Car drivers – what is your problem?

I don’t have a problem with organ donors TBH.
I think its very easy for people who have no understanding of the performance of a bike (or a properly fast car for that matter) to percieve things like overtakes as dangerous.

If I’m on A or B road and a fast bike catches me I normally indicate to the left to let them know to overtake me (this is normally appreciated)

As for filtering I honestly couldn’t care less, I’ll move over if there is room, i’d do the same for a push bike.

Wheelies while undoubtedly cool are pretty stupid on the public road though.

Weeksy, Flow. Do you have any idea how rediculous you are both making yourselves look?
Actually, you are both SurfMat and I claim my £5.

I know, but I don’t care to be honest. Its just an internet forum, its not real life!

its not real life!

😯 Nooooooooo……!!!!!

It is real life. Its just real life with stabilisers on.

Car vs motocycles on STW = dogs owners vs non dog owners on STW. 🙄

Oddly the people who are pro bikes / dogs are the ones that are coming out of these threads looking like morons (not all but the more “vocal” ones).

This one still running?

Once again another depressing thread demonstrating just how many drivers who think they are ‘awesome’ are sadly far from it.

Interestingly enough there’s been some new case law recently on exactly this subject. Previously riders injured in filtering collisions have been able to claim 100% compensation, even if speeds and differential speeds were high (up to 50mph in one case).

However, a couple of weeks back a new case was reported on appeal where because of the high speed, the rider was held 80% liable with the car driver held only 20% liable.

Each case will still need to be considered on it’s merits but this sets a new precedent.

BURTON v EVITT (2011)

CA (Civ Div) (Sir Anthony May (President QBD), Black LJ, Kitchin LJ) 18/10/2011

PERSONAL INJURY – ROAD TRAFFIC

APPORTIONMENT : DRIVERS : MOTORCYCLES : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY : INABILITY OF DRIVER TO SEE BEHIND VEHICLE WHEN DRIVING

A driver was found to be 20 per cent liable for a road traffic accident caused when he turned whilst being unable to see an approaching motorcycle being driven quickly and overtaking other vehicles. Where a driver was unable to see what was behind him it was necessary for him to inch out to gain a better view.

The appellant (E) appealed against a decision that he had been negligent and was one-third responsible for a road traffic accident involving E and the respondent (B). E was driving his car at the front of a queue of traffic. He slowed down, looked in his mirror and saw nothing except a larger vehicle behind him. E, when almost at a standstill, then started to turn right into a car park. The driver of the vehicle behind E then saw a motorcycle, driven by B, at the corner of his vehicle, overtaking. B drove forwards, collided with E’s car and sustained severe injuries. At trial the judge found that B was driving at an unsafe speed and in such a way that he could not deal with an emergency and so was negligent. However, it was also found that it was E’s duty to move his car closer to, and perhaps over, the centre of the line in the road so that, using his wing mirror, he could have seen B approaching and that E’s failure to do so meant that he was causatively responsible for the accident. It was found that B was two-thirds responsible and E one-third responsible for the accident. E submitted that although any driver should have been aware of any other driver overtaking on the outside, he had slowed down and checked just before he turned and, to require more, was a counsel of perfection.

HELD: (1) It was common ground that in driving along such a road, there was a need to be particularly aware of the presence of motorcycles and that they might overtake lines of cars. E initially acted with considerable care but, when crawling, he could not see what might be coming up on the offside. As the size of the vehicle behind E’s car meant that E could not see clearly, he should have inched out. Where a driver could not see what was behind him, he had to take that step. E’s appeal in respect of negligence was therefore unsuccessful. (2) B’s negligence was of a very high order and contributed to what happened. The issue of blameworthiness of E and B required greater analysis than it received. Proper apportionment had to take into account the different negligence issues in respect of E and B. It was appropriate to set aside the trial judge’s apportionment and replace it with apportionment that B was 80 per cent and E 20 per cent liable.

Appeal allowed in part

I ride a bike with gears and one with one, a motorbike, drive a car, and own a dog that poops in parks, which I remove to poop bins in little plastic bags.

My point?

Not all of us are £o$$ers

Car vs motocycles on STW = dogs owners vs non dog owners on STW.

Oddly the people who are pro bikes / dogs are the ones that are coming out of these threads looking like morons (not all but the more “vocal” ones).

Nope, you just take life, or in this case the internet (which probably is your life), too seriously.

Err, no. I was trying to point out that “these threads” always turn out the same way.
flow, when you’re old enough to actually have a life let me know and i’ll have a sensible debate with you. In the meantime, do carry on as you were…..

I struggle with long sentences. I will say though that car drivers were always a million percent more courteous and generally well mannered when I was on my huge, loud and slow Kawasaki Drifter than when I was on my tiny, loud and reasonably quick Kawasaki GPZ600R. Maybe it’s just a Daily Mail-esque reaction to sports bikes?

Err, no. I was trying to point out that “these threads” always turn out the same way.
flow, when you’re old enough to actually have a life let me know and i’ll have a sensible debate with you. In the meantime, do carry on as you were…..

Debates have rules?

I will say though that car drivers were always a million percent more courteous and generally well mannered when I was on my huge, loud and slow Kawasaki Drifter than when I was on my tiny, loud and reasonably quick Kawasaki

The clue is loud, they actually knew you were there.

flow – Member
Debates have rules?

Yes, don’t feed the troll. 😳

I always move over for bikers. Out of the 5 or 6 lads at work that ride motorbikes all but one ride like complete tools. Where as out of all the lads that drive cars only one is a complete tool! The no`s speak for themselves your mostly all nutters. 40 something born again bikers are the worst.

The no`s speak for themselves

Can’t argue with that with such a large sample size. That’s nearly half a dozen in old money!

I love motorcyclists. I want to think it’s OK to sit a foot away from the back of a car and still have a good chance of stopping, I also like the idea of no speed limits. 90% of riders I come across ride like this but the other 10% ride well, mostly not tossers on sports bikes.

I’m glad that I don’t own one anymore 🙂

Yeah my biggest problem with a motorcyclist came on the A59 side of Skipton – same idiots I assume. Wheelie-ing as they overtook me going up a hill with a blind summit, only to meet a car coming on the opposite direction and having to drop it and swerve in right in front of me. Muppet

so actually perfectly in control and no risk to anyone else?

Come on Couger, people who buy sports bikes buy them for the speed thrill, fast acceleration. I have no problem with that as long as I don,t have to have radar to tell how fast they are bearing down on me. Have I got time to pull out or are they going to rear end me at 140mph. The speed differential is the biggest problem for car drivers to judge. Unfortunately a biker will usually come off worse than a driver and that is not something any road user wants. How many times when moving in slow traffic on a dual carriageway have you thought about changing lane, you know where all the cars around you are then out of nowhere a biker speeds through inbetween the cars and you think thank god I didnt pull across. Who would be at fault there?

the car driver for not checking it was clear.

Mirror indicate manoeuvre

Oh give it a rest tj. How can you defend someone doing a wheelie on a dual carriageway at speed. What are the consequences if he got it wrong, poor motorist going right over the top of him?

TJ, so obvious a troll that it’s not even worth responding
Yet I did
Bugger

bigyin where did I defend doing a wheelie on the road? 🙄 the point being that despite the posters hysterics about it nothing went wrong. Merely pointing out that the hysterical tone that MF and a bunch of others uses to discuss motorcycles so closely mimics the hysterical tone that ramblers use about cyclists.

MF has loads of previous of being hysterical about motorcycles when actually he clearly has no idea of the capabilities at all. Same as the ramblers who moan about mountainbikers

Inbred456 – Member

How many times when moving in slow traffic on a dual carriageway have you thought about changing lane, you know where all the cars around you are then out of nowhere a biker speeds through inbetween the cars and you think thank god I didnt pull across. Who would be at fault there?

Never happened to me, I look and I signal, like you’re supposed to, before I move. Because y’know what- there might be a bike there. Engined or otherwise.

Still, in this thread I imagine it’d be perfectly all right to pull out into a motorcyclist- just not a cyclist 😉

No I don’t TJ – I have discussed TWO cases of stupid motorcycling on here – the above mentioned one (which we had a spat over months ago) and the other where a friend (riding a big Jap bike) was ‘overtaken’ at a junction by a clown who thought it safe to do so – pulling onto a busy road and making my friend take avoiding actions (again you chose to defend the dangerous riding).

So its up to me to make sure i’m not being undertaken by a motor bike at speed down the middle of the road. Hmmm you may be right, still i’m in a car so i’ll be allright. If only we could all be as good as you TJ. Motor bikes are incredibly hard to see on the near side when they are weaving through traffic. Mirror signal manouver is not fast enough when a bike is coming through. Maybe we should change the law and just give motorbikes right of way regardless.

TandemJeremy – Member

the point being that despite the posters hysterics about it nothing went wrong.

Nothing went wrong but are you really going to say it couldn’t have done? Wheelies and similiar on the road are always iffy but combined with a tight overtake approaching a blind summit? I wouldn’t defend that.

Inbred456 – Member

So its up to me to make sure i’m not being undertaken by a motor bike at speed down the middle of the road. Hmmm you may be right, still i’m in a car so i’ll be allright.

Yes, of course it is. Or a pushbike for that matter. Or anything else. Mirror, signal, maneuvre, it’s pretty much the absolute most basic thing all drivers are supposed to know.

As for being alright, wouldn’t want to be you in court when you say “How was I supposed to know there was a bike there? Look in my mirrors or something? Come on now, that’s mad. Indicate? Why?”

No MF – you have done it more than that – several more occasions and you are hysterical about motorcycles anytime you mention them.

Its exactly the same as the way the ramblers go on about MTBers

“frightened me too close too fast don’t obey the law”

Northwind – I didn’t defend it

so actually perfectly in control and no risk to anyone else?

Looks like defending it to me 🙄

Have I TJ? Show me these occasions then.

MF – you did. Maybe you have forgotton. One was a rant about a biker daring to overtake you in traffic and startling you with how fast he went. his fault that you were not watching your mirrors and didn’t see him apoparantly

Crispo – where did I defend it? I didn’t say it was safe or acceptable – I just pointed out that actually the rider controlled the vehicle and didn’t put anyone at risk. which is true

so actually perfectly in control and no risk to anyone else?

Definitely defending

Do you guys understand language? Show one word that defends his actions.

An alternative interpretation is not defending him is it? 🙄

Reads like defending to me

TJ – that was the above-mentioned example and it startled my passenger not me. Next?

No risk to anyone kind of implies it was safe no?

Well MF if it was the same incident its a very different story NO wheelie mentioned for starters and no oncoming car or blind summit. Just a bike overtaking you at speeds well in excess of 100 mph and no mention of braking in front of you. so actually a different story. If its the same incident then you really do like to embellish a story to fit your rant of the day

there are others as well MF – you have forgotten them it would appear

you really do get very hysterical about bikes just like a rambler about mountainbikes

Find that thread TJ – I have changed nothing at all – and I never mentioned speeds at the time either. I am 100% confident that what I stated above is a fair description of what happened and matches what I said in the original thread. Unfortunately you often don’t read what is said, instead preferring to read what you want to believe.

Pot kettle and black MF

What you put in the thread above is nothing like the earlier incident you described.

Come on Couger, people who buy sports bikes buy them for the speed thrill, fast acceleration.

CougAr. And yes, some do. Most even, perhaps. What you’re overlooking is, this does not mean everyone on two wheels speeds inappropriately everywhere. Oddly, the ones who draw attention to themselves are the ones who draw attention to themselves.

Have I got time to pull out or are they going to rear end me at 140mph.

If you genuinely can’t judge speeds, you can get refresher lessons. I know bikes are smaller than cars, so it’s more difficult. Shouldn’t cost you too much, and they might throw in a copy of the Highway Code if you ask them nicely.

How many times when moving in slow traffic on a dual carriageway have you thought about changing lane, you know where all the cars around you are then out of nowhere a biker speeds through inbetween the cars and you think thank god I didnt pull across.

Very rarely. I want to say ‘never’ but I can’t be 100% certain over the last 20 years. I employ a couple of radical techniques when changing lanes, you see. First I check my mirrors (though I’ve got a reasonable idea of what’s behind me), and check my blind spot. Assuming it’s clear, I then indicate. I then wait a moment, and then perform the same checks before changing lanes whilst still performing all-round observation.

On the off-chance that somehow a bike has slipped through the net, maybe he beamed down off the Enterprise or maybe I’m not paying as much attention as I should (mistakes happen), the bike should still have seen my indicators, been ready for me to do something stupid (because this is what most bikers expect of car drivers IME) and then reacted accordingly.

So its up to me to make sure i’m not being undertaken by a motor bike at speed down the middle of the road.

Yes. Yes it is. Sorry.

Mirror signal manouver is not fast enough when a bike is coming through.

Cobblers. Maybe if you hit the indicator halfway through the manoeuvre before giving an afterthought to looking vaguely somewhere else other than the car in front’s tail lights, then in that case yes, those pesky other road users might get in your way.