Car-Bike Collision Analysis

cormie

My friend was involved in a minor collision yesterday. No Garda called etc but my friends car has some damage and they feel the biker is liable (NCT approaching and limited funds, car needed for work etc).

It's said that the biker was on the white traffic island separating the lanes, which he shouldn't have been when the collision occurred. It was heavy traffic and the car had the clear to turn right as the yellow box was left free and as the turn was being made, the biker ran into the front of the car (how I don't know?). I'm not fully aware of all the details myself, but this is where it happened and these are the directions the vehicles were going:



Any opinions on it? My view is that the bike shouldn't have been on the island in the first place, but then my friend should have made sure it was safe to turn before commencing, but the biker has right of way as they are simply going straight.

I'm too tired at the moment to try and get my head around it so any feedback appreciated

Will try find out the exact locations of the collision, direction of car, bike etc.

CiniO

First of all, bike had a right of way not because he was going straight, but because he was on main road.

Second thing is, what was the conditions of traffic? Were all the cars stopped in front of the box and behind it because of the traffic jam?
If that's the case, then biker shouldn't pass the cars. And even he was on main road, he couldn't enforce his right of way like that.

RustyNut

Could be argued that your friend pulled onto a road that was not clear regardless of whether the bike drove over the island or not and damage to the front of the car would suggest the car hit the bike which was on the main road.

Donnelly117

from the picture it looks as if the car was about to pull into a yellow box while the path ahead was not clear. also the bike was on the main road and therefore had right of way.

djimi

If the bike was in the white part does that mean that there was a solid line of stopped cars on the main part of the road, with the yellow box free, which the bike was overtaking? That being the case then Id say your friend was in the right as the car is allowed to use the clear yellow box to turn right, and given that its a single lane road its not unreasonable to expect that there is nothing coming down the middle of the road. They still should have approached with caution, but if the cyclist had any basic understanding of the rules of the road and general driving conditions (as most of them dont) then they would have known that they were putting themselves in danger when crossing a yellow box in traffic. Sounds to me like your friend was most of the way around the yellow box onto their side of the road, and the cyclist just came flying down the middle of the road, didnt think to allow for cars using the yellow box, and ran into the front of your friends car.

If the road was clear and the cyclist was the only person on it at the time (which is the only other assumption as otherwise your friend would have hit an oncoming car!) then your friend should have seen the cyclist regardless of where they were on the road and was therefore at fault.

cormie

Thanks for the replies

CiniO wrote: »

First of all, bike had a right of way not because he was going straight, but because he was on main road.

Second thing is, what was the conditions of traffic? Were all the cars stopped in front of the box and behind it because of the traffic jam?
If that's the case, then biker shouldn't pass the cars. And even he was on main road, he couldn't enforce his right of way like that.

Yes, that's what I meant, because he was on main road, nothing to do with going straight :P

Yes, as far as I know, and assume, all cars were stopped in front of and behind yellow box (there's traffic lights just 20 meters to the left of that junction)

RustyNut wrote: »

Could be argued that your friend pulled onto a road that was not clear regardless of whether the bike drove over the island or not and damage to the front of the car would suggest the car hit the bike which was on the main road.

The way for my friend was clear, there was room to pull out to the direction of flow they were going. I'll have to find out at what position they were both at when the collision occurred. Do you mean that the way wasn't clear as a bike was still proceeding forward?

Donnelly117 wrote: »

from the picture it looks as if the car was about to pull into a yellow box while the path ahead was not clear. also the bike was on the main road and therefore had right of way.

The picture is just a screen grab from Microsoft's Bing maps The two darker cars in the screen shot wouldn't have been there, but even if ahead of the yellow box was blocked, my friend still has the right to stay in the yellow box from making the turn onto the main road from that position.

robtri

Interesting one...

But I think at end of day the Car is at fault.

Biker was on a ghost island, but i think the overriding call will be that the car turning out from the minor road to the major road needs to be sure that it is clear and safe to do so.

Chippy01

CiniO wrote: »

First of all, bike had a right of way not because he was going straight, but because he was on main road.

Second thing is, what was the conditions of traffic? Were all the cars stopped in front of the box and behind it because of the traffic jam?
If that's the case, then biker shouldn't pass the cars. And even he was on main road, he couldn't enforce his right of way like that.

Entering a main road from a side road always involves an element of risk.
As CiniO stated the bike had the right of way as he was on the main road (and coming from the right), and your friend should have pulled out (safely and slowly), to check that the way was indeed clear.
If the traffic was stopped in a jam, do not assume that nothing would be coming. Cyclists in particular usually come out of nowhere!!
Filtering (passing a line of stopped or very slow traffic on a motorcycle) is legal, although some riders (couriers in particular) do pass faster than they should.
Unless it can be proved that the rider was speeding, I would think that it's down to your friend for pulling out from a side road when the way was not clear.

nogoodnamesleft

Car is liable IMO. doesnt matter if people were leaving the car out or what ever the bike had the right of way in the situation you describe.

Was the biker injured?

cormie

djimi wrote: »

If the bike was in the white part does that mean that there was a solid line of stopped cars on the main part of the road, with the yellow box free, which the bike was overtaking? That being the case then Id say your friend was in the right as the car is allowed to use the clear yellow box to turn right, and given that its a single lane road its not unreasonable to expect that there is nothing coming down the middle of the road. They still should have approached with caution, but if the cyclist had any basic understanding of the rules of the road and general driving conditions (as most of them dont) then they would have known that they were putting themselves in danger when crossing a yellow box in traffic. Sounds to me like your friend was most of the way around the yellow box onto their side of the road, and the cyclist just came flying down the middle of the road, didnt think to allow for cars using the yellow box, and ran into the front of your friends car.

If the road was clear and the cyclist was the only person on it at the time (which is the only other assumption as otherwise your friend would have hit an oncoming car!) then your friend should have seen the cyclist regardless of where they were on the road and was therefore at fault.

Thanks for the reply. Just to point out it was a motorbiker as opposed to a cyclist Not that it makes a huge difference, except the amount of damage to my friends car.

Yes, as far as I know, there was a solid line of stopped cars, certainly going North (to the left in the picture) - There always is at that part of the road due to the lights and as stated, even if there was a solid line of traffic either side of the yellow box going south, my friend still has the right to go into the box to wait from the direction they were coming. More right than a motorbike on an island overtaking stopped cars going the same direction is the question But you can take it that my friends way was clear and the motorbikes way was blocked with traffic.

Just to note also, after the yellow box, going North, the two lanes become 3 to allow for traffic turning right (you can see this lane between the wine and silver cars on the left of the image with the arrow pointing right).

cormie

Thanks again for the replies above my last post.

Interesting that the view is that the car is liable. Tricky one alright. Luckily nobody was injured and the bike has no damage to it at all really, I'm sure a scratch or two from the fall, but it went right into the right hand headlight of my friends car smashing this, bending the reg and damaging the grill too.

peasant

Had a very similar accident on my bike years ago. No yellow or white boxes, just slowly passing out stationary traffic pretty much on the middle line when somebody in the line of traffic waved another car out of their driveway and ...bang!

Police was called as yer man was pretty irate about his dented door. They just informed him that I had every right to pass out the traffic there and that he should have kept his eyes open and they told me that seenashow I DID have an accident, I was driving too fast for the conditions, i.e not taking the driveway into consideration. Then they told us to sort it with our relevant insurances.
In the end each paid for their own damage

Gumbo

exact thing happened to me 2 years ago on my bike. car was deemed at fault.

djimi

robtri wrote: »

Interesting one...

But I think at end of day the Car is at fault.

Biker was on a ghost island, but i think the overriding call will be that the car turning out from the minor road to the major road needs to be sure that it is clear and safe to do so.

One could argue tho that the way was clear and safe for him to do so in that the traffic in the single lane was stopped and the yellow box was clear for him to proceed into it and (presumably) there was no traffic approaching on the lane that they were turning onto; basically all the conditions were met for them to safely proceed out of the juntion. They can proceed with caution but at the end of the day if a bike is coming flying down the outside of the traffic where it shouldnt have been then chances are its going to hit the car even if the car is only inching out.

End of the day the bike was making a third lane where there isnt a third lane and in this case the rider paid the price and has noone to blame but themselves. If they think that they are above the rules of the road and that road markings dont apply to them then will eventually suffer the consequences, and I really hope that in this case it is found that the bike rider was at fault and is liable for the costs of the damages.

seamus

The bike had right of way because he was on the road, simple as.

When you are turning into another road, you are obliged to give way to all traffic on that road. Your friend failed to do so.

The Gardai see at least 50 collisions like this every week and unless the biker was barrelling along, the car will inevitably be at fault for failing to yield. If you google it I'm sure you can find details of a case where a biker was driving down a bus lane, car pulled through traffic, across the bus lane, causing an accident and was found to be at fault, even though the bike had no right to be in bus lane.

Ultimately going by the illustration above, the biker was *not* in a white hatched area when the collision occured, but instead was driving through the yellow box and therefore had 100% right-of-way and control of the junction.

You would also have difficulty proving that the biker was actually driving in the ghost island. He could easily argue that he was overtaking the traffic within the traffic lane - i.e. without crossing the white line or driving through the ghost island. Your mate clearly didn't see the bike driving down the road, so he has no way of knowing whether the bike was actually driving in the island or not, he's jumping to his own conclusions there.

Let it be a lesson to your mate to always look around lines of traffic for motorbikes and cyclists coming down either side of the queue, and be glad that he didn't kill anyone yesterday. Hopefully the biker will learn to slow down when sees a break in the traffic and not expect anyone to give way to him.

Max Power1

seamus wrote: »

The bike had right of way because he was on the road, simple as.

.

Not so.
The biker was overtaking where there is no overtaking lane. As the car driver saw the lane of stopped traffic, and no overtaking lane, it is perfectly legitmate to expect the way to be clear.

As mentioned above, I really hope the biker is found at fault here.

djimi

Of course the other thing to consider here is that if the traffic was stopped then the bike had no right to be in the yellow box in the first place. Its a single lane road (no overtaking lane or opportunity) then the yellow box should be clear for the very purpose of allowing traffic to cross the road into the opposite lane while that single lane is stationary. The bike should not have been in the yellow box while the traffic was stationary.

The bike was breaking a number of rules of the road; in a yellow box when it shouldnt have been and overtaking on a solid white line so I really dont see how it can be blameless in this scenario.

seamus

Max Power1 wrote: »

The biker was overtaking where there is no overtaking lane. As the car driver saw the lane of stopped traffic, and no overtaking lane, it is perfectly legitmate to expect the way to be clear.

Nonsense. You cannot "expect" anything anymore than it's reasonable to assume that someone indicating left is taking a left turn. Someone who told a judge that they assumed the way was clear because they saw a stopped line of traffic, would have the book thrown at them and rightly so. It's one of the most basic things you learn when driving - do not make any assumptions, always make sure your way is clear before you proceed.

It's perfectly legal to overtake another vehicle even when there is no "overtaking lane", provided that you do not cross the white line in order to complete the manouver.

The OP's friend cannot claim that the biker was driving in the island. He didn't see the biker, therefore he's assuming that he was driving in the island. In any case that's irrelevant because the collision took place in the yellow box where the OP's friend did not have right-of-way.

The bike should not have been in the yellow box while the traffic was stationary.

You are only not permitted to stop in a yellow box. If the way was clear for him to proceed - even if the queue on his left is stationary - then it is perfectly legal for him to do so.

Xios

djimi wrote: »

They still should have approached with caution, but if the cyclist had any basic understanding of the rules of the road and general driving conditions (as most of them dont) then they would have known that they were putting themselves in danger when crossing a yellow box in traffic.

Ah here, motorcyclists usually have very high awareness of road conditions, there might be a few plonkers out there with death wishes, but all the motorcyclists i know are well versed in the rules of the road.

Perhaps your friend cut straight across the yellow box instead of following that neat little curve you drew, that would cause the car to cut into that white lined partition on the road, thus hitting a slow moving or stationary bike. But perhaps the bike is at fault.

RustyNut

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not so.
The biker was overtaking where there is no overtaking lane. As the car driver saw the lane of stopped traffic, and no overtaking lane, it is perfectly legitmate to expect the way to be clear.

As mentioned above, I really hope the biker is found at fault here.

The car driver failed to see the biker on the main road approaching from the right, pulled onto a main road when it was not safe to do so and I dont think its ever legitimate to "expect" the way to be clear.

keithclancy

RustyNut wrote: »

The car driver failed to see the biker on the main road approaching from the right, pulled onto a main road when it was not safe to do so and I dont think its ever legitimate to "expect" the way to be clear.

IMO its hard to say,

But if the biker was between two lines of traffic it may not have been possible to see him until he was in the box, at that stage he wouldn't have had enough distance to react.

could have been a truck in the left lane, what can you do .. sit there all day because a bike might shoot out between the traffic ?

Biker should have known better.

Xios

keithclancy wrote: »

could have been a truck in the left lane, what can you do .. sit there all day because a bike might shoot out between the traffic ?

How about this, drive with your headlights on all the time, and nudge your nose out slowly into the junction instead of blindly driving into the far lane.

The biker would've seen the lights earlier, and had more of a chance to stop.

Karma

Cormie,

I thought you are only allowed to stay in a yellow box if you are turning right(off the main road, not onto it) using vs blocking...

motorbikes can filter thru traffic, no more than 5 vehicles at a time. a common thing near junctions with people preforming a left hook (look, ignore, overtake, signal left, crash) had this happen to me on friday.

I will be honest and simple about this, the car is at fault(road was not clear). maybe a misunderstanding of the rules by your mate. but hey, :rolleyes:we are just people on the internet, not the insurance companies involved.

djimi

Xios wrote: »

Ah here, motorcyclists usually have very high awareness of road conditions, there might be a few plonkers out there with death wishes, but all the motorcyclists i know are well versed in the rules of the road.

Perhaps your friend cut straight across the yellow box instead of following that neat little curve you drew, that would cause the car to cut into that white lined partition on the road, thus hitting a slow moving or stationary bike. But perhaps the bike is at fault.

When I made that comment I thought that it was a bicycle that hit the car, not a motorbike.

For the most part I agree that motorcyclists, apart from thinking that the white line is some kind of designated motorcycle lane, are very aware of the rules of the road and driving conditions. Given that, unlike cyclists, they have to pass a test the same as cars they well ought to be.

djimi

Xios wrote: »

How about this, drive with your headlights on all the time, and nudge your nose out slowly into the junction instead of blindly driving into the far lane.

The biker would've seen the lights earlier, and had more of a chance to stop.

If the bike was travelling at any kind of speed then even if the car was inching out onto the other lane chances are the bike would have hit it. Had it been doing near walking pace as they usually do when inching thru traffic then it would have had time to react and stop.

Junctions like this have a solid white line for a reason, ie, its dangerous to come up on the blind side of stationary traffic. Had the motorbike been in the queue of stationary traffic like the rest of the vehicles were then there wouldnt have been a problem, but instead it was driving down the blindside of the stationary traffic, meaning that any car that was (rightly) using the yellow box to cross to the opposite lane would not see it until it was in the yellow box. Defend the bike if you will, but no matter how you paint it the bike overtaking the stationary traffic caused the accident, and probably would have done so regardless of how safe and observant the car was being.

mb1725

Car will be found at fault here, especially with damage to the nose. If it was the rear bumper caught by bike you might have some chance. Generally it's a case of larger vehicles should take more care with more vulnerable road users. Most judges look on it like that too.

keithclancy

Xios wrote: »

How about this, drive with your headlights on all the time, and nudge your nose out slowly into the junction instead of blindly driving into the far lane.

The biker would've seen the lights earlier, and had more of a chance to stop.

I have a Volvo and I can't turn the damn lights off.

I live in the Netherlands, i've sort of gotten used to moped/bicycle/motorbike presense. Point being that if your driving a bike (in my experience anyway) you make sure that the person coming out of the turn CAN SEE YOU.

WTF is the point of a yellow box anyway if any motorcyclist can just filter through all the cars and drive through it, completly defeats the point and is dangerous because the driver coming out onto the road cannot see you until your in the yellow box and by that time its too late.

If you went nudging out onto the road enough to see down between the cars on your test when the yellow box was clear I bet you'd fail for "not making progress"

djimi

mb1725 wrote: »

Car will be found at fault here, especially with damage to the nose. If it was the rear bumper caught by bike you might have some chance. Generally it's a case of larger vehicles should take more care with more vulnerable road users. Most judges look on it like that too.

How can you take care of something that you cant see until its too late?

Xios

keithclancy wrote: »

I have a Volvo and I can't turn the damn lights off.

Good, every car should and will be like that.

I live in the Netherlands, i've sort of gotten used to moped/bicycle/motorbike presense. Point being that if your driving a bike (in my experience anyway) you make sure that the person coming out of the turn CAN SEE YOU.

I do this, if there's a gap in the line of traffic to the left, i always stop at the last car before the gap. Common sense imo, but it might not be all that common.

If you went nudging out onto the road enough to see down between the cars on your test when the yellow box was clear I bet you'd fail for "not making progress"

They'd be delighted to fail you for that, it means you'll have to pay and resit, even if it's the safest way to do it.

cormie

Karma wrote: »

Cormie,

I thought you are only allowed to stay in a yellow box if you are turning right(off the main road, not onto it) using vs blocking...

You're also allowed enter a yellow box from the position my friend was in, going right, that's what it's for. Keep the yellow box clear so cars from junctions can get into the line of traffic and cars in the line of traffic can turn without others blocking them. As long as the vehicle entering the yellow box doesn't obstruct traffic flowing the other way it's fine. For example, a Large truck should wait for enough space that their tail can clear the opposite flow lane, a small car can just nip across (suzuki alto in this case) and a long van can first go left and then right to get the correct angle in order not to block the opposite flow lane with their tail.

keithclancy

Xios wrote: »

Good, every car should and will be like that.

Deffo

I do this, if there's a gap in the line of traffic to the left, i always stop at the last car before the gap. Common sense imo, but it might not be all that common.

In the ops friends case the bike hit the front of the car meaning the car wouldn't be far enough forward to see down between the traffic. If theres a truck in the way you would need to be almost perpendicular to the gap to see down it.

IMO the Bike should have stopped to see the car, not the car stopping to see the bike. There would be no end of traffic jams if every single car stopped to inspect the gap between two lines of traffic.

They'd be delighted to fail you for that, it means you'll have to pay and resit, even if it's the safest way to do it.

Not sure what you mean, but I mean they would fail for not making progress.

RustyNut

djimi wrote: »

no matter how you paint it the bike overtaking the stationary traffic caused the accident, and probably would have done so regardless of how safe and observant the car was being.

Imo the car entering a road when it was not safe to do so caused the crash.
In this case I would think the responsibility is on the car driver to give way to traffic on the main road and be sure the way is clear which it wasn't in this case. The biker on the main road had right of way regardless of whether the cars were stopped or not. The only thing you should expect when you are driving is the unexpected.

seamus

keithclancy wrote: »

In the ops friends case the bike hit the front of the car meaning the car wouldn't be far enough forward to see down between the traffic. If theres a truck in the way you would need to be almost perpendicular to the gap to see down it.

The bike should have stopped, but because he was on the road he wasn't legally required to.

The actual circumstances here could be very important - your point about the truck is a good one. If you are overtaking a line of traffic and there is a truck, a bus or a van obscuring your view of a junction, then common sense says that you should slow down as you come around this vehicle to check for any vehicles that may turn across your path.
Failure to do so could legitimately be ruled to be dangerous/careless driving and result in you having to pay 50% of the cost of the accident. I'm not totally black-and-white; if the motorcyclist proceeded blindly into the junction without being able see that the road ahead was clear, then he has something to answer for here.

Motorcyclists can generally see over a line of stopped cars and so should be able to see a car that is waiting to pull out of a side road, but it's easy to forget that the car pulling out may not be looking closely enough to see you coming down the outside. Unless you're driving a very low car, you will be able to see the upper body of a motorcyclist overtaking a line of stopped cars. Failure to see the motorcyclist is because you didn't look properly.

In this case, if the motorcyclist proceeded having been able to see the car waiting to pull out, then it's likely that the car was at fault because he failed to yield.

Nobody ever comes "out of nowhere", you should always be especially vigilant when your vision of the road or the footpath has been obscured - either by other vehicles or the environment.

djimi

RustyNut wrote: »

Imo the car entering a road when it was not safe to do so caused the crash.
In this case I would think the responsibility is on the car driver to give way to traffic on the main road and be sure the way is clear which it wasn't in this case. The biker on the main road had right of way regardless of whether the cars were stopped or not. The only thing you should expect when you are driving is the unexpected.

Yes but in this case the car would have had to have been nearly in the path of the bike before it would have been able to see it. Thats why its called a blindside; the car cannot see something moving down the outside of single lane traffic, and thats what makes it dangerous for the bike to be travelling in that blindside. At the very least the bike should have stopped at the yellow box to enusre that it was safe to proceed, which it didnt do.

The only way that the car could have avoided the incident would have been to not use the yellow box, which as has been pointed out already would have failed them the driving test had they been taking it. The yellow box is there for precisely the reason that the car used it for, and had the bike had the cop on to realise a car could be crossing the yellow box given that the stationary traffic had left it clear then the bike should have known to stop to ensure that the yellow box is clear before proceeding thru.

djimi

seamus wrote: »

The bike should have stopped, but because he was on the road he wasn't legally required to.

Just to make one thing clear; the bike wasnt on the road, ie, it wasnt in the line of stationary traffic on a single lane road. Had it been then the incident wouldnt have occured.

seamus

djimi wrote: »

Just to make one thing clear; the bike wasnt on the road, ie, it wasnt in the line of stationary traffic on a single lane road. Had it been then the incident wouldnt have occured.

Of course it was on the road. It was driving on the roadway, where it was on the roadway is irrelevant.

You don't have to be in the line of stationary traffic to have right-of-way; As I point out above, it is perfectly legal to overtake a vehicle within its lane, i.e. you are not legally required to change lanes in order to overtake. In any case, driving in contravention of the law does not renege your right-of-way. Someone driving over the speed limit still has right-of-way over traffic turning into its lane, for example.

mb1725

I still think that legally if it went to court the judge would say 'big bad car, hit poor lickle bike'. I heard a Judge to say in District Court case that a 'bike can go where he likes' referring to filtering I assume, then he slaps a fine and prosecution on car driver for very similar incident.

Run_to_da_hills

As a biker myself, the car is obviously in the wrong, it entered a major road and hit a bike that was on his correct side of the road. Bikes do filter through traffic and drivers have to be extra vigilant.

Tell your mate to put this one to bed immediatly and compensate the biker for what damage is done to his scoot.

If he tries to deny responsibility, the biker will only get legal and may consider PI and then this is where your mate can only say good bie to his NCB.

RustyNut

djimi wrote: »

Yes but in this case the car would have had to have been nearly in the path of the bike before it would have been able to see it.

That appears to be exactly what happened and so the car should have waited until he could be sure the major road was clear.[/QUOTE] the car cannot see something moving down the outside of single lane traffic, and thats what makes it dangerous for the[/QUOTE] car to pull into the path of traffic with out being sure its clear .[/QUOTE] At the very least the bike should have stopped at the yellow box to enusre that it was safe to proceed, which it didnt do.[/QUOTE] so what you are saying here is that traffic on the main road should stop at a junction they have right of way at in case somebody might drive through a stop sign?

[/QUOTE]The only way that the car could have avoided the incident would have been to [/QUOTE] make sure the road was clear before proceeding which for what ever reason he didnt.

mb1725

[QUOTE=may consider PI [/QUOTE] Hmmm, interesting

djimi

RustyNut wrote: »

so what you are saying here is that traffic on the main road should stop at a junction they have right of way at in case somebody might drive through a stop sign?

No, what Im saying is that someone who is travelling in the blindside of stationary traffic on a single lane road (ie where there would not normally be vehicles coming from the blindside of the stationary cars) should have the cop on to stop at a yellow box to ensure that it is safe to proceed thru it. Im not sure if bike riders actually understand this, but you are not always visible, especially if you are travelling behind stopped cars, vans and trucks. In a single lane road with the traffic stopped, if a car cannot see anything coming (and if youre in the blindside then you cant be seen) then its safe to approach with caution.

I think Ive made my point on this enough, and it appears that those who are arguing dont seem to get what Im trying to say so Im not going to keep repeating myself, but I will say that if bike riders keep driving around with their head up their arse thinking they are in the right all the time without actually assessing a situation to see what the safe option might be then accidents are going to happen. Its give and take when it comes to safety, and its bike riders responsibility to ensure their own safety every bit as much as it is car drivers responsibilty.

Cuddlesworth

There is a lot of latent hostility towards bikers here. We filter, its the advantage of having a bike so get used to it.

Car is in the wrong. "I didn't see him" isn't a valid argument.

Filtering is not illegal. If you think it is, feel free to point it out to the next gardai bike you see doing it. As long as your tyres are within the unbroken white line there is nothing wrong with it. You can proceed with caution but when you get morons who see two lines of stationary "cars" and assume "I'm good to go" you get this.

Cuddlesworth

djimi wrote: »

I think Ive made my point on this enough, and it appears that those who are arguing dont seem to get what Im trying to say so Im not going to keep repeating myself, but I will say that if bike riders keep driving around with their head up their arse thinking they are in the right all the time without actually assessing a situation to see what the safe option might be then accidents are going to happen. Its give and take when it comes to safety, and its bike riders responsibility to ensure their own safety every bit as much as it is car drivers responsibilty.

Ride a motorbike in Dublin for one week and come back to me and say that. Watch as people look DIRECTLY at you, then drive out in front of you. Deal with that all day everyday and tell me you feel like getting defensive. Your saying the biker should have checked, I'm saying the bike was on a main road. The onus was on your mate to check. That's the way the insurance company is going to see it as well.

galwaytt

djimi wrote: »

......I think Ive made my point on this enough, and it appears that those who are arguing dont seem to get what Im trying to say so Im not going to keep repeating myself, but I will say that if bike riders keep driving around with their head up their arse thinking they are in the right all the time without actually assessing a situation to see what the safe option might be then accidents are going to happen. Its give and take when it comes to safety, and its bike riders responsibility to ensure their own safety every bit as much as it is car drivers responsibilty.

....ok, now you're losing it.

'if bike riders driving around with their head etc etc.......'...frankly, as your car driving friend is in the wrong, then, short of all bikers being telepathic, then it's the car-driver's head that's in the wrong place......

'it's give and take when it comes to safety..' ...actually, no it isn't. Even the RSA will tell you that over half of all bike accidents are caused by cars, in which case, as a biker, being if I am 100% perfect in my riding, then I'm still likely to be hit by an idiot in a car.

cormie

Just to clear things up, I'm the poster who's friend was involved in this collision, not djimi. Although I'd wish for my friend not to be liable, I'm open to the possibility that this isn't the case.

I'd just like an analysis of this incident without getting involved with opinions on any category of drivers.

I haven't shown hostility to anyone and am open to both parties being at fault. I like to deal with facts only and not emotions as these derail the facts. I've described the situation as best as I know it to have happened so if we can leave the opinions, emotions and attitudes and concentrate on the facts it would be great

I appreciate all the input so far but unfortunately we still don't seem to have a clear cut answer. I'll try and get more details on the positioning of all vehicles at the time of the collision and I'd be interested to know whether these would have an affect on the outcome..

RustyNut

djimi wrote: »

No, what Im saying is that someone who is travelling in the blindside of stationary traffic on a single lane road (ie where there would not normally be vehicles coming from the blindside of the stationary cars) should have the cop on to stop at a yellow box to ensure that it is safe to proceed thru it. Im not sure if bike riders actually understand this, but you are not always visible, especially if you are travelling behind stopped cars, vans and trucks. In a single lane road with the traffic stopped, if a car cannot see anything coming (and if youre in the blindside then you cant be seen) then its safe to approach with caution.

I think Ive made my point on this enough, and it appears that those who are arguing dont seem to get what Im trying to say so Im not going to keep repeating myself, but I will say that if bike riders keep driving around with their head up their arse thinking they are in the right all the time without actually assessing a situation to see what the safe option might be then accidents are going to happen. Its give and take when it comes to safety, and its bike riders responsibility to ensure their own safety every bit as much as it is car drivers responsibilty.

Just for clarity's sake could you explain what you mean by blindside, as an artic driver I'm very aware of blind spots which obscure vision but fail to see how this is relevant in this situation. If the car driver couldn't see he shouldn't go.Most bikers are a lot more aware of the dangers involved and protect themselves because regardless of who is right or wrong its the biker who ends up sliding along on their arse. Ask any regular biker how many times they have heard the sorry mate didn't see ya there from people in cars who just didn't look properly.
In this case the biker had right of way the car driver didn't see him and pulled onto a major road that was not clear. Possibly the biker could have
done things differently but that changes nothing he still had right of way. If for some reason you cannot see then its not safe to go.

daveharnett

peasant wrote: »

Had a very similar accident on my bike years ago. No yellow or white boxes, just slowly passing out stationary traffic pretty much on the middle line when somebody in the line of traffic waved another car out of their driveway and ...bang!

Police was called as yer man was pretty irate about his dented door. They just informed him that I had every right to pass out the traffic there and that he should have kept his eyes open and they told me that seenashow I DID have an accident, I was driving too fast for the conditions, i.e not taking the driveway into consideration. Then they told us to sort it with our relevant insurances.
In the end each paid for their own damage

There are a couple of differences

• The motorcyclist was filtering illegally (in the hatched area). Bottom line, he shouldn't have been there.
• Cars stopped either side of the yellow box should be a big WATCH OUT sign for the biker - he should have been crawling up to/past it.

No idea how an insurer would see this tbh.

OldmanMondeo

My wife was in a similar situation with a van before. She was waiting to turn right into a car park, van comming from car park pulls out and hits the side of her car. He claimed that she cut the corner, She was stationery on her side of the road as the was an oncomming car.

Anyway, his insurance said he was at fault as my wife was in control of the junction. Same would apply for the OP friend and the biker. Biker not in the wrong.

keithclancy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As a biker myself, the car is obviously in the wrong, it entered a major road and hit a bike that was on his correct side of the road. Bikes do filter through traffic and drivers have to be extra vigilant.

Tell your mate to put this one to bed immediatly and compensate the biker for what damage is done to his scoot.

If he tries to deny responsibility, the biker will only get legal and may consider PI and then this is where your mate can only say good bie to his NCB.

Not sure about Ireland but in the UK if there was a Truck in front of the bike at the junction .. just from a Legal standpoint

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums/Categories/Topic/?topic-id=357452

*Note - You will never win a filtering case if you filter past a large vehicle without stopping, then collide with a vehicle in front of the large vehicle. I.e. Bus, Lorry, Skip Wagon...even a pickup truck. If you cannot see in front of the vehicle you are passing, then you MUST NOT pass, until you know it is safe to do so.

Also the Motorcylist would have to be 100% sure not to be in the hatched area as per the OPs pic, i really doubt that he wasn't as its a pretty common occurence to see bikers in the hatched area.

At the very least if it went to court it would be shared responsibility, if the bike stopped to look at where he/she was going then the accident wouldn't have occured. If the car was pulling out and was at the point where the bike was moving past no way would they have the ability reflexes to stop in time.

If there wasn't a truck there then the motorcyclist should have been driving defensively (as in my experience as a motorcyclist and now apply the same logic driving a car)

Even filtering on a Motorway you need to be on your toes as cars can move forward and close the gap very quickly, always have your hazards on, when in doubt, don't filter.

If your a compo head heres some good advice:

http://www.bgtbikersolicitors.co.uk/case_law.html

* Ride slowly and at a speed that you are able to stop if:-

o Vehicles emerge or turn at junctions (be extra vigilant if your visibility is compromised by high sided vehicles)
o Vehicles suddenly changing lanes or U-turning without warning
o Vehicles suddenly opening their doors (especially if filtering along traffic that has been stationary for some time)

* Watch for pedestrians and cyclists. Also other filtering motorcycles!
* Be ready to brake or use your horn if you think you have not been seen
* Use dipped headlights and wear florescent/reflective clothing
* Watch for road studs, road paint, road defects and manhole covers which can throw the bike off line
* Avoid conflict with other road users and be courteous
* Comply with all road traffic signs, road markings and road traffic regulations

Cuddlesworth

keithclancy wrote: »

Not sure about Ireland but in the UK if there was a Truck in front of the bike at the junction .. just from a Legal standpoint

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums/Categories/Topic/?topic-id=357452



Also the Motorcylist would have to be 100% sure not to be in the hatched area as per the OPs pic, i really doubt that he wasn't as its a pretty common occurence to see bikers in the hatched area.

At the very least if it went to court it would be shared responsibility, if the bike stopped to look at where he/she was going then the accident wouldn't have occured. If the car was pulling out and was at the point where the bike was moving past no way would they have the ability reflexes to stop in time.

If there wasn't a truck there then the motorcyclist should have been driving defensively (as in my experience as a motorcyclist and now apply the same logic driving a car)

Even filtering on a Motorway you need to be on your toes as cars can move forward and close the gap very quickly, always have your hazards on, when in doubt, don't filter.

If your a compo head heres some good advice:

http://www.bgtbikersolicitors.co.uk/case_law.html

British case law is not applicable here. I can't link to them as I don't have them but the precedent here is if at first glance the car is in the wrong, the car is in the wrong. And when the bike is in the wrong its taken as 50/50.

Krusty_Clown

I presume that like the precedent that was cited before, we're dealing with three separate issues here:
1) Bike was filtering through traffic through the yellow junction, making progress on main road
2) Car crashed into motorcycle, failing to observe the motorcycle making progress on the main road
3) Bike was (may have been) travelling illegally on the traffic Island

If the judge were the same judge in the previously cited case (bike in bus-lane, drivers pulls into bus-lane into path of motorcycle), then you can be sure that they would treat items (1) and (2) as separate to item (3). If I remember correctly, the judge found in favour of the biker to the tune of 70/30 (driver had to pay 70% of costs, the remaining 30% being because the biker was in the bus lane).

Interesting to note that (3) is a one penalty point offence (driving on median strip/failure to comply with traffic lane markings/entry into hatched marked area of roadway), while driving carelessly is a 5 point offence and a mandatory court appearance. Of course the penalty points system is so screwed-up, driving on the wrong side of the motorway gets you the same number of points as using a mobile phone while driving!