A Spy's Favourite Way To Give Presents...
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
motorcycle Vs car
20 Answers
OK, a bike is filtering past slow moving cars and someone lets a car out of a side street on the left. This car pulls straight out into the middle of the road causing the bike to run into the side. Who is to blame? The biker who was doing nothing illegal and going about 15mph? The car driver who pulled out from the side street? Or the car driver who waved the other car out of the side street?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nwtrikette. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The driver emerging from the side street should not have relied on a signal to go ahead given by anyone other than a police officer and a list of similar people.
More importantly, the motorcyclist should not have been overtaking on the approach to a junction.
Both of these sections can be found in the Highway Code and there is a prima facie case of careless driving against each.
Whilst it is unwise to call another driver out, the driver of that car does not commit an offence. It would have been wiser to stop, leaving room for the other driver to pull out if he/she considered it safe to do so.
More importantly, the motorcyclist should not have been overtaking on the approach to a junction.
Both of these sections can be found in the Highway Code and there is a prima facie case of careless driving against each.
Whilst it is unwise to call another driver out, the driver of that car does not commit an offence. It would have been wiser to stop, leaving room for the other driver to pull out if he/she considered it safe to do so.
the person who pulled out is responsible for their actions and they should have checked before pulling out.
was it your right of way?
we are taught when learning to drive not to be lulled into a false sense of security by the beckoning of others, and not to beckon others, but the other driver just held back and allowed them into the traffic, they didn't clear the road of all traffic for them, so they should have checked
was it your right of way?
we are taught when learning to drive not to be lulled into a false sense of security by the beckoning of others, and not to beckon others, but the other driver just held back and allowed them into the traffic, they didn't clear the road of all traffic for them, so they should have checked
I (being on the bike) was on a small main road (no lights or crossings or anything). The traffic was almost at a stand still. It is completely legal for me to filter where ever safe to do so. In my opinion it was safe, no cars coming in the opposite direction, no solid white line, no major junctions etc. The driver who flashed the other driver from the side road obviously hadnt checked his mirrors before letting her out or else he would of seen me coming. So I believe he is partly responsible. The other car did not 'inch' out to check if there was a bike coming or even another car overtaking. She pulled straight out to the white line, giving me no warning of her intentions to turn right. There is a bit of damage to the front right wing of her car. My bike will probably be written off. I have minor injuries.
The actions of all three drivers certainly contributed to the accident, therefore none can consider themselves blameless. As to the proportion of the blame to be assigned to any/all of those involved, that is the realm of Insurance Companies.
Rules for motorcyclists
71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/04.htm#71
Also for joko...
The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/06.htm
Rules for motorcyclists
71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/04.htm#71
Also for joko...
The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/06.htm
This happened to my husband and at court he was found guilty (as the car driver) even though the bike driver fell off as he braked before a collision, my husband was prosecuted for failing to report it, had points added and as a consequence (points added up) got a six month ban! And they didn't touch. Police said bikes always are sympathised with. Fair really, cos they normally end up dead!!
This happened to me in broad daylight at around 1500hrs in Borehamwood High Street during 1968. I was the motorcyclist and was carrying a pillion passenger, and the other vehicle was a Triumph Herald driven by a GPO van driver just finishing work emerging from the Post Office access road to my left and attempting a right turn.
This car hit me amidships trapping my left leg between the car and the bike, knocking it over and pinning me under the car. I ended up in hospital, bike all mangled in a scrap yard, and my passenger rolled like an armadillo across oncoming traffic and was unhurt. I still have the scars on my leg and a stainless steel knee bits inside.
Police said I was allowed to overtake stationary cars on the offside but still on the left of the centre white line as I did. I was near the approach to a pedestrian crossing (days before those zig-zags) but not close enough to trigger the "No Overtaking" rule. The Triumph Herald car driver was prosecuted for not looking out for other road users. He was told that if he could not see oncoming traffic due to an obstruction (other cars) or other reason (bend in road) he had no right to assume that there was nothing there. He was supposed to drive in a way that ensured other people's safety, and he had failed to do that.
The waving on driver was mentioned but not called to court as his actions were not the cause of the accident. The duty of care rested with the car driver and myself and it was the car driver's failure in this respect that was held to be the real cause.
This car hit me amidships trapping my left leg between the car and the bike, knocking it over and pinning me under the car. I ended up in hospital, bike all mangled in a scrap yard, and my passenger rolled like an armadillo across oncoming traffic and was unhurt. I still have the scars on my leg and a stainless steel knee bits inside.
Police said I was allowed to overtake stationary cars on the offside but still on the left of the centre white line as I did. I was near the approach to a pedestrian crossing (days before those zig-zags) but not close enough to trigger the "No Overtaking" rule. The Triumph Herald car driver was prosecuted for not looking out for other road users. He was told that if he could not see oncoming traffic due to an obstruction (other cars) or other reason (bend in road) he had no right to assume that there was nothing there. He was supposed to drive in a way that ensured other people's safety, and he had failed to do that.
The waving on driver was mentioned but not called to court as his actions were not the cause of the accident. The duty of care rested with the car driver and myself and it was the car driver's failure in this respect that was held to be the real cause.
I don't think "right of way" exists as a legal concept in these sorts of situation. No-one has more "rights" than another on the road, but we all have an overriding responsibility to look after each other. Careful observation and thinking ahead, courteous roadcraft, and above all consideration for others go a long way in making the roads a safer place.
If a car driver ignores a give way line and drives out in front of you, but does not collide, then what do you do? Does your "right of way" allow you to speed up and hit the other car with impunity? If a car driver parks his car in a No Waiting zone, does that give you the right to bash it as you go by?
We all make mistakes, mostly unintentional. Not all, thank goodness, end up in accidents. If we all accept that others are fallible and make allowances for this and make further allowances for our own fallibility then we increase safety. If we become bloody-minded, enraged and vindictive in our driving attitude then a padded cell is a better place to cool off than the open road.
If a car driver ignores a give way line and drives out in front of you, but does not collide, then what do you do? Does your "right of way" allow you to speed up and hit the other car with impunity? If a car driver parks his car in a No Waiting zone, does that give you the right to bash it as you go by?
We all make mistakes, mostly unintentional. Not all, thank goodness, end up in accidents. If we all accept that others are fallible and make allowances for this and make further allowances for our own fallibility then we increase safety. If we become bloody-minded, enraged and vindictive in our driving attitude then a padded cell is a better place to cool off than the open road.
The 'waving on' driver has no responsibility as the other driver pulling out cannot rely on his signal. It only means that the stopped driver is saying its fine by him if the other driver pulls out from the side street. The driver emerging would probably be found mostly to blame but its true that the Highway Code says you should not overtake at a junction and you would probably have a deduction for contributory negligence - going so slowly it might be say 25%. In other words the likely result in my opinion if you went to a civil court would be 75/25% in your favour.
if you come to a give way line, you must stop at it if there is something coming - you must let them pass, therefore giving them right of way!
call it whatever you like, word it however you like, but the motorcylclist did not cross any lines or pull out in front of other traffic - the car did
if the driver crossed a give way line, without giving way to the traffic on the road he was coming on to, then he is in the wrong.
call it whatever you like, word it however you like, but the motorcylclist did not cross any lines or pull out in front of other traffic - the car did
if the driver crossed a give way line, without giving way to the traffic on the road he was coming on to, then he is in the wrong.
I do have some sympathy with the driver who pulled out. If the bike had been another car, he would have been in the wrong to be overtaking. (I am assuming the road was a single carriageway). As often is the case, this accident was really caused by the fact that bikes are able to do things that cars can't. The bike was effectively "lane splitting" ie creating another lane of traffic where one would not normally exist. I really do believe the bike was the major contributor to the accident, although I appreciate that the law would appear to on his side. Why did he not look to see why the car had stopped? How could a car get that far without seeing it? If he had been "undertaking" would he have been more to blame? If a bike rider is going to carry out these potentially dangerous manouvres (overtaking on a single carriageway road) then he should more careful. As ever the bikers blame car drivers for every incident, but it is not always the case. I am not ant-bike, just concerned that both sides are considered here. That said nwtrikette, I hope your injuries were not too serious, and that you will be back riding a (new) bike soon - more carefully in future.
I agree with Joko in principle but the problem is the emerging driver would not have been able to see the motorbike due to the other cars in the same lane - that's why you're not supposed to overtake at a junction. It's not quite as straightforward as saying he failed to give way if he couldn't see the bike coming because it was obscured by the other vehicles. Both vehicles have to take car in this situation, not just the emerging vehicle.
There are no rules as such stating that a bike cannot filter when near a 'minor' junction. Yes I had seen the gap in traffic but when traffic is going at such a slow pace drivers often leave gaps. The driver would surely of seen the top of my helmet if nothing else, if only she had looked!!!! Had she edged out I may have been able to swerve to avoid her but as she came straight out directly accross my path and over the white line, I had no chance to avoid her.
BTY, BenDToy this biker is a woman!! Its not so unusual. But I guess that when people know that it will automatically make me the guilty party. It's ok, Im used to the prejudice.
My injuries are not too bad except I have been unable to pick up or hold my 10month old son since it happened. Thats what hurts the most.
BTY, BenDToy this biker is a woman!! Its not so unusual. But I guess that when people know that it will automatically make me the guilty party. It's ok, Im used to the prejudice.
My injuries are not too bad except I have been unable to pick up or hold my 10month old son since it happened. Thats what hurts the most.
I'm slightly perturbed by BenDToy's answer that the car driver's mistake was almost forgiveable and understandable.
Yet the motorcyclist is almost berated for driving in a perfectly legitimate manner. Just because a car can not conduct the same manoever does not make it dangerous or illegal.
"As often is the case, this accident was really caused by the fact that bikes are able to do things that cars can't.
Well, perhaps if the car driver had realised or thought for a second that not all road users drive metal boxes on four wheels - some have two wheels and some, two legs - then this accident could have been avoided.
Bikers learn to ride defensively and to try to anticipate thoughtless and dangerous driving - primarily for self preservation and the wish to be able to walk the next day.
Car drivers just think that as long as there's no other cars coming - (and a car couldn't possibly fit through that gap or come from that direction, could it?!) - then it's safe to pull out / turn in or whatever. The prime concern is to avoid nasty scrapes and dents, and to preserve that No Claims Bonus.
Yet the motorcyclist is almost berated for driving in a perfectly legitimate manner. Just because a car can not conduct the same manoever does not make it dangerous or illegal.
"As often is the case, this accident was really caused by the fact that bikes are able to do things that cars can't.
Well, perhaps if the car driver had realised or thought for a second that not all road users drive metal boxes on four wheels - some have two wheels and some, two legs - then this accident could have been avoided.
Bikers learn to ride defensively and to try to anticipate thoughtless and dangerous driving - primarily for self preservation and the wish to be able to walk the next day.
Car drivers just think that as long as there's no other cars coming - (and a car couldn't possibly fit through that gap or come from that direction, could it?!) - then it's safe to pull out / turn in or whatever. The prime concern is to avoid nasty scrapes and dents, and to preserve that No Claims Bonus.
When does filtering become overtaking ? Filtering near a junction should be the same as overtaking near a junction surely?
One moment a biker wants all the road "as he's entitled to it" and next minute he wants as little as the width (or less) than his bike. If I was a judge I'd hold the biker 75% to blame and the driver 25%. Assumption is the mother of all F*** ups ! never rely on any other driver to do anything for you without checking it first.
One moment a biker wants all the road "as he's entitled to it" and next minute he wants as little as the width (or less) than his bike. If I was a judge I'd hold the biker 75% to blame and the driver 25%. Assumption is the mother of all F*** ups ! never rely on any other driver to do anything for you without checking it first.
Absolutely ! It goes for everyone - the biker, the car and the driver who's trying to help by signalling you out of the junction - Just because he thinks it's OK doesn't mean to say that it is. The car is coming out of a junction that the traffic is, either side of it, stationary. A biker shouldn't be filitering/overtaking near the junction without checking the junction himself he should be aware of such a situation as he is taking the biggest risk by overtaking at a junction. This word "filtering" that bikers use refers to bikers and has nothing to do with cars - bikers do it so they should be aware of the dangers that go with it.
hi people can you answer this
my bike is going down one side of a main road a few cars behind me clear in front
cars coming towardsme on otherside of road are cued up in busy traffic
one car comes out of busy traffic to u-turn deciding to go home another way my bike was approx 20feet away i went straight into the passenger side of the u-turning car whos at fault in the eyes of the law
it was a straight road with no major junctions
my bike is going down one side of a main road a few cars behind me clear in front
cars coming towardsme on otherside of road are cued up in busy traffic
one car comes out of busy traffic to u-turn deciding to go home another way my bike was approx 20feet away i went straight into the passenger side of the u-turning car whos at fault in the eyes of the law
it was a straight road with no major junctions
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
News13 mins ago
Society & Culture16 mins ago
Is Farage... Labours Secret Weapon ?.
News20 mins ago