Losing His License !

[blassberg]

Another pet hate of mine that bikers seem to believe is their right is to ride on full beam headlight.

I did until I modded my lights as main beam was so poor. Maybe the vicar would have been noticed with his full beam on? I would recommend bikers to do so unless they were in any case already conspicuous. The consequences are high.

 

[blassberg]

For what it's worth the U-turn is part of the motorbike test and requires seemingly endless mandatory observation checks as it is such a dngerous manoevre.

 

[SimonsMerc]

I did until I modded my lights as main beam was so poor. Maybe the vicar would have been noticed with his full beam on? I would recommend bikers to do so unless they were in any case already conspicuous. The consequences are high.

"Poor" is relative. If your main beam is poor, you perhaps are less visible or you see less of the road. But if you use your high beam and blind other drivers, they cannot see you, which seems to me to be rather fundamentally a bad idea.

If main beams are poor, people should do what you did and fix them. Perhaps bike manufacturers should be called to responsibility so that they don't produce poor main beams?

-simon

 

[Sp!ke]

Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't the same apply to the bike rider as well? Solid line = no overtaking, which would also apply to filtering? If this is not the case, could someone refer me to the appropriate legislation or guidelines that allows the ignoring of road markings by various types of vehicle? A definition of "filtering" would be good too - I'm sure that most could be enlightened by the proper definition.

I'll excuse your ignorance just this once

This was discussed earlier in the thread where Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26 state that you can pass a stationary or slow moving vehicle (under 10mph)

As for the definition of filtering, this is not defined by the highway code. It is legal for more than one vehicle to share a single lane side by side if they can fit. and it is this fact that allows filtering in most countries in the world. (contrary to popular belief its also legal in most US states).

There was a precident set about this not so long ago as insurance companies tried to wiggle out of payment - lemme see if I can find it.

 

[marcos]

I don't want to detract from a serious thread, but prprandall51 is a legend!!

Gotta agree it's funny but there is just one problem.

I was only one in 1972 and couldnt even escape from my cot

 

[Dieselman]

.

I was only one in 1972 and couldnt even escape from my cot

How the hell are you going to escape from the bad guys if you can't even escape from a cot??

 

[micosavo]

This was discussed earlier in the thread where Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26 state that you can pass a stationary or slow moving vehicle (under 10mph)

Does this include a solid white line? Which I assume nobody (cars and hair-dryers on wheels) is allowed to do?

Also, unless he was driving a micra and it was a huge road, nearly all cars would be sticking out in some way.

Its strange, since the law is based on the fact that if you hit it, it's your fault. Obviously if you are proceeding under a green light(and other situations like it) and get hit a guy breaking a red light then it's not your fault. But the most the driver of the car can be done for is contravening the rules of the road, however illegal that is. The priest was not taking "Due Care And Attention". Neither was the driver, but then again, he didn't hit anything. How and why your dad, signed or admitted anything is beyond me.

Regardless of the rules of the road, if it was rainy, and he was going downhill, and vast majority of braking power is in the front wheel of a motorbike, the priest should have been going slower.

What if a child decided to cross the road between two of the cars? Should the child get up and admit liability?

My dad, a life-long Honda 750 rider, says this;

"If it's in front of you, and you hit it, it's your fault. And your also not getting the car for a year!"

You should always drive as if expecting something to pop out in front of you.

 

[Sp!ke]

Micosavo - you must be kidding right?

The bike had the right of way and one can assume was maintaining speed and direction. The car illegally turned across double white lines, turned right across the flow of traffic without making sure it was safe to do so and promptly hit the motorcyclist.

The car pulled out into the bike!!!!

If you wern't kidding I seriously suggest you need to consider getting a refresher course.

 

[micosavo]

Does this include a solid white line? Which I assume nobody is allowed to do? This seems to be the point that people seem to be skirting around.

And if you read back the posts you will see that it was the bike that hit the car not the other way around...

Quote:
"procedeed to carry out the manouver only to be side swiped by a motorcyclist."

 

[Sp!ke]

Yes, the bike can legally overtake on the wrong side of a solid white line if the traffic was stationary or doing less than 10mph.

You should never perform a U turn across solid white lines.

The car pulled out immediately into the path of an oncoming motorcycle who had the right of way.

Still think the bike is in the wrong?

Millions was spent on government safety campaigns depicting an almost identical scenario and yet so many people still assume the bike was in the wrong. I'm absolutely stunned.

 

[Dieselman]

So whilst out driving you come across a driver already 2/3 of the way through a turning manouver you should just drive/ride into them.

Errm, I think not.

I think you will find that if a vehicle has already started the manouver you should stop and wait for them to complete..especially if to drive into them means being on the wrong side of the road having crossed a solid white line.

The more I read of this thread it makes me think that this is a knock for knock situation. Don't forget I initally thought car driver liability.

Spike you need to get off your high horse and start looking at the whole situation.

 

[SimonsMerc]

Micosavo - you must be kidding right?

The bike had the right of way and one can assume was maintaining speed and direction.

Actually, the only person who has right of way in the united kingdom is the Queen. One road user may have "priority" over another (as defined in the highway code and the relevant sections of law), but no-one other than the ruling monarch has absolute right of way ;-)

The car illegally turned across double white lines, turned right across the flow of traffic without making sure it was safe to do so and promptly hit the motorcyclist.

It's been stated many times before that the motorcyclist hit the car, not the other way around.

If you wern't kidding I seriously suggest you need to consider getting a refresher course.

In general, I think everyone knows your view now. It seems that many (including me) strongly disagree with your opinion, and you seem to have a strong bias towards motorcyclists. Good for you; as you have explained, you have your reasons, and you're entitled to them. The attacks on other points of view (which believe it or not are just as valid as yours and are allowed to exist) are getting tiresome. I'm sure they're probably needlessly worrying Marcos too (although he seems sensible enough to rise above it). Give it a rest ;-)

-simon

 

[Sp!ke]

Dieselman - Do you really think the biker deliberately drove into the side of a car that was pulling out? Come on, think about it...

Ahem... lets not forget that the procecution service also shares my views.

I am NOT biased, I am right.

 

[micosavo]

Well, I know crossing the white line is illegal in Ireland. And just for funs and giggles, from the UK Highway Code;

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.
Remember: Observation - Signal - Manoeuvre.

And just to be really pedantic;

108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.

This rule actually refers to a stationary vehicle. This means one vehicle. Not a line of traffic.

 

[Howard]

Getting back to the age old argument of whether bikers should be riding down the middle of the road to get past a traffic jam aren't we .....

Time you got over it Howard or got a bike or moved to the US.

No , Uncle Buck , it's not .......


My first comment was meant as a loose joke amongst friends , this topic has been discussed again and again , hence why i put a 'wink' at the end of it ....

Sp!ke, you should know better , i don't give a toss if you are a big fast bike rider , you sicken me with your constant pro-bike comments , so quite frankly you can poke it ....and your smarmy attitude ....

You don't know me Uncle Buck , so don't presume you can inform me what to do .... I have no desire to move to the US as it sounds very much like it's populated by people like you .....

Sick of idiots on this forum ...

I don't know a great deal about cars, but frequent this forum for its laid back attitude and camaderie , which seem to be dropping off significantly this year , i don't know why ......

 

[andy_k]

Yes, the bike can legally overtake on the wrong side of a solid white line if the traffic was stationary or doing less than 10mph.

No you can't, you can do it if the traffic is stationary. A traffic jam, waiting for lights or other obstruction does NOT class as stationary otherwise it would be legal to use mobile phones in these circumstances.

You should never perform a U turn across solid white lines.

I thought we'd already established that he wasn't doing a U turn, he was half way through a 3 point turn which had the motorcyclist been paying attention and/or driving at a sensible speed according to the conditions he would have been aware of

The car pulled out immediately into the path of an oncoming motorcycle who had the right of way

No, the motorcyclist rode into the side of a car performing a perfectly legal manouvre

Still think the bike is in the wrong?

In this case and in a large percentage of car versus bike fights yes.

Millions was spent on government safety campaigns depicting an almost identical scenario and yet so many people still assume the bike was in the wrong.

Perhaps those millions would have been better using a slogan like "think once, think twice, think car" and along with "you are not immortal or invincible" tattooing it on every single motorcyclist after their first visit to casualty.

Just becauase you ride a bike you are not automatically in the right - that privelidge is reserved for horse riders and pedestrians



Andy

 

[Howard]

Perhaps those millions would have been better using a slogan like "think once, think twice, think car" and along with "you are not immortal or invincible" tattooing it on every single motorcyclist after their first visit to casualty.

Just becauase you ride a bike you are not automatically in the right - that privelidge is reserved for horse riders and pedestrians

Andy

Very eloquently put Andy ,

I am aware I have let myself down badly with my previous post, and I apologise , but I will not be dictated to by people who have brainwashed themselves into believing that they are correct , that car drivers are idiots and every single biker on the road is a totally law abiding citizen , friend or not (sorry Sp!ke ).....

 

[neilrr]

Guys, It's not motorists OR bikers who are the idiots.

It's cyclists.

 

[Birdman]

Biking is fun. Lots of.
Hope that's OK?

 

[Swiss Toni]

Removing the emotion, and accepting that there is just a single version of events (from someone with a bias and not at the scene).

Legally, Spike is right.