A Bit of Advice Needed Please.

[Dave70]

I'll try to make this short and clear.

Basically, I was involved in a crash recently. i was riding down the road behind a people carrier. As we approached an enterance exit to an industrial estate the people carrier indicated to turn left into it, as it turns in a white van comes out of the same road to turn right but has to stop as there is no gap in the traffic (that's travelling in the opposite direction to myself) therby totally blockin my side of the road. I hit both brakes but the back wheel goes and me and the bike slide into and under the van.

I have just recieved an email from the police with the van drivers d insurance details (didn't get them at the time as I was taken away in an ambulance) but, the thing that concerns me is the fact that the police have stated that they will be taking no further action against myself or the van driver.

Now no action against me is the good part as the police have a witness statment that I wasn't speeding but, does the fact that they are taking no action against the van driver mean that it will cause me problems when it comes to claiming against their insurance? As I see it, the van driver was at fault as you do not pull out and stop side on across a road in moving traffic. My quote for damage to my bike is £2,850.41p

Any advice or knowledge into what I should do for the best would be really appreciated as I have no idea about how claiming works.

[bombom]

them not taking any action against the other driver should not affect your ability to claim off his insurance,
just basically means they aint gona prosecute him for dangerous driving ect.

get claiming, contact your insurance and they should contact theres, i assume thats how it works as never done it myself
____________________
Current: 97 zx6r f3
Previous: suzuki gsf400 bandit

[Dave70]

Thanks for that That's what has had me worried.

As for my insurance company. When I contacted them initially I was told that I would have to contact the other drivers insurance and claim myself. Which I found odd. WTF am I paying them for, if I have to do the work?

[Dean-J]

He was stationary when you hit him? That would be your liability then.
It is your responsibility to be able to stop in a reasonable distance - you are supposed to be observing the road and using "forward planing" to avoid incidents such as this one.
Sorry to say it but any decent solicitor is going to rip you a new one. best your gonna get is 50/50 imo.

[Kwaks]

[Darylw27]

Honestly I see that going 50/50. Yes the van pulled out into the middle of the road, but he was then stationary when you hit him. You will be told you should have been able to stop in a reasonable distance. Without the obligatory paint diagram it's hard to call, but I think at best you will get 50/50. If you took Motor legal protection, now is the time to put it to use.

[Dave70]

[Dean-J]

It is your responsibility to ensure you have been seen, and you should have been far back enough to stop in good time ( 2 second rule and all that).

If he fights it you will be on for a 50/50 i reckon. Ie, he should not have pulled out if he did not KNOW what was coming, and you should have been able to stop in good time/paying enough attention to see him and take avoidance action.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying its all your fault, just being honest as to what a court/solicitors/judge/insurance assessor is going to think.

We all follow too closely at times or lose concentration for a sec, unfortunately as you found out that it only takes one bad call to end up with a sore arse and a smashed up bike!

[Dave70]

[Hetzer]

What a load of balls. But if the law is that big an ass (somebody's allowed to pull out and stop and it's 50/50?!)...well, he wasn't stationary, was he.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[Rogerborg]

Your insurers aren't touching it presumably because you're TPO or TPFT. Since there's no claim against them, what's it got to do with them?

Post the obligatory paint diagram and get T.C's word on it, but there's no way on earth I'd accept any liability there.

[daemonoid]

[Dean-J]

This is essentially the same as the many filtering around a turning vehicle cases that have reared their heads over the last year or so.

Whilst i completely agree that it should be the van drivers fault, a good solicitor will be able to get that down to 50/50.

The picture RB posted is actually guilty of illustrating against other elements of the highway code, leaving a suitable gap to the vehicle in front etc.

It is also ( rightly or wrongly ) common practice for cagers to take the opportunity to pull out when a vehicle is turning into the junction they are waiting at, so you should always be prepared for this.

Just hope that the other guy admits liability and you get a successful claim out of him without having to go through all the hassle!

[Dean-J]

[daemonoid]

[Kwaks]

[Borris]

[quote="Kwaks"]
oh FFS, he left a suitable gap to the vehicle in front of him, you know how I know that? CAUSE HE NEVER HIT IT. The van pulled out when it should not have, give it up there is no fault on the biker and common bad practice by drivers is no defence.[/quote]

Unfortunatly it's a case of where the car is, not where it will be. Effectively the van replaced the people carrier in term of the stopping distance i.e two equal cars slam on the brakes at the same time will travel the brakes at the same time will have no thinking distance but the same braking distance.

You should still contact your insurance company to say that you want to argue the toss, as else they are likely just to settle as it's the lowest risk/cost route. Fighting it could result in them claiming back all cost, or ending up with a massive bill to foot.
____________________
Suzuki EN 125-2
Honda CB 500

[Dave70]

Hmmm...seems to have caused some debate this.

Personally, I thonk the other driver is at fault but, I obviously would think that. I am trying to remain objective though.

@Roger. I am actually fully comp. Unfortunately I can' t post a diagram as my laptop is knackered at the moment, so can only post from my phone but, the picture you put up in your post is pretty much how it was. The car waiting to pull out does so and stops right across the lane the biker is travelling on.

I suspect in my case that the driver got impatient as the roads here were closed due to the TT races. So the roads that were open were pretty gridlocked and the van driver had probably been waiting to get out for a while and decided to go for it, even though she knew she would not get across both lanes. But, that is pure speculation on my part.

[Kwaks]

Borris, look at the diagram for rule11. If the bike begins to overtake as the turning car slowsthen there is a blindspot, the van should not be in that spot when it is not clear, regardless of his impatience
____________________
Fallen Angel "Nae sniffing my seat now!!!!! "
www.cliqueycuntsmcc.co.uk
I AM NOT A FAST RIDER!!!!!!!!!

[Dave70]

I agree with kwaks here boris. There is a difference between two cars slamming their brakes on ie; giving you some kind of warning and what was in effect a brick wall suddenly being placed in front of you.

What I'm trying to say is a car braking in front of you would not come to a dead and sudden stop, where as a vehicle pulling out across the road and stopping, side on leaves you with little chance.

[colicabcadam]

seems like you was already too close to the people carrier in the first place - if he pulled out whilst the carrier was turning in you should have had PLENTY of space to stop

are you sure you never vered right a little to overtake the people carrier because it was turning in slow / you was too close to it ?
____________________
my rides ---->> https://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5051/ktmaudiducati2.jpg

[daemonoid]

To all suggesting the OP may be at fault...

It really doesn't matter! The person pulling out is always considered at fault on a clear straight road unless some backed up evidence to the contrary can be found.

In this case he will have no trouble with his claim (assuming he wasn't doing 90 in a 30, riding without lights at night etc).


However, while he may be I'm the right he won't come off the best in such an accident. So, the advice to give some space or as was posted in another thread weave slightly is all good from the point of view of do it better next time.
____________________
current: ducati monster 750
past: hyosung gt250r, bajaj pulsar 180, hyosung gt 125 comet
@thomasgarrard | www.straitjkt.com | www.racingseven.com

[Kwaks]

[colicabcadam]

this is not about the law or who is wrong / who is right - it's about avoiding accidents in the first place

from what i have gathered, the carrier did a left 90 degree angle turn, which would mean slowing down to around 10 mph, at this point the rider says the van pulled out and stopped, so the van was already there before the carrier had completed it's turn

the only way the rider would have hit the van was if they were already too close to the people carrier in the first place or did not reduce their speed and caught up with the carrier when it turned or even overtook it whilst it was mid corner

also, people carrier our not, a biker should be able to see what's in front of it, either over it (we have a higher view point) or through the glass

seems to me that if the carrier has braked hard (because pedestrian ran out etc) the bike would have gone into the back of that instead......
____________________
my rides ---->> https://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5051/ktmaudiducati2.jpg

[Kwaks]