Fictional accident query.

HashSlinging

A car and a motorbike driving fairly close together (car in front), passed me this evening on a motorway, I was coming back from footie etc. More or less immediately the biker went to undertake the car and the car without a signal moved into the "driving" lane, causing the biker to loose a bit of traction, and a bit of a wobble happened, the biker caught hold again but this gave me a bit of a scare as had the biker came off I would have went straight into him... would have been fairly messy.

I'd blame the guy in the car, obviously to me he didnt look in his mirror or signal, but I would be concerned I would have been held responsible for hitting the biker.. Its freaked me out!

Midnight_EG

It didn't happen, so don't make us provide a gruesome story for you, be happy you're fine, as are the other drivers.

The-Game

The most under utilised piece of the car on irish roads.... the left hand side mirror.

Midnight_EG

The-Game wrote: »

The most under utilised piece of the car on irish roads.... the left hand side mirror.

I'd have chosen 6th gear

peasant

HashSlinging wrote: »

I'd blame the guy in the car, obviously to me he didnt look in his mirror or signal, but I would be concerned I would have been held responsible for hitting the biker.. Its freaked me out!

Why would you or the other driver be responsible here?

There was only one clearcut, illegal and dangerous maneuvre performed and it was this:

More or less immediately the biker went to undertake the car

The biker brought it all on himself by driving like an idiot.

Tipsy Mac

The car shouldnt have been in the overtaking lane as the driving lane was clear so both were idiots, with the car driver being more of one.

Berty

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

The car shouldnt have been in the overtaking lane as the driving lane was clear so both were idiots, with the car driver being more of one.

The OP said the car overtook him and then nearly immediately the biker made his move.

Alun

Berty wrote: »

The OP said the car overtook him and then nearly immediately the biker made his move.

Exactly. I've had bikers undertake me in situations like that when a) I'm barely past the last car and b) even when I'm actually indicating to pull back in anyway, and in fact had started to indicate earlier than usual, just to hopefully preclude such a thing happening.

rebel.ranter

Alun wrote: »

Exactly. I've had bikers undertake me in situations like that when a) I'm barely past the last car and b) even when I'm actually indicating to pull back in anyway, and in fact had started to indicate earlier than usual, just to hopefully preclude such a thing happening.

This is why bikers are known as organ donors.

You need to exercise extreme caution at all times when on a motor bike. Any of the ones that have been biking for years will tell you that. The rest have donated their organs...

Cuddlesworth

The biker was in the wrong morally.

But if it came down to court/insurance the car would have been at fault as he didn't check his mirrors and he would have hit the bike.

Had he missed and the biker had fallen off and you had hit him you would be to blame and your insurance would pay out unless you could track down the car and both act as witlessness.

Had he gone off and both cars had driven off without contact he would be screwed.

peasant

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The biker was in the wrong morally.

But if it came down to court/insurance the car would have been at fault as he didn't check his mirrors and he would have hit the bike.

Had he missed and the biker had fallen off and you had hit him you would be to blame and your insurance would pay out unless you could track down the car and both act as witlessness.

Had he gone off and both cars had driven off without contact he would be screwed.

I'd very much doubt that.

Undertaking (or overtaking in the wrong lane) is illegal and except for the other car not indicating it's the only (and major) offence commited here.

Skid marks on the road would tell that story fairly well.

kazul

A glance in your mirror and a quick move to the overtaking lane should have been your reaction, with brake pedal covered just in case. I know it's easy in hindsight but a lot of people panic and react incorrectly in situations like you've described. It's all about observation and anticipation. Try to get a copy of "Roadcraft" for christmas.

Dublin_Gunner

peasant wrote: »

I'd very much doubt that.

Undertaking (or overtaking in the wrong lane) is illegal and except for the other car not indicating it's the only (and major) offence commited here.

Skid marks on the road would tell that story fairly well.

In fairness, having worked in motor claims myself - he's probably right (though this is never set in stone).

OP should be a safe enough distance behind any vehicle in front, and travelling at a speed relative to the distance to avoid any collision / dangerous situation occurring.

If the biker cam off his bike, and ended up on the OP's bonnet, he would most certainly be held partially responsible for any injuries sustained.

And in this incident, there would be no skid marks (from braking) from the bike, only the car, indicating that the CAR swerved into the bike, not the other way around.

Undertaking is not illegal. If I'm in the left hand lane, and a vehicle in the right hand lane slows down, I'm more than within my rights to pass him in the wrong lane.

However, if there was witness evidence to show that the biker was driving dangerously, leading to, at least in part the incident occurring, he would also be apportioned part of the blame - as would the other car driver, for swerving back in without indicating, or using his mirror.

Anan1

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

OP should be a safe enough distance behind any vehicle in front, and travelling at a speed relative to the distance to avoid any collision / dangerous situation occurring.

If the biker cam off his bike, and ended up on the OP's bonnet, he would most certainly be held partially responsible for any injuries sustained.

I'm surprised nobody had made this point yet, it seems pretty central to me.;)

Cuddlesworth

peasant wrote: »

I'd very much doubt that.

Undertaking (or overtaking in the wrong lane) is illegal and except for the other car not indicating it's the only (and major) offence commited here.

Skid marks on the road would tell that story fairly well.

Although I would very much like to see the biker pay for such stupid driving, motor insurance company's are well aware of a particular bias of judges towards accidents with cars and motorbikes. The car is nearly always in the wrong unless their is a very very strong case which points otherwise.

This is coming from quite a few people I know who had claims put through, some very obviously 50/50 blame, some 100% biker and most 100% car.

Case in point is claims from undertaking on motorways, bus lanes, cycle lanes etc. Judge always says the car should have looked in their mirrors correctly ignoring the point that the bike shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Cuddlesworth

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody had made this point yet, it seems pretty central to me.;)

My understanding is that the op was overtaken by both the bike and other driver close together. Both pulled in front of him without a appropriate distance left after the overtake.

Dublin_Gunner

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Although I would very much like to see the biker pay for such stupid driving, motor insurance company's are well aware of a particular bias of judges towards accidents with cars and motorbikes. The car is nearly always in the wrong unless their is a very very strong case which points otherwise.

This is coming from quite a few people I know who had claims put through, some very obviously 50/50 blame, some 100% biker and most 100% car.

Case in point is claims from undertaking on motorways, bus lanes, cycle lanes etc. Judge always says the car should have looked in their mirrors correctly ignoring the point that the bike shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Well in fairness, that's like crashing into a car parked on double yellows.

The car shouldn't have been there, but it doesn't excuse the fact you hit a parked car.

Same principle applies. One wrong does not advocate another.

cruizer101

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

OP should be a safe enough distance behind any vehicle in front, and travelling at a speed relative to the distance to avoid any collision / dangerous situation occurring.

If the biker cam off his bike, and ended up on the OP's bonnet, he would most certainly be held partially responsible for any injuries sustained.

How could the OP be blamed for not being a safe distance behind if the bike pulled in front of him straight after overtaking.

Lane changing is one of the times when the vehicle behind is not always 100% responsible.

From how OP described it sounds like bikes bad, but without actually seeing it and how long before passing and undertaking its hard to know for sure.

daveharnett

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

OP should be a safe enough distance behind any vehicle in front, and travelling at a speed relative to the distance to avoid any collision / dangerous situation occurring.

If the biker cam off his bike, and ended up on the OP's bonnet, he would most certainly be held partially responsible for any injuries sustained.

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody had made this point yet, it seems pretty central to me.;)

Does not apply here - he had just been over taken by the other two vehicles - he could not control how close they were when they returned to his lane. Given time, he could have backed off them, but that can't be done instantly in the real world.

Anan1

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

My understanding is that the op was overtaken by both the bike and other driver close together. Both pulled in front of him without a appropriate distance left after the overtake.

Fair point, I missed that bit.

Mr. Presentable

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Undertaking is not illegal. If I'm in the left hand lane, and a vehicle in the right hand lane slows down, I'm more than within my rights to pass him in the wrong lane.

.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Overtaking on the left is illegal, with exceptions. In the OP's situation as I read it, which is, after all, what we are talking about, the car overtook him and was pulling into the correct lane when the bike tried to undertake. Illegal and dangerous. Oh, and stupid.

Dublin_Gunner

1. The OP does not state how far in front of him the other vehicles were when the bike started to undertake the car. Nowhere is it mentioned that they:

Both pulled in front of him without a appropriate distance left after the overtake.

2. did the bike 'undertake' or merely move into the driving lane before the car did?

3. The fact that they had completed their manouvre's before the nearly-accident happened would suggest that the OP should still have been able to keep a safe distance - regardless of what they were doing, by applying the brake a little. i.e if a vehicle overtakes you, then slows down, does this give you the right to drive up the rear of the other vehicle? No.

4. The bike may well have been driving dangerously - which is a criminal, not civil matter, and he may be prosecuted separately from the accident itself (which is a civil matter).

5. The result of this prosecution may have bearing on the case, but only to decide apportionment of blame.

6. Most likely, all 3 vehicles would be apportioned some amount of blame, if the biker ended up being hit by the OP.

Of course, if the OP managed to swerve out of the way, then no blame whatsoever should be apportioned to him/her, and all blame would be squarely placed on both the bike and the car.

peasant

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

1. The OP does not state how far in front of him the other vehicles were when the bike started to undertake the car. Nowhere is it mentioned that they:


2. did the bike 'undertake' or merely move into the driving lane before the car did?

3. The fact that they had completed their manouvre's before the nearly-accident happened would suggest that the OP should still have been able to keep a safe distance - regardless of what they were doing, by applying the brake a little. i.e if a vehicle overtakes you, then slows down, does this give you the right to drive up the rear of the other vehicle? No.

4. The bike may well have been driving dangerously - which is a criminal, not civil matter, and he may be prosecuted separately from the accident itself (which is a civil matter).

5. The result of this prosecution may have bearing on the case, but only to decide apportionment of blame.

6. Most likely, all 3 vehicles would be apportioned some amount of blame, if the biker ended up being hit by the OP.

Of course, if the OP managed to swerve out of the way, then no blame whatsoever should be apportioned to him/her, and all blame would be squarely placed on both the bike and the car.

No wonder insurance premiums are so high if this is the way claims are handled :rolleyes:

Very simple ...biker sits on the bumper of overtaking car, overtaking car tries to pull in as quickly as is safely possible (forgetting to indicate under pressure)...biker, in his wisdom decides not to wait and rather undertake ILLEGALY. Biker gets cought out, biker 1000% at fault ..no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

Cuddlesworth

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

1. The OP does not state how far in front of him the other vehicles were when the bike started to undertake the car. Nowhere is it mentioned that they:

HashSlinging wrote: »

A car and a motorbike driving fairly close together (car in front), passed me this evening on a motorway, I was coming back from footie etc. More or less immediately the biker went to undertake the car and the car without a signal moved into the "driving" lane,

Really?

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

2. did the bike 'undertake' or merely move into the driving lane before the car did?

HashSlinging wrote: »

the biker went to undertake the car and the car

Really?

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

3. The fact that they had completed their manouvre's before the nearly-accident happened would suggest that the OP should still have been able to keep a safe distance - regardless of what they were doing, by applying the brake a little. i.e if a vehicle overtakes you, then slows down, does this give you the right to drive up the rear of the other vehicle? No.

HashSlinging wrote: »

More or less immediately the biker went to undertake the car and the car without a signal moved into the "driving" lane,

Really?

cruizer101

quote:
"A car and a motorbike driving fairly close together (car in front), passed me this evening on a motorway, I was coming back from footie etc. More or less immediately the biker went to undertake the car and the car without a signal moved into the "driving" lane."


Not a definate distance but this would indicate that biker didn't leave appropriate space.


I'd also say it can be assumed that if the bike had to brake hard due to car moving into driving lane it was in the process of or about to undertake.

Dublin_Gunner

Yes he says immediately, as in immediately after they had overtaken him.

Its quite obvious you guys are looking at these scenario's in black and white. That is never the case and all of these questions must be asked.

Peasant - you've never dealt with a claim in your life, have you?

There are 3 things here in this incident:

1. The biker undertaking the car

2. The car not indicating his intended manouvre.

3. The OP's vehicle possibly not being an appropriate distance behind (whether that is due to the OP or to the other drivers is not decided).

Every claim must be looked at with open eyes, and simple assumptions from one witness statement cannot be made.

You guys are all to quick to jump and assume that this may be entirely the bikers fault.

Did the OP see what had happened behind him? It could be possible that the motorbike began to overtake the OP before the car did, as the bike may have overtaken the car first. The driver of the other car may have had a bit of road rage, not liked bikes, and proceeded to try overtake the bike while the bike was in the process of overtaking the OP.

This may have left the bike with no other option but to undertake the other car, for his own safety.

If this is what happened, and we had another witness behind the OP to state this - this would point to the fact that the entire incident was indeed the other vehicles fault, not the bikes.

These are all questions that must be asked, before ANY decision on liability can be ascertained.

Things are not always as they initially appear to be.

peasant

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It could be possible that the motorbike began to overtake the OP before the car did, as the bike may have overtaken the car first. The driver of the other car may have had a bit of road rage, not liked bikes, and proceeded to try overtake the bike while the bike was in the process of overtaking the OP.

This may have left the bike with no other option but to undertake the other car, for his own safety.

Would you perhaps like to take the tide and the phase of the moon into consideration as well?

It's illegal to undertake ...if you have / cause an accident while doing so, it's your fault.

Dublin_Gunner

peasant wrote: »

Would you perhaps like to take the tide and the phase of the moon into consideration as well?

It's illegal to undertake ...if you have / cause an accident while doing so, it's your fault.

While technically, it is illegal to undertake - doing so when you are pretty much forced can be perfectly acceptable. Like any other dangerous manouvre - if you are left with no option, can be acceptable.

Our courts system and claims systems are not black and white, thankfully.

Yours post is another of everything must be black and white.

Everyone here is basing the entire [fictional] incident on the witness evidence of one person, who has not seen what went on before the vehicle came into his/her field of view.

peasant

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

While technically, it is illegal to undertake - doing so when you are pretty much forced can be perfectly acceptable. Like any other dangerous manouvre - if you are left with no option, can be acceptable.

No option but to undertake?

Please be so kind as to hand in your driving licence before logging out

Dublin_Gunner

peasant wrote: »

No option but to undertake?

Please be so kind as to hand in your driving licence before logging out

Seriously, give it a rest.

If the bike was in the process of being overtaken by the car, and the car veered too close, with another car close enough behind, the motorbike would have to pass that car on the left hand side in order to try avoid an accident.

If the bike braked suddenly, the OP's vehicle would go straight up his rear, and if he didn't move, the car would hit him.

Stop looking at everything though blinkers - do you have a chip on your shoulder in relation to motor bikes?

Your attempt at funny retorts is a little childish and immature by the way. I would have expected a bit more sensibility from a mod.

Cuddlesworth

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Seriously, give it a rest.

If the bike was in the process of being overtaken by the car, and the car veered too close, with another car close enough behind, the motorbike would have to pass that car on the left hand side in order to try avoid an accident.

If the bike braked suddenly, the OP's vehicle would go straight up his rear, and if he didn't move, the car would hit him.

Stop looking at everything though blinkers - do you have a chip on your shoulder in relation to motor bikes?

Your attempt at funny retorts is a little childish and immature by the way. I would have expected a bit more sensibility from a mod.

You seem to have a huge bias towards the biker, to the point where you are convincing yourself the situation was completely different to what was described.

Dublin_Gunner

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You seem to have a huge bias towards the biker, to the point where you are convincing yourself the situation was completely different to what was described.

Not at all, I don't even like bikes.

I'm merely playing devils advocate, and pointing out that in accidents, things aren't always as they seem through the eyes of one witness.

It is everyone else that's immediately assuming its the bikes fault (or indeed if it was a taxi, god forbid, the result would be the same I'd say).

Merely stating the possibility that the events could have transpired differently justifies its investigation.

peasant

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

do you have a chip on your shoulder in relation to motor bikes?

To the contrary ...I have a motorbike, the licence and driving experience to go with it.

There is only one lesson to be learned from this thread: It is illegal to undertake, it is dangerous to do so and it's bordering on suicidal doing so on a bike.

No further deliberations necessary, your honour.

Dublin_Gunner

peasant wrote: »

To the contrary ...I have a motorbike, the licence and driving experience to go with it.

There is only one lesson to be learned from this thread: It is illegal to undertake, it is dangerous to do so and it's bordering on suicidal doing so on a bike.

No further deliberations necessary, your honour.

Apart from the car turning across the bike without indicating, and the 2nd car being too close behind...

daveharnett

peasant wrote: »

No option but to undertake?

Please be so kind as to hand in your driving licence before logging out

Come on now peasant.

I once spent 10 minutes behind a people carrier doing 105kph on the M7. I was well behaved for the first 8 minutes while he overtook a broken line of slower traffic (the relative speed difference was walking pace, and there were plenty of opportunities to merge into the line momentarily).

When lane 1 freed up completely, he still refused to move over. I moved to lane 1 and backed off to allow all the faster traffic behind overtake me, then undertake him, with much flashing of lights, horn blowing, certain gestures, and so on. When clear (literally no other cars in sight at this stage) I moved back out to lane 2, and without tailgating or intimidating made it clear that I wanted past. Still no movement. So I moved back to lane 1, flashed the headlights and undertook him.

Are you really suggesting that I should have stayed behind him for the remaining 35 miles?

R.O.R

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Apart from the car turning across the bike without indicating,

Which wouldn't have happened if the bike didn't undertake the car. Both at fault, but caused by the actions of the bike.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

and the 2nd car being too close behind...

WTF???!!!1

How, when the OP has just been overtaken, can you say he was too close behind? Only way that can happen is if the bike and/or car cut him up. OK, third, highly unlikely scenario that he's driving a super car and used the incredible torque to speed up once he was overtaken - just to make it difficult for the car and/or bike to pull back in, but from the way the OP is written, I really doubt that is the case.

peasant

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Apart from the car turning across the bike without indicating, and the 2nd car being too close behind...

If the motorbike hadn't attempted to undertake the car it couldn't have pulled across it, indicating or no indicating

The other car wasn't too close behind, but the motorbike pulled in too close in front (in order to undertake)

daveharnett wrote: »

Come on now peasant.

Are you really suggesting that I should have stayed behind him for the remaining 35 miles?

Legally speaking, yes.
Practically speaking ...if you do undertake him and at just that moment he decides to pull in, the resulting accident is on your head. Tough ...but that's the way it is. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that

Dublin_Gunner

The car may have pulled in on top of the bike, and ROR - the OP may have indeed increased his speed and pulled up too close.

How do you know how fast any of the vehicles were travelling? You need a supercar to come too close to another vehicle now do you? lol

And once again, not once did the OP state that the other vehicles pulled back in too close in front of him - that was an assumption made by people on the thread.

And by too close, he could be 50 feet behind, but at 50kmp/h, and on a probably wet road...

I'm gonna bow out now though, as the close mindedness of certain people on this thread makes the debate of the situation impossible.

HashSlinging

Well I was driving along after footie so had the car in cruise at 100 kph, minding my own business so to speak. There would have been little time to avoid the biker had something happened, have abs, new brakes etc. I slowed down slightly once I seen the biker attempt this move. They were doing about 20 - 30 more than me.

It just got me thinking, heres me driving home minding my own business when these two come along and could have destroyed my life.. and the F**ker in the car possibly could have kept going. Its freaky.

Melodramatic but it makes good a good case for speeding.

Mr. Presentable

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

While technically, it is illegal to undertake - .

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Undertaking is not illegal. ..

Are you being argumentative for the sake of it, or do you really not know what you think?

Wossack

suicidal biker

legal or not, your fictional biker is in for an early grave riding like that

doubtfir3

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

OP should be a safe enough distance behind any vehicle in front, and travelling at a speed relative to the distance to avoid any collision / dangerous situation occurring.

If the biker cam off his bike, and ended up on the OP's bonnet, he would most certainly be held partially responsible for any injuries sustained.

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody had made this point yet, it seems pretty central to me.;)

True, but in this case the car and bike overtook the OP and then moved back into his lane quickly .. Your point suggests that all drivers who are being overtaken should brake in case the person overtaking them moves in too quickly after completing the manouver.

He would not be at fault for someone else's poor actions.

ianobrien

peasant wrote: »

Legally speaking, yes.
Practically speaking ...if you do undertake him and at just that moment he decides to pull in, the resulting accident is on your head. Tough ...but that's the way it is. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that

Hang on, if the dude in the overtaking lane decides to move into the driving lane, and creams DaveHartnett, it's the Dude who changed lanes is wrong for changing lanes without checking if it was clear to do so.

The fact that Dave was in the left lane probably going over the speed limit is nothing to do with the cause of the accident. The accident was caused by the dude changing lanes without looking.

peasant

ianobrien wrote: »

Hang on, if the dude in the overtaking lane decides to move into the driving lane, and creams DaveHartnett, it's the Dude who changed lanes is wrong for changing lanes without checking if it was clear to do so.

Undertaking is illegal, not looking properly is careless. Illegal beats careless every time when it comes to being found guilty

ianobrien

peasant wrote: »

Undertaking is illegal, not looking properly is careless. Illegal beats careless every time when it comes to being found guilty

Here's one for you.

A family member was overtaking a van on a single carrageway. The van decided to turn right off the road, creaming the family member in the process.

The case went to court and the van was 100% at fault. Even though the family member was heading down the wrong side of the road breaking the speed limit (during the overtaking manover), the van was wrong for changing lanes without looking.

With that court case, If there was an accident due to the slowcoach changing lanes (coming out of the right lane into the left lane and creaming the undertaker), I still say that the dude changing lanes is at fault. There has been precident set before.

peasant

Well, here's one for you:

In your example your family member was overtaking, that was still legal, the last time I checked.

The man in the van was driving without due care and consideration (or possibly worse) for turning when the road wasn't clear to do so.

In this case careless driving beats legal driving for being found guilty.

That your family member was going a tad fast is neither here nor there, as the accident would still have happened had he driven 10 or 20 km/h slower.

Just get it in your head ...undertaking is illegal. You crash, you lose.

ianobrien

peasant wrote: »

Well, here's one for you:

In your example your family member was overtaking, that was still legal, the last time I checked.

The man in the van was driving without due care and consideration (or possibly worse) for turning when the road wasn't clear to do so.

In this case careless driving beats legal driving for being found guilty.

That your family member was going a tad fast is neither here nor there, as the accident would still have happened had he driven 10 or 20 km/h slower.

Just get it in your head ...undertaking is illegal. You crash, you lose.

I know undertaking is illegal. The a$$ hogging the overtaking lane is also performing an illegal maneuver - not driving in the Left Lane. If the dude in the right hand lane decides to change lane and return to the left hand lane when the left hand lane is not clear, then it's his fault. It is immaterial if the person in the left lane was driving illegally (speeding, undertaking etc), the accident was caused by the fella changing lanes

However, I'd still take my case to court as if there was an accident, IMO, the other is at fault for changing lanes without due care and consideration. There is precedent set for changing lanes without care and consideration.

I think that we could be arguing all night about it. I'll leave it by saying that I know it's illegal, but I still stand by my view that it's the fella that changes lane that would be at fault for any accident. I realize that you have a different view, and I respect your opinion

peasant

ianobrien wrote: »

However, I'd still take my case to court as if there was an accident,

That's the real question though: can you take it to court?
In other words ...are you still alive and/or healthy enough to do so after doing a round of two-car-waltz at 120 km/h?

This keyboard lawyering is all very well, simply not taking the risk is the safer and healthier option though.