toward petrol station, with the front wheels reaching the entrance of the petrol station before Blue motorbike hits rear corner (brake lights/petrol tank) of Red car.

From Blue bikes POV:

- Driving behind a car when the traffic in front stops. Patiently wait behind car for traffic to move again.

- Traffic does not move so peak out and see that the traffic has stopped for Red car to switch lane.

- See an opportunity arise due to gap opening on opposite side of road and accelerate down the centre line in order to overtake the cars in front.

- Red car suddenly cuts Blue bike off and Blue bike hits rear corner of car.


The Gardai's reaction to this was quite surprising but I would appreciate it if people could give their initial thoughts of the incident.

Part 1
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/9918/accident1.jpg

Part 2
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2145/accident2.jpg

Richie15

Initial reaction, I'd say bike's fault for being on wrong side of the road. Although at point of impact it was a broken line. I have heard it be argued that it was the pink car's fault for telling red car to go when it's not safe, but I don't agree with that.

I'd say bike's fault. He pulled out on a solid line.
How did the Gardaí rule?

By the way, not that it makes a difference, but was it a public road the red car was pulling onto or part of the petrol station property? Just wondering.

ball

I'd say red car.
Red car is meant to make sure the way is clear before turning in.
The bike didn't do any wrong

If the bike was a car, it would probably be 50-50.

Lovin' the pics:)

Alun

Personally I'd say it was the bike's fault. He overtook across a solid white line for a start, and could also presumably see the red car's right indicator on as well, since the red car was slightly to the right of the rest of the traffic behind him. The fact that the red car was turning because the pink car had stopped and waved him on wouldn't, I think, enter into it in this case.

jimbo19162

id go for the bike in the wrong too what did the guards say?

biko

IMO: Bike's fault for overtaking and for lack of attention. He should A) wait or drive extra carefully when approaching red car (with indicators on) seeing as it may drive off at any time.
Particularly when red car is about to cross in front of traffic he should be aware that it will try to move as swiftly as possible.
m2c

Of course if he is alongside red car and it shoots out suddenly I guess it's 50/50...

L1011

Bike crossed a solid white line; but your post makes it sound as if the guard favoured the bike - was it by any chance a motorbike guard that arrived?

Balfa

My initial reaction is definitely bike at fault. But the more I think about it, and try to distill it down to the most general case, the more favour I'm giving the bike.

Still though, bike crossed solid white line. That sums it up for me.

Either that or it's the pink driver's fault, for driving a pink car

Richie15

So c'mon, are we getting an answer or what? Or do you even have an answer yet? I suppose it's up to the insurance companies to debate it.

Buffman

It's the bikes fault 100%. The bike went to overtake a car turning right, in the face of on-coming traffic. The bike was behind the car, and should have anticipated that a car with its right indicator on, would turn right when there was a break in traffic.

Nice drawings BTW, you should use them for your insurance claim!

Idleater

My thoughts :

* The bike only appears to have crossed the white line according to the OP. I presume it could be argued to the contrary.

* There is nothing outlawing passing multiple vehicles in one go.

* Indicating signals intent, does not confer right of way

* The above applies to the biker (who was presumably indicating too) - who was indicating first and who commenced their manoeuvre first? The last point by the OP kind of hints that the bike did.

* The biker even if deemed somewhat not to blame was an idiot for not seeing that one coming.

leeroybrown

The insurance companies will probably go 50:50 and shaft both the driver and the rider. I'd tend towards the motorcyclist being more to blame as they should have realised what was coming and were clearly not crawling along if they couldn't avoid the incident. The fact that an oncoming car had yielded to the driver should have been very obvious to the biker. Maybe they sped up to get through the gap. The driver was clearly distracted by the fact that right of way was yielded to them and could probably have been more observant at the time of the turn.

Random

Car was nearly complete maneuver when bike hit him.
Bike was overtaking on solid white line.

I'd say bike is at fault.

However if bike already overtaking when car started maneuver then onus may be on car to ensure way is clear before proceeding.

If I was the car I'd be pushing bike .. but I guess you could be at the mercy of the 2 insurance companys.

jhegarty

This exact scenario was on one of the uk cop shows.

Biker was found 100% responsible.

L1011

Random wrote: »

If I was the car I'd be pushing bike .. but I guess you could be at the mercy of the 2 insurance companys.

If bike and car were Quinn I'd lay money on it being settled 50/50. Two NCBs to remove for them not one!

Actually, the Garda's surprising reaction wasn't to blame pink by any chance?

Wossack

silly biker

didnt read the situation at all - road position and indicator of red car, break in traffic + flashing lights/wave from pinky, car coming out of the junction, the fact its a petrol station (and all the random, almost spontaneous entries/exits it entails) and so on

Top Dog

I'd say biker at fault. Even if he did have indicator on first he (a) started overtaking on a solid white line (b) overtook with traffic oncoming (c) should have been more aware as to why the traffic in his lane was stopped and finally (d) could have ended up in a head-on collision with the car pulling onto the road heading in the direction from which biker was coming.

To be honest, biker was very bloody lucky that the car turning left onto the road didn't sieze the opportunity when Mr Pink stopped to let Mr Red cross the road. Could have been a very nasty head-on impact so Mr Biker was lucky to only impact the rear quarter of Mr Red.

Just my views on it based soley on the OP and images.

ball

Wossack wrote: »

silly biker

didnt read the situation at all - road position and indicator of red car, break in traffic + flashing lights/wave from pinky, car coming out of the junction, the fact its a petrol station (and all the random, almost spontaneous entries/exits it entails) and so on

All the above points are irrelevant as far as the insurers are concerned (even if the car was pink).

A cyclist going through traffic isn't a crime.
There is a "common sense" issue, but if this went to court, more than likely it would end up in the biker's favour

Richie15

ball wrote: »

A cyclist going through traffic isn't a crime.

It is if he crosses a solid white line.
Well maybe not technically a crime, a traffic offence is usually not considered a criminal offence. But it's illegal none the less.

Buffman

ball wrote: »

A cyclist going through traffic isn't a crime.

It sounds pretty close to careless driving on the motorcyclsits part to me.

ball wrote: »

There is a "common sense" issue, but if this went to court, more than likely it would end up in the biker's favour

If it went to court the biker should be found at fault.

Damien360

There was an accident 2 years ago in Newbridge exactly like this but it was a car that hit another car and had performed the same manouvere as the bike across a solid white line. Brother in law was a witness. The right turn was an entrance to an estate. Overtaking car floored it to overtake in a 30mph zone on a white line and overtook 2 cars first but the turning car was deemed at fault for failing to check their mirrors before moving across the line of traffic. The indicator is an indication of intent and not a right to move. You must check you are clear before making the manoevere.

tywy

I don't see how the motorbike isn't at fault here... you can't overtake someone when they're turning right whether they've seen you or not... you overtake them on the inside!!! Gah!

When I was a learner a guy went to overtake me when I was indicating to turn right into my gate off the main road, just because I had L plates up I suppose. He would have been completely at fault if I had hit him. I didn't think a motorbike was any different from a car.

I always thought one had to watch for oncoming traffic when turning right, not traffic from behind unless they've to change lane to turn right.

Edit: Agree with having to check mirrors but is overtaking like that not considered dangerous driving if not enough care is taken when making the maneuver?

ball

Richie15 wrote: »

It is if he crosses a solid white line.
Well maybe not technically a crime, a traffic offence is usually not considered a criminal offence. But it's illegal none the less.

If he did, it would have to be proven (ind. witnesses/cctv). Even if it was, I doubt it would be enough to argue red car's case.

Vertakill

Ok I'll try clear some things up for you.

To clarify, I was in 'Red car' and I had checked all my spots the second the Pink car gave me an indication he was going to let me across.
In the space of time it took the car in front of the Pink car to go by me, and for me to start my manoeuvre (approx 2 seconds), the bike had come out from behind a car (his statement, not my opinion) and floored it down the centre line (wouldve been on the oncoming traffic side of the road obviously).

Now, the centre white line is complete the WHOLE way along that particular road but it's only dotted outside the petrol station, in order for people to cross over to go into the petrol station. It wasn't there to give people the idea it's safe to overtake.

The biker lived around the corner from this station so he would/should have known this.

Also, part of overtaking is if it's "safe to do so". If someone tried what the biker did in a car, the book would've been thrown at him with regards dangerous driving.

Anyways, the female Garda that dealt with it took my side of things at the scene and then when making my statement basically said...

"Well, X, I don't think either of you did anything dangerous so I'm going to let the insurance companies decide. This is, afterall, what you pay insurance for so don't worry about it".

It was then found out 8 months later that the Biker was uninsured, had no tax, never had his bike VRT'd and gave a false address (don't know if he had forgery for insurance or Garda made a mistake).

Yet the claim went down to 50/50 because of the Garda.

The same Garda station also weren't interested in following up on this new found info.

I would've lost my NCB only for the fact he was uninsured whereby it becomes protected.

Btw, thanks for all the replies, it's good to be able to see unbiased points of view.

DriveSkill

Vertakill wrote: »

- Red car checks all spots and waits approx 2 seconds for the break in the oncoming traffic to appear, and then moves out.

I think this could be the critical point here...if you checked blindspots and then waited 2 seconds then the car driver is potentially at fault. You should check your mirrors and blindspots immediately before moving and if you end up having to wait, even 2 seconds, then you need to check them again!

Its unlikely (but not impossible!) that the motorcyclist attempted to overtake the red car once it had started to move across the road so its more likely that the car moved just as the bike approached it and the car driver didnt see the bike.

Whether the bike crossed a solid white line or not earlier is sort of irrelevant to how he ended up hitting the car.

Either way it was pretty dumb (or inexperienced) of the biker to try and overtake in that situation - they should have been able to see what was happening and held their position.

ball

I'd be happy with that result if I was you tbh.

I'm guessing that if it was 50-50, the motor insurance bureau only paid for half of your claim?

Vertakill

Well, the bike drivers statement puts him 2 cars behind the Red car to begin with, then he "quickly" overtook multiple cars and finally ended up hitting the back corner of the Red car.

You should note the point of impact (I went to a lot of trouble with MS Paint cmon!:)). If the Red car just cut him off, then the biker would most likely have hit the driver door. However, he hit the back corner where the brake lights are.

Considering he was 2 cars behind the Red car and ended up hitting that point of the car, it would indicate that he came out around the cars he was overtaking at some speed and couldnt navigate around it due to the speed... or he just drove straight into that corner for no reason which would make no sense.

Also the complete white line is relevant imo, because it's complete the entire road because it's very narrow and everyone knows it's lunacy to overtake there.
The one and only reason there's any dotted lines there is just for people to go into the petrol station.

If you look at the pictures you will see there was a car about to leave the petrol station too, and she could have very easily hit the biker on any other day.

Vertakill

ball wrote: »

I'd be happy with that result if I was you tbh.

I'm guessing that if it was 50-50, the motor insurance bureau only paid for half of your claim?

Exactly ball. The only thing is, when looking for insurance I have to notify any possible insurers that I've had a claim in the last 3 years and how much it was worth and so on.

I'm obviously glad I got my NCB back because it would be genuinely impossible to get insured on my current car without a NCB and a recent claim.

The annoying this after all of this is that, I pay extortionate insurance and tax and I'd just spent 5.5k on VRT'ing the car and then this guy, driving recklessly (imo) wrecks my car and has me off the road now since May of 2008 as a result AND he didn't have to pay anything for tax or insurance or VRT AND he didn't lose any NCB or have to fork out any money because the bureau from his country paid for half of it and my insurance company paid the other half.

I purposely neglected to mention he was Eastern European in case the thread would go rapidly off topic. :P

Buffman

I'm amazed, you were hit by an uninsured, untaxed, unVRTed scumbag of a careless driver, and people are saying your lucky to get away with 50/50.
Hope there wasn't much damage to your car.

unkel

Vertakill wrote: »

"Well, X, I don't think either of you did anything dangerous so I'm going to let the insurance companies decide. This is, afterall, what you pay insurance for so don't worry about it".

It was then found out 8 months later that the Biker was uninsured, had no tax, never had his bike VRT'd and gave a false address (don't know if he had forgery for insurance or Garda made a mistake).

Yet the claim went down to 50/50 because of the Garda.

Some dodgy logic there in my humble opinion. Your crash and the settlement of it are civil proceedings. Not criminal proceedings. Nothing to do with the Gardai. With all due respect to the Gardai, they tend not to be experts in this area at all and any of their opinions as to who was at fault, carry no weight at all, although Gardai would obviously make credible witnesses as to what exactly happened (facts)

If it was settled 50/50, the cynic in me would suggest it might have been a cosy insurance settlement between insurance companies (or even within the one insurance company!). If I were you, I would fight it nail and tooth. You were not to blame and you should not lose any NCB over it!

You were 100% in the right imho - as long as you can prove you were indicating at the time (a witness or two will do nicely).

ball

Vertakill wrote: »

If you look at the pictures you will see there was a car about to leave the petrol station too, and she could have very easily hit the biker on any other day.

If that had happened (the car came out of the petrol station and hit the bike), even if the bike was completely on the wrong side of the road, the car coming out is 100% at fault.

Although he is on the wrong side of the road, it's up to the car to make sure their way is clear before moving out.

Buffman wrote: »

I'm amazed, you were hit by an uninsured, untaxed, unVRTed scumbag of a careless driver, and people are saying your lucky to get away with 50/50.
Hope there wasn't much damage to your car.

Where are my(and everyone else here's) manners.
Nobody asked if you were ok after the accident

ScouseMouse

Pay no attention to what the guard said. I had a situation when an old granny hit me and he said it was my fault.

A year and a half later, her insurance paid up and that was that. Most gardai dont even express an opinion now as it gets messy for them. Unless they have grounds to press a dangerous or careless driving charge, they stay out of it.

I back this up with this link to my boards thread at the time.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055093327

Richie15

Vertakill wrote: »

Anyways, the female Garda that dealt with it took my side of things at the scene and then when making my statement basically said...

"Well, X, I don't think either of you did anything dangerous so I'm going to let the insurance companies decide. This is, afterall, what you pay insurance for so don't worry about it".

Do you think the Garda's being female was relevant in any way?

Vertakill

Thankfully I've been told my NCB is in the post now. But my insurance was due to end shortly after the crash, which meant they wiped my NCB off me until the claim was resolved.

My car is classed as high performance and topped with the fact I'm under 25 meant that I was being quoted phone number style prices.

There's far more jaw-dropping things that went on in the background that I probably can't say on a public forum that are the fault of the Gardai that attended the incident, which I intend to follow up.

This is why it only came to light 8 months down the road that the other person had no insurance, despite my own insurance company fobbing me off since December with; "Last entry on this claim states that we are sending legal documents to the other party and they needed to be translated and so on so these things take time".

The one thing I'll say as a piece of advice to anyone is that, if you're ever in an accident with someone who's not Irish, take out your phone and take photos of absolutely everything relevant that you can. Their vehicle, reg, insurance, tax, driving license because I honestly would not put 100% trust in the Gardai after my situation. It may be completely unfair on the other 99% of perfectly competent Garda out there but when your income and livelihood revolve around your car, you need to be smart.
Take multiple business cards from each witness, not just 1 from each.
This is unfortunately what I done and I stupidly trusted this particular Garda with them and handed them to her rather than take down their info beforehand and they were never to be heard from again.

If they have foreign insurance then your insurance company will hand it over to the MIBI to sort out and they delegate the claim to another Irish insurance company.
I ended up having to hound everyone down to get contact details from several people in different places just to find the 1 person dealing with my claim because each time I rang my insurance company I was being fobbed off or just given 3rd hand information.

DriveSkill

Without actually being there and not seeing it for myself I'd have to agree with a 50/50 settlement.

You accept that the bike was stationary behind 2 cars and then moved out. Whether he did it 'quickly' or not is not important assuming he took proper observation - more than likely he was still within the speed limit. The fact that you didnt see him before moving into or across his path makes you partially to blame.

However, from the bikes point of view he should not have attempted the maneouver in the first place and equally he should probably have been going slower in order to be able to stop in time.

I think if the collision had happened on the the left hand side of the road you would be 100% in the right, however given that both of you are on the 'wrong' side of the road means you share the blame. The fact is you cant pull out in front of someone (even if they are overtaking illegally) and then accept no responsibility.

Vertakill

ball wrote: »

If that had happened (the car came out of the petrol station and hit the bike), even if the bike was completely on the wrong side of the road, the car coming out is 100% at fault.

Although he is on the wrong side of the road, it's up to the car to make sure their way is clear before moving out.

Where are my(and everyone else here's) manners.
Nobody asked if you were ok after the accident

Yea your dead right but the point is that, imo, I think he was performing an incredibly risky manouever when taking all things into account.

Thanks ball, lol We both came out without a scratch thankfully.

Vertakill

Richie15 wrote: »

Do you think the Garda's being female was relevant in any way?

Yes, I do. As I said earlier, I would rather not go into details about the things that went on in the background of the Gardai on a public forum because it wouldn't do anyone any good.

Richie15

Understandable, of course. I was just wondering was there a reason you had pointed that out.

ball

Vertakill wrote: »

Yea your dead right but the point is that, imo, I think he was performing an incredibly risky manouever when taking all things into account.

Thanks ball, lol We both came out without a scratch thankfully.

No problem.

If your insurance co were chasing up a foreign co, it probably meant that he had insurance in his own country. The MIBI look after these sort of claims as well.

If he didn't have insurance, chances are he'll get away with it when/if he goes back to his own country.

Just like if you have a foreign licence, you can't get penalty points.
Also, you might be interested in this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lost-in-translation-irelands-getaway-driver-1626718.html

Vertakill

DriveSkill wrote: »

You accept that the bike was stationary behind 2 cars and then moved out. Whether he did it 'quickly' or not is not important assuming he took proper observation - more than likely he was still within the speed limit. The fact that you didnt see him before moving into or across his path makes you partially to blame.

However, from the bikes point of view he should not have attempted the maneouver in the first place and equally he should probably have been going slower in order to be able to stop in time.

I think if the collision had happened on the the left hand side of the road you would be 100% in the right, however given that both of you are on the 'wrong' side of the road means you share the blame. The fact is you cant pull out in front of someone (even if they are overtaking illegally) and then accept no responsibility.

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree somewhat with your first point. You don't have to be going over the speed limit to be driving too fast.
For example, when sitting at a traffic light, isn't it unsafe to rev your engine and then dump the clutch and speed off but stay below the speed limit?

He was sitting behind a car and then floored it when he noticed the traffic was stationery for too long and his statement proves that.

Vertakill

ball wrote: »

No problem.

If your insurance co were chasing up a foreign co, it probably meant that he had insurance in his own country. The MIBI look after these sort of claims as well.

If he didn't have insurance, chances are he'll get away with it when/if he goes back to his own country.

Just like if you have a foreign licence, you can't get penalty points.
Also, you might be interested in this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lost-in-translation-irelands-getaway-driver-1626718.html

Yeah, it took 8 months for me to find out he was uninsured. He had no proof of insurance at the crash so he had 10 or however many days to produce it to the Garda station. Either myself or my insurance company should've been notified of it within the 10 days, not 8 months.

If he was insured I would have lost my NCB because it's gone 50/50 now. My NCB's protected due to the fact I was hit by an uninsured driver.

The only reason I accepted 50/50 is because I was told I wouldn't lost my NCB due to him being uninsured and I desperately need to get driving again as it's nearly 11 months exactly since this happened.


And lol ball, I seen that and a few friends and family mentioned it to me recently too to try and rile me up even more..

DriveSkill

Vertakill wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree somewhat with your first point. You don't have to be going over the speed limit to be driving too fast.
For example, when sitting at a traffic light, isn't it unsafe to rev your engine and then dump the clutch and speed off but stay below the speed limit?

He was sitting behind a car and then floored it when he noticed the traffic was stationery for too long and his statement proves that.

Totally agree that you dont have to break a speed limit to be considered to be driving too fast - that was the point I made in relation to the biker being in the wrong, he should have been going slow enough in order to be able to stop.

All I'm really saying is an independant observer, based on what you've posted here, there were faults or mistakes on both sides. Now should it be 70/30 or 60/40 who knows so in situations like this it always ends up as 50/50.

BTW just for the sake of correctness you dont 'floor' a bike

Vertakill

Hahaha, this is true.
Maybe if he'd have been trying to use his feet to accelerate we wouldn't be having this conversation? :P

Thanks for all the replies btw, it's nice to get an unbiased view on this because naturally enough I was screaming bloody murder about this situation and for a while I would've only been happy if he'd been put in front of a firing lineup.

L1011

How were you off the road as a result of this? thought the car wasn't seriously damaged?

Vertakill

It wasn't 'seriously' damaged, no. (€1800 repairs)

I mentioned in one of my many rants/posts in this thread that my renewal came up just after the crash and since my insurance company took away my NCB while the claim was being resolved, my tasty new quote was nearly 5k p/y.

I'm driving a 350Z and I'm 23 and without my NCB I can't afford to insure it with the only company that would actually insure me, Quinn.

So I had a choice of..

A. Sell the car and lose probably €6,000 (provided someone would even buy a 3.5ltr car nowadays) because I'd only bought it that same month.

B. Leave it sitting in the driveway in the hopes that this would all be resolved and I'd be happily driving again. (11 months later and I'm nearly there!)

I couldn't afford a 2nd car as a run about in the mean time either and when you have a claim pending NOBODY wants to insure you.

It's a hard knock life.. :P

biko

Vertakill wrote: »

Yes, I do. As I said earlier, I would rather not go into details about the things that went on in the background of the Gardai on a public forum because it wouldn't do anyone any good.

Then don't point it out. You make it sound as if it has bearing but if you won't back it up, leave it out.

Idleater

From a biker's point of view the fact that the biker in question was uninsured and riding an untaxed motorcycle, fits exactly with my profile that I alluded to in my earlier post.

The biker was an idiot and unfortunately the OP got stung by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If I could suggest that anyone reading this learn something from this, that while the biker was found 50% in the wrong, there are several aspects that should be noted where this incident could have passed off safely:

I think if the bike had carefully (slowly) passed the cars on the outside then this would be okay, as (s)he might not even have crossed the white line in that case.

Most bikers performing the same manouvre in the carefully in the fashion above, would be able to account for the situation and cut in behind the red car to proceed safely.

Being honest, this is a Biker 101 mistake, and if the biker is still riding, they will hopefully learn from this too.

Farls

Good to see your dealing well with it. I currently have an outstanding claim on my insurance and its a balls...again due to bad garda work, I was hit head on by a drunk driver and he fled the scene due to guards taking 45 mins to arrive :mad:.

Excellent advice with the pictures. I done this, I'm just annoyed I didn't take a video clip of his drunken babbling. I'm just over 10 months down the line now and finally getting close to getting this claim closed, I was only docked 2 years NCB at renewal though until this is sorted.

As for your situation I would say 100% motorbike in the wrong and I'm a part time biker. I have seen similar situations before having worked in the insurance industry and this is the case. Although sometimes it takes a long long time for the truth to come out, you just got to keep up the fight!!

hobochris

Id rule it 50/50.. if the bike was over the white line. As If the driver of the red car did their final mirror check before starting to turn then this wouldn't of happened.

its

mirror check,oncoming traffic check, mirror check, turn.

NOT

mirror check ,oncoming traffic check , turn.

Bikes are legally aloud to filter (providing they do not cross a solid white line)... In some cases its expected in the driving test for a bike.

But in this case its red vs blues word, which = 50/50 claim.

Alun

Damien360 wrote: »

The indicator is an indication of intent and not a right to move. You must check you are clear before making the manoevere.

Maybe so, but it's entirely possible, depending on the speeds and distances involved, that the way was indeed clear when you checked, and that the bike appeared after you'd already started the manoeuvre.

Vertakill

hobochris wrote: »

its

mirror check,oncoming traffic check, mirror check, turn.

NOT

mirror check ,oncoming traffic check , turn.

Bikes are legally aloud to filter (providing they do not cross a solid white line)... In some cases its expected in the driving test for a bike.

There was about 2 seconds between my last mirror check and me moving out which was enough time for the Biker to come around from behind the car infront of him and throttle it down into me.. but what your saying about the checks is fairly accurate.
I'll obviously be even more cautious in this kind of situation next time to avoid this kinda crap happening again.
When you can see the whole thing unfold around you and you (think you've) taken every possible outcome into account and then that's blown away by someone pulling out a suicidal move...

Bikes have no more rights regarding overtaking than a car does.
You can't start an overtaking maneuver by first crossing a solid white line.
Secondly, the correct thing to do by the biker would've been to pass my car on the passengers side.

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/good-driving-practice/overtaking.html

Rules of the Road wrote:

You may overtake on the left when

* You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.
* You have signalled that you intend to turn left.
* Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.

Rules of the Road wrote:

You must not overtake when

* You are at or near a pelican crossing, zebra crossing or at pedestrian signals.
* A traffic sign or road marking prohibits it.
* You are approaching a junction.
* You are on the approach to a corner, bend, dip in the road, hump-back bridge, brow of a hill or on a narrow road.
* You are in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway or motorway when traffic is moving at normal speed.

The area wasn't an out and out junction but it comes pretty close to one considering how many cars frequent that petrol station and the fact there's a business park beside it where you need to use the same entrance as the petrol station.

Alun wrote: »

Maybe so, but it's entirely possible, depending on the speeds and distances involved, that the way was indeed clear when you checked, and that the bike appeared after you'd already started the manoeuvre.

That's exactly what happened and that's exactly the reason why he hit the back corner of my car and not further up at the drivers door. The biker wasn't trying some little dinky bike, he was driving a 1000cc bike which was well capable of eating up the ground in a couple of seconds.

Magnus wrote: »

Then don't point it out. You make it sound as if it has bearing but if you won't back it up, leave it out.

Oh and Magnus, considering your a moderator, I would've thought you would know better when it comes to this kind of thing?

For starters, I didn't add anything into my account of things to indicate that the Garda being female had anything to do with it, I was merely trying to give an accurate picture of events by mentioning it wasn't a male Garda (which is always how I picture Garda for whatever reason). However, Richie65 was ridiculously observant and pointed it out. That's the only reason why I even explained myself.

It's out of respect to the Garda and the Gardai in general that I don't go running my mouth about their personal lives so don't get on my case about it when it's pretty obvious that it's not something meant for a public forum.