Losing His License !

[miro]

Why do bike riders have the right to drive stupidly. A standing column of cars becomes some kind of leapfrog to most of them. What if your father needed to throw up and opened the door to vent his stomach. What excuse would there be for someone driving into his door.

I myself am rather tired of hearing about how unlucky bike riders are / could be. Where does it say they are allowed to overtake 20 cars at a time ?

Speaking of which I might try it on a column of bikes some time.

 

[prprandall51]

Spike, like you, I am a biker. Like you, I also think that there are a lot of idiotic car drivers out there.

But, if you poll the forum members, they would agree with us - we all think there are a lot of idiotic car drivers out there.

However, perhaps unlike you, I - and most forum members - also think there are a lot of idiotic bike riders out there, too. And, because they tend to be more brash and more arrogant and more idiotic than the idiotic car drivers, they are particularly noticable. And irritating.

Now, I am not saying that the Vicar was brash or arrogant or particularly idiotic, but I think that most people - and especially most sensible bikers - will agree that when you get on a bike you have to ride in a style that takes responsibility not only for your actions but also the actions of others. This is simply a matter of self preservation, no more. The Vicar failed to do this.

I, too, will ride down the outside of stationary traffic (though I won't cross a solid white line to do it). When I do, I accept that I have broken out of the mould of conventional vehicular behaviour. In other words, I will be in a place on the road where car drivers will not expect me to be. Therefore, if you are on the other side of the road (the WRONG side) and someone pulls out and knocks you off, you really only have yourself to blame.

Bikes give us amazing freedom on the road, but they also are extremely vulnerable places to be. If bikers ride around placing their trust in their survival in the belief that car drivers won't do something stupid, then I suspect that they will not be long for this world.

So, back to the case in hand. The Vicar broke out of the norm of vehicular behaviour. Responsibility for his safety (which always rested with him, anyway) became his particular rsponsibility once he crossed the white line.
The fact that it was raining (poor visibility, increased braking distances) and that he has crossed a white line (implying limited visibility in terms of the road topography) and that he was passing stationary vehicles waiting in a queue (as I posted earlier this means that people will be looking to do a U turn, turn right etc.) means that he placed himself in an incredibly high risk position.

He then must have compounded all this by going too fast to be able to stop when the inevitable happened - someone pulled out into his path. And, as you yourself seem to have experienced on two occasions - it is inevitable.

Given the circumstances that we know of, I am amazed that you blame the car driver and not the bike rider for this accident happening. It may be deemed to be the car driver's fault in the eyes of the law - we cannot know about that. However, the Vicar has no sympathy from me and, it would appear, not much from anyone else here. He was riding in a style that was extremely dangerous to his welfare. His continued survival appears to be more good luck than good judgement.

Philip

 

[blassberg]

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.

I didn't see the adverts but read that they were intending to show that the situation was both possible and ambiguous in terms of liability. I read from that they want you to be alive, not in the right.

 

[SG CL500]

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 ......

...ever since they got rid of the rep points (ducks and runs for cover)

 

[Benzowner]

I, too, will ride down the outside of stationary traffic (though I won't cross a solid white line to do it). When I do, I accept that I have broken out of the mould of conventional vehicular behaviour. In other words, I will be in a place on the road where car drivers will not expect me to be. Therefore, if you are on the other side of the road (the WRONG side) and someone pulls out and knocks you off, you really only have yourself to blame.

Philip

So if an ambulance is overtaking blue lights only no siren, and the driver pulls out, its the ambulance fault, I think not. I have seen a car pull out in front of a motorcyclist, which gave the biker about 20 feet to see what was happening and react. Needless to say, the biker stood no chance and hit the car. At 10mph, you are travelling at just under 15feet per second.

 

[prprandall51]

So if an ambulance is overtaking blue lights only no siren, and the driver pulls out, its the ambulance fault, .

Yes - absolutely - it is the ambulance's fault. When you overtake, you should only do so where there are no turnings on the right. So, if the vehicle that is being overtaken turns right it is the ambulance's fault despite the fact that the driver being overtaken has failed to make all necessary observations. If the traffic is stationary, then the ambulance should proceed with due caution. To enable emergency vehicles to make swift, safe progress, they are fitted with sirens. Because the ambulance did not use its siren and was going so fast that it could not stop when a driver pulled out, it is, once again, the ambulance driver's fault. I mean, sirens, what else are they for???

I have seen a car pull out in front of a motorcyclist, which gave the biker about 20 feet to see what was happening and react. Needless to say, the biker stood no chance and hit the car. At 10mph, you are travelling at just under 15feet per second.

Geoff, you don't say if the car was pulling from a side road into a main road where the bike was travelling or simply a car pulling out from a queue of cars and contacting a motorcyclist travelling down the outside of the queue. In the former case, it is the car driver's fault, in the latter, it is the motorcyclist who is at fault. IMO.

No offence to you, Geoff, or Spike. But no wonder people resent us bike riders. We ignore all the rules of the road and throw common sense out the window and then whinge like stuck pigs when we come a cropper. Perhaps it is the biker's inability to see when they have created unnescessary risk in a traffic situation that leads to car drivers disliking them so much.

The attitude seems to be "I will drive like an idiot and you car drivers had better watch out for me because it will be your fault if I hit you".

Bet I have a prang next time I go for a ride

 

[robert.saunders]

I'm not aware any emergency vehicle is above the law relating to road markings or signs (not talking speed limits here) and any trained response driver MUST drive expecting every eventuality.

Vehicles do pull out, drivers perform manoeuvres which is outside the norm -as stated above, any motorist who places the vehicle outside normal driving behaviour has to expect the unexpected.

This original thread scenario is such a 50/50 split. This has nothing really to do with right or wrongs, as I have stated once before on a different thread, my dad drummed a saying into me:

"I'm in the right!" he said, as he drove along - but he was just as dead, as he was wrong.

LEGALLY, one was right and the other wrong, that's for the law to decide. But 2 decisions were made - one by the car driver, the other by the biker, neither were suitable.

 

[Sp!ke]

OK, having slept on this and woken with a clear head, I must admit to being a little OTT on this debate and some of my posts may have seemed a little brash or perhaps even bias. The thread is in danger of being locked if it continues in this way so I'll be treating it a little more delicately as it progresses. If I have upset anyone by my stance, then I apologise for doing so.

I'd like to keep the debate open however as I think it has revealed some significant insights into the way in which we all interpret the highway code differently. If nothing else this thread highlights the fact that we all need to increase our awareness of other road users whether they are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, Lorry and buses and those on horseback. There are many types of road user all sharing the same roadspace and we all need to coexist side by side and be tolerent of each other.

So saying all that, I'm going to put my John Dee head on now and tackle this from a different perspective in the hope that this may sway some by looking at this somewhat differently.

Unfortunately this thread is rather devoid of facts. What we have is one sided hearsay information describing a chain of events. If we look at what little facts we have, perhaps things may become clearer. (If I am wrong on any of these facts then I'm happy to revise them btw)

1. There was a traffic accident involving a car and a motorcycle.
2. The accident was serious enough to require police attendance.
3. Both parties were questioned by the police on scene.
4. The police on scene examined the evidence at the scene of the accident.
5. Based on the evidence, the police at the scene deemed that the driver of the car should be reported for a traffic offence. (I'm not sure if the offence has been made clear but the assumption is that he has been given an NIP for driving with undue care and attention).
6. The motorcyclist was not reported for an offence.
7. The report was submitted to the CPS, who further examined the evidence put to them and concluded that there were sufficiant grounds to warrant a procecution.
8. A plea was then submitted by post by the defendant which would have then been examined by a senior prosecutor who then concluded that the offence was too serious to be able to accept a plea in writing and the defendant was subsequently served with a summons to attend court.
9. A court hearing has now been scheduled.

Now, those that have been arguing that the bike rider was at fault or that he was in breach of the highway code are doing so in spite of the fact that they are doing so direct contradiction to the views of the traffic officers on scene, the specialist motoring lawyer at the CPS who brought about the case and the senior prosecutor of the court who deemed it necessary for the defendant to attend in person - all of whom were privvy to the facts of the case, unlike ourselves.

If Marcos's dad is subsequently cleared of all charges in court then I'll take back everything I have said. If not, then those that still take the stance that the motorcyclist was to blame will be in direct conflict with the law as it stands in this country and as such must at least acknowledge that fact.

That is all I ask.

 

[GRAV888]

I'm not aware any emergency vehicle is above the law relating to road markings or signs (not talking speed limits here) and any trained response driver MUST drive expecting every eventuality.

I think you will find that even with blues and twos on, emergency vehicles are still not exempt from speeding.
I only found this out about 10 yrs ago, when a police car in North Wales decided to jump a red light, doing 54 in a 30 mph zone (was proved in court from the incar recording) and smashed into the n/s/r of my Omega.

 

[blassberg]

I don't think there are bikers and car-drivers. I think there are idiots and good road-users. Unfortunately everyone thinks they are in the latter.

 

[robert.saunders]

I think you will find that even with blues and twos on, emergency vehicles are still not exempt from speeding.
I only found this out about 10 yrs ago, when a police car in North Wales decided to jump a red light, doing 54 in a 30 mph zone (was proved in court from the incar recording) and smashed into the n/s/r of my Omega.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 87 gives "exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits".*

Quite what the offence was for the plod mobile to hit your Omega was a driving without due care scenario? I imagine the speed was contributory to the accident and therefore to an offence.

* I haven't typed out the whole s.87

 

[Uncle Buck]

Why do bike riders have the right to drive stupidly. A standing column of cars becomes some kind of leapfrog to most of them. What if your father needed to throw up and opened the door to vent his stomach. What excuse would there be for someone driving into his door.

god what a ****ty attitude.

Open the door suddenly and get killed then - its your fault still. you should check. (is this a bmw forum ?)

Its a road and even if your sick you still look first before opening the door. the law says filter - so you filter, and people in cars need to accept that.

especially when your daughters on the pillion.

and its positively encouraged on the Bike Test as well.

so there. :bannana:

get a bike or get used to filtering. or have a merc and a bike. ;-)

 

[Swiss Toni]

I think you will find that even with blues and twos on, emergency vehicles are still not exempt from speeding.
I only found this out about 10 yrs ago, when a police car in North Wales decided to jump a red light, doing 54 in a 30 mph zone (was proved in court from the incar recording) and smashed into the n/s/r of my Omega.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 87 gives "exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits".*

Quite what the offence was for the plod mobile to hit your Omega was a driving without due care scenario? I imagine the speed was contributory to the accident and therefore to an offence.

* I haven't typed out the whole s.87

Emergency vehicles are excempt from speed limits with the requirement that they are being used "for Police (etc) purposes" - no requirement for blue lights or sirens. The other exemption is for red traffic lights (to be used as "Give Way") and keep left bollards (they can go to the right).

There is no change in a courts interpretation of Driving without due care for other road users or Dangerous Driving (both have full legal definitions that apply to all road users - motorcyclists, emergency service vehicles, everyone - in the same way).

 

[robert.saunders]

the law says filter - so you filter, and people in cars need to accept that.

get a bike or get used to filtering. or have a merc and a bike. ;-)

I'm not sure the law states this; I understand however there has been plenty of test cases, a recent one in 2006, relating to filtering, and it seems that the once murky area is now less grey? However, I am happy to be pointed to the exact law and related section which states "filtering" is lawful. I accept that these days filtering is taught when obtaining a licence?

Equally, I have read up on some other forums, and excellent advice generally is as stated in previous posts above: http://www.motorcycle-training.f2s.com/filtering.html This is a useful web entry.

This is a good thread, with plenty of useful comment and I think everyone has solid and pertinent view points.

Rob

 

[Sp!ke]

Yes, that does make for easy reading and clears up a whole load of things that are tricky to understand in the highway code. (Perhaps it needs updating)

I think the test case you refer to was the one where MCN backed an individual and fought the long held knock for knock stance on insurance payouts. I believe they won and this has now set a new precedent and paved the way for future cases. I've been trying to find a reference to it on the web as it was front page news on MCN at the time. Trouble is, I cant find the wood for the trees. (Me thinks google is fast becoming not the search engine of choice).

 

[Sp!ke]

Found it.

CASE LAW UPDATE

Most bikers if not all the bikers filter past stationary traffic if faced with a long queue of traffic. We have all had the near misses or the impacts when the driver sitting in the queue decides that they have had enough of waiting and carry out that U –turn right in front of you.This leaves the biker will little choice but to either collide with the offending car or “drop the bike”. So many times these types of cases are settled on a split of 50/50 equal blame for both rider and car driver.

The rider for filtering and the car driver for not being more vigilant to other road users.A recent case (DAVIS v SCHROGIN (2006) which was heard in the Court of Appeal found the car driver totally to blame, there was no finding of contributory negligence on behalf of the biker it was found there was no time for the biker to react to the drivers actions. Once a judge had found as a primary fact that a motorcyclist was so close to the point of impact, with a vehicle executing a u-turn that he could not have avoided the resulting collision, there was simply no basis for any finding of contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist.Whilst this is another victory for the biker, please be aware any case is decided on the facts of that particular case although there is the argument to rely on the above case.

If in doubt contact http://www.bikelegal.com/ for further individual advice.

Written By: Julia Eyton

 

[SimonsMerc]

OK, having slept on this and woken with a clear head, I must admit to being a little OTT on this debate and some of my posts may have seemed a little brash or perhaps even bias. The thread is in danger of being locked if it continues in this way so I'll be treating it a little more delicately as it progresses. If I have upset anyone by my stance, then I apologise for doing so.

I'd like to keep the debate open however as I think it has revealed some significant insights into the way in which we all interpret the highway code differently. If nothing else this thread highlights the fact that we all need to increase our awareness of other road users whether they are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, Lorry and buses and those on horseback. There are many types of road user all sharing the same roadspace and we all need to coexist side by side and be tolerent of each other.

So saying all that, I'm going to put my John Dee head on now and tackle this from a different perspective in the hope that this may sway some by looking at this somewhat differently.

Unfortunately this thread is rather devoid of facts. What we have is one sided hearsay information describing a chain of events. If we look at what little facts we have, perhaps things may become clearer. (If I am wrong on any of these facts then I'm happy to revise them btw)

1. There was a traffic accident involving a car and a motorcycle.
2. The accident was serious enough to require police attendance.
3. Both parties were questioned by the police on scene.
4. The police on scene examined the evidence at the scene of the accident.
5. Based on the evidence, the police at the scene deemed that the driver of the car should be reported for a traffic offence. (I'm not sure if the offence has been made clear but the assumption is that he has been given an NIP for driving with undue care and attention).
6. The motorcyclist was not reported for an offence.
7. The report was submitted to the CPS, who further examined the evidence put to them and concluded that there were sufficiant grounds to warrant a procecution.
8. A plea was then submitted by post by the defendant which would have then been examined by a senior prosecutor who then concluded that the offence was too serious to be able to accept a plea in writing and the defendant was subsequently served with a summons to attend court.
9. A court hearing has now been scheduled.

Now, those that have been arguing that the bike rider was at fault or that he was in breach of the highway code are doing so in spite of the fact that they are doing so direct contradiction to the views of the traffic officers on scene, the specialist motoring lawyer at the CPS who brought about the case and the senior prosecutor of the court who deemed it necessary for the defendant to attend in person - all of whom were privvy to the facts of the case, unlike ourselves.

If Marcos's dad is subsequently cleared of all charges in court then I'll take back everything I have said. If not, then those that still take the stance that the motorcyclist was to blame will be in direct conflict with the law as it stands in this country and as such must at least acknowledge that fact.

That is all I ask.

Sp!ke - in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. Your statement above shows that you consider the car driver guilty until proven innocent. This is simply wrong.

The "facts" you have stated don't actually cover the most important fact - the motorist in this case is currently innocent. Until a court of law decides that he is guilty, none of your "facts" have any meaning, and you cannot use them to support "your case" - which seems to be to exonerate the motorcyclist at all costs.

-simon

 

[SimonsMerc]

From the link mentioned above (http://www.motorcycle-training.f2s.com/filtering.html):

Where is it illegal to Filter?

As with any manoeuvre, you must not cause danger or force other vehicles to alter course or speed. Typically its not a matter of where, but when. There are a few situations where it would be illegal to filter. Two that spring to mind is passing queuing traffic in a no overtaking zone (e.g. solid white lines or after a no overtaking sign) or on the approach to a crossing, with zig-zags. These are dealt with below:

...

Overtaking (or filtering) on solid white lines (no overtaking)

Here normal rules for overtaking apply. If you can get passed without crossing the solid white line, then you can pass queuing traffic. If the traffic is turning or meets the criteria for slow moving, you can pass. Again, because you will need to filter in a very small space you need to exercise caution when doing this.

(My emphasis). So it seems that the information in this link, which seems very sensible, states clearly that it is not legal to cross a solid white line to filter.

-simon

 

[Sp!ke]

You are quite correct in that currently in the eyes of the law he is innocent. Actually, that may not be the case in motoring law as I believe its been recently changed so that you need to prove your innocence. However I dont wish to argue the point. (maybe a non layperson can add to that later as its an interesting topic and a change in law that I believe snuck in by the back door).

Which ever way the law views motorists prior to conviction, it doesnt change the fact that I can be entitled to the view he was in the wrong and has a case to answer.

After all that opinion is shared by the police and the procecution service is it not?

I'm not going to further argue the law on crossing the white lines Simon - your quote actually contradicts the point you are making entirely.

 

[Swiss Toni]

Yes, that does make for easy reading and clears up a whole load of things that are tricky to understand in the highway code. (Perhaps it needs updating)

Just to add that the Highway Code is just that, a Code. Not the law.