Forum menu
Who's Fault - ...
 

[Closed] Who's Fault - Rider/Car Interface

Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Aye - ruddy slow would seem reasonable - hence after the OP declared he was going fast I said I thought he would have some contributory negligence.

It is the person making the manoeuvres responsibility to ensure their manoeuvre is safe.

Just 'cos you have a volvo now it doesn't mean you have the right to drive all two wheelers of the road.


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 41395
Free Member
 

For your FYI I crept out into the lane as there was a bus or similar adn I could see F all. Thankfully the mopedist was not going too fast so all was OK.

See TJ the way you present yourr argument (i.e. it's the driver making the maneouvre's responsibility) implies that the 2-wheeler has no responsibilty. That's your shit communication, not mine.


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 6:22 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Or perhaps once more you fail to read and think before posting?

If you can't see then you should not make the manoeuvre.

enough!


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 6:25 pm
Posts: 71
Free Member
 

both should have slowed and looked.

The driver may have been doing 0.1mph and looking as carefully as humanly possible, seeing as the rider was going unreasonably quickly and struck the car infront of the driver it's reasonable to assume he couldn't see him coming and could have done nothing else. This is confirmed by barca admitting he had time to brake and skid considerably, and still only hit the wing of the car. If the car had 'nipped out' he'd have been well out of the way by the time barca skidded up to him, even doing 30mph.


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 6:26 pm
Posts: 41395
Free Member
 

TandemJeremy - Member
Or perhaps once more you fail to read and think before posting?

enough!

Enough Schmenough, no way when you are always blaming it on me.

Correct, I didn't read the link, but you ultimately agreed with what I said, even though it wasn't in line with how you presented the findings of the case.

Can we get a room?


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 6:35 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I was not nor have I ever blamed it upon you. Serial mutual misunderstandings - no blame or fault implied.


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 6:37 pm
 jond
Posts: 2
Free Member
 

>driver shouldn't expect a cyclist/vehicle
>The driver may have been doing 0.1mph and looking as carefully as humanly possible

If the traffic's stopped that's *exactly* what a driver should be looking out for, and you could argue that if he hasn't got good visibility he should stay where he is. The fact the cylist is just over the white line is irrelevant, he could equally have just been inside it and it wouldn't have made any material difference .( FWIW when I cross the road between vehicles I make damn sure there's not a cyclist or motorcycle approaching - tho' I'd also be a bit more cautious about edging past a lorry I can't see past for that matter.)

(I'll qualify that a little - a mate was found liable for having pulled out of a sideroad into the main carriageway, sitting there and then being hit by another vehicle on that cariageway - it was deemed he should have reversed back over the line to keep it clear.)


 
Posted : 26/11/2009 7:19 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Police came, confession given. Opnion of the Traffic gut was:
Officially - car driver's fault - pulling out on to oncoming traffic at a give way junction - his fault.
If there was purely fairness applied - 50/50. I shouldn't have been hooning it in built up traffic and they guy should have been doubled over hsi steering wheel watching for just the very same loon as me and crawling out on to the main road.
What will happen next - They would very much like to speak to the driver who has not yet reported it, for leaving the scene and they are hoping a request comes through from an insurance company with details along the lines of "unknown lunatic on a mountian bike whammed in to my var and rode off without leaving details on 26/11/2009 on the A6 - Stepping Hill, Stockport area.


 
Posted : 27/11/2009 11:41 am
Page 2 / 2