White van man

[glojo]

I'm after the panels thoughts on the following incident:

One night in January of this year the driver of a white van got lost and decided to do a three point turn. They chose a stretch of road they deemed suitable but halfway into the manoeuvre just as the van was broadside in the road a motorcyclist collided with the vehicle. Thankfully the rider survived but broke both arms, ankle, ribs, ruptured their spleen and fractured a vertebrae in their neck. The rider states he saw the vans lights but thought it was two push bikes, one going away from him on the nearside, and the other on his offside was coming to-wards him. At the very last minute he saw it was a van and by then it was too late to take any avoiding action.

What is the panels views?

The bike rider states it was a dark night with wind and rain (no street lighting)

The van driver states clear night good visibility.

John

 

[purplegoddess]

its one of those situations when only the people involved know the truth and whose fault it was

 

[verytalldave]

Rules of the road state that you must drive at a speed that you can safely stop given the prevailing conditions at the time.
So the fact that it MIGHT have been raining and/or poor visibility is not a valid excuse.
I hate to say it, and I really dont like to generalise, but MOST motorcyclists drive far too fast.

Basically, the bike hit the van.
Its not illegal to do a 3 point turn where its safe to do so.
End of.

But of course, thats all my opinion.

 

[pammy]

Well apart from the fact that one is clearly lying about the weather conditions, which should be fairly easily corroborated, before making comment, I would want to see what the road lighting conditions were, lie of the road, speed restriction etc etc before deciding who was most likely at fault.

If the van was performing his manoeuvre safely, well lit road, clear visibility and had all his correct lighting in place etc, then it might appear that the biker is at fault. If the conditions were as bad as the biker seems to suggest then it does not make the van's move wrong, but they should both have been paying close attention.

Quite how anyone hits someone doing a legit 3 point turn is beyond me - if they are paying correct attention etc etc.

eta - if the road was an unlit road then I do not think that is a safe road for turning in at night.

 

[janner]

Far too many unknowns to come to any definitive answer.


So I voted motorcyclist!

 

[glojo]

if the road was an unlit road then I do not think that is a safe road for turning in at night.

This was an 'A' road in Dorset, the driver of the van had realised they had somehow taken a wrong turn and found the nearest safe place to turn. Being out in the sticks there was no street lighting.

I have mentioned the weather conditions solely because the motorcyclist has made an issue of it in their statement, but to me it is not that relevant.

I am listening to what is being said with great interest and agree with most of what has been said.

It is certainly NOT illegal to do a three point turn where it is safe to do so, but it can surely be argued that if you block the flow of traffic then you might be obstructing the highway? However I am NOT interested in that issue and would like all posts to stick to the consideration of an offence of driving without due care and attention for one, both or none of the drivers\riders.

I would like to think this might be a warning about 'Speed Limits'. No one is suggesting anyone was braking any speed limits, the bike in question was approximately a 1000cc Triumph (995) but was it going too fast for the conditions?

Regards
John

 

[glojo]

Far too many unknowns to come to any definitive answer. So I voted motorcyclist!

I'll try my best to answer any questions (I've read both parties statements)

John

 

[IanA2]

Tricky, clearly someone is telling porkies, but as a biker of many years, I survived on the maxim that every other road user was a psycopathic sadist whose sole intent was to try and kill or maim me! If that biker had followed my credo he would still be in one piece, hate to say it but you have to be expect the unexpected and must always be able to stop in good time. He couldn not, ergo, he was travelling too fast.

 

[Dieselman]

It would appear the motorcycle rider was going too fast for the conditions and visibility ahead and hit the side of a van making a perfectly reasonable maneuver.
As far as seeing the lights and believing them to be pedal cycles then that has to be the most far fetched comment ever made on an accident statement, especially as vans over a certain length display amber side markers.
If the van was under this length then the motorcyclist should have been able to steer either round the front or rear of the vehicle, as it couldn't be blocking the whole carriageway.
The van couldn't really be occupying more than one side of the carriageway so there should have been room if the motorcyclists speed was suitable.
Can you supply information as to the width of the carriageway and the length of van and whether it has side marker lights.

 

[shilzo]

the motorcyclist is definantly to blame for this accident.
he should have been paying attention to the surrounding conditions.
also he was obviously traveling to fast for the condition

 

[janner]

I wonder if the poll result would be the same if we posted this on a bike forum?

 

[pammy]

I still maintain that to do a 3-point turn at night on an unlit road is not safe. Visability is not good because it is dark and depending on the stage of the manoeuvre you are at, the angle of your lights, possible bends in the road I can see how lights from a distance might be misconstrued. I'm not convinced though by what we're hearing of the biker's statement. Being a white van you wold have thought the shape would have been visible and as such made the biker slow down to see what was ostructing the road. If he saw what he thought were bicycle lights on a dark wet night then he should have slowed sufficiently as he clearly did not know they were bicycle lights. So I reckon it was probably six and two threes.

The van should not have done a turn in the road where he did and the bike should have been going at a pace more suitable for the conditions he said were in place. Not only should bikers ride like every other road user is out to kill them, but other road users should always be aware that there might just be some other nutter about to appear out of almost nowhere.

 

[Dieselman]

The bike rider states it was a dark night with wind and rain (no street lighting)

The van driver states clear night good visibility.

And the Police state..??

As this accident involved injury the Police must have attended.

 

[Dieselman]

I wonder if the poll result would be the same if we posted this on a bike forum?

It doesn't matter where it's posted.
Hit what is in effect a lit stationary object in the road and it's your fault.
The bike hit the van, not the other way round.

 

[Swiss Toni]

The question would be - Did the driver of the van exercise the due care and attention that a competent driver would be expected to do, given the circumstances - ie take account to the vehicle, the environment (weather etc), location chosen, type of road...

Same for the rider of the motor cycle.

There isn't enough information to draw any conclusion from so far.

More investigation required.

 

[Dave Lewis]

50/50. They both took a risk, and both got unlucky. So it goes.

 

[janner]

It doesn't matter where it's posted.
Hit what is in effect a lit stationary object in the road and it's your fault.
The bike hit the van, not the other way round.

Let's find out
Sort of like automotive brainiacs

Edit. People from this forum shouldn't vote there or it will skew the result.

 

[pammy]

Let's find out
Sort of like automotive brainiacs

lol - now that's just wicked - I love it

 

[Metman]

A 3 point turn requires a forward entry, a reverse operation and a forward exit. Why not reverse first and exit forward. This 2 point turn makes the whole operation faster and during the night much safer.

My opinion is the biker was at fault, if he couldn’t decide what the lights were, slow down and find out. I am a biker as well!

 

[Dieselman]

A 3 point turn requires a forward entry, a reverse operation and a forward exit. Why not reverse first and exit forward. This 2 point turn makes the whole operation faster and during the night much safer.

Reverse into what first?