Accident - Advice sought

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:51:04 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"

>David has introduced a different point - that of how to avoid the accident in the first place.

How to minimise the possibility of a similar crash happening.

>This is nothing to do with who is to blame.

Precisely.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Digweed .. ;\)]

Michael MacClancy tried to scribble ...

> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes
>> In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy
>> <[email protected]> typed:
>>>
>>> He didn't run into the back, he went into the rear near_side_.
>>
>> Back or nearside - makes no difference if he ran into either from behind. The only situation
>> where he would not be at fault in that situation is the classic overtake and turn immediately
>> left manoever where the drivers actions result in insufficient space. Otherwise Section 105 of
>> the Highway Code applies:
>>
>> "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
>> You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely
>> if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall
>> stopping distance"
>>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>
> So what this means is the following. You're riding along a road and a car passes you and then
> takes up a position just in front of you. You're to the side and one inch behind the bumper. The
> car maintains this position because of slow moving traffic. (Not crawling, but doing 16 mph or
> similar, a speed you can keep up with.) What you have to do then is fall back to provide adequate
> stopping distance. Another car does the same and another and an...
>
> You never get yourself out of the danger zone and you never get anywhere.
>
> I know there are people who say you shouldn't be to the side, you should be in the lane. But
> cyclists are constantly doing this, indeed for slower cyclists they might have to do it.
>
> The vehicle in front is not always blameless when shunted from behind despite what some people
> might think.

But that's the same argument that is cried out when cyclists moan at tailgaters on motorways .. Now
which is it to be ? Follow the highway code, or your idea of good practice ?

--
Digweed

 

[Simon Proven]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In news:7Ta%[email protected], Simon Proven
> <[email protected]> typed:
>
>>Since we now know the vehicle had just overtaken, all the above is irrelevant.
>
>
> Not at all. Its almost certainly going to come up if OP persues his claim so its best that the OP
> has considered carefully the circumstances of the accident before he starts. Happily it appears
> that the sole exception to it being his fault is in fact the case.

It's not the sole exception.

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
<[email protected]> writes
>>There are several 'accident' threads alive at the moment. I find it interesting that there are
>>people who invariable try to blame the cyclist for any accident and others who claim that the
>>motorist is always wholly to blame.
>
>I do neither.

I didn't say you did.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk

 

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:36:03 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>But that _is_ what happened.

Michael

CPM said, "a car just ahead of me in lane two decided at the very last second to brake and turn left
instead." He didn't say that a car pulled past him and then suddenly turned left across his bows.

As CPM was in lane 2, I assume that the car braked suddenly and then turned.

If the former case is correct then CPM is in the wrong; if the latter, he's in the clear.

I'd like to hear again from CPM as it's unclear to me what exactly happened.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:bCn%[email protected], Simon Proven
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> It's not the sole exception.

I'd be interested to know in what other circumstances you think the driver in front would be liable
for a following vehicle in the same lane running into him.

Tony
--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

 

[Simon Proven]

Tony Raven wrote:

> In news:bCn%[email protected], Simon Proven
> <[email protected]> typed:
>
>>It's not the sole exception.
>
>
> I'd be interested to know in what other circumstances you think the driver in front would be
> liable for a following vehicle in the same lane running into him.

If he'd just changed lanes without warning resulting in there being no safe gap, and then slammed
his brakes on.

It does happen.

 

[Simon Proven]

James Hodson wrote:

> I'd like to hear again from CPM as it's unclear to me what exactly happened.

CPM's already said:

"For clarification, the car had just passed me as we approached the junction."

On balance, that's sufficient to suggest the driver was at fault, though it does depend on exactly
how little time was between the overtake and the brake/swerve.

IME, there can be negative time between completion of the overake and swerving left (IYSWIM), though
I've always been alert enough to avoid being taken out. This is as much down to luck as judgement,
though. Some of the incidents I've heard about would've left me no way to avoid a collision.

Simon

 

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:41:01 +0100, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:

>James Hodson wrote:
>
>> I'd like to hear again from CPM as it's unclear to me what exactly happened.
>
>CPM's already said:
>
>"For clarification, the car had just passed me as we approached the junction."
>
OK. Just seen that bit.

>On balance, that's sufficient to suggest the driver was at fault, though it does depend on exactly
>how little time was between the overtake and the brake/swerve.
>
The driver probably is at fault, assuming he or she did the famous left hook manoeuvre and didn't
just brake sharply.

>IME, there can be negative time between completion of the overake and swerving left (IYSWIM),
>though I've always been alert enough to avoid being taken out. This is as much down to luck as
>judgement, though. Some of the incidents I've heard about would've left me no way to avoid a
>collision.
>
ISTM that the luck comes from being slightly away from the kerb thus giving yourself room to move
back left while braking. The judgement bit comes from knowing where you need to be to avoid the need
to rely on luck

In the two similar incidents I've been involved in recently I fell off once and stayed on the bike
the other. In the first case I had nowhere to go as the car moved across and through my front wheel.
On the other occasion there was some room between myself and the kerb. In fact, I was deliberately
trying to prevent the car from overtaking me as I knew there was no chance of the driver completing
the manoeuvre safely before a 90 degree left hand bend. Fat chance. She merely moved further out.
Still, no harm done.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Tina Eager]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:37:31 UTC, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> > In news:bCn%[email protected], Simon Proven
> > <[email protected]> typed:
> >
> >>It's not the sole exception.
> >
> >
> > I'd be interested to know in what other circumstances you think the driver in front would be
> > liable for a following vehicle in the same lane running into him.
>
> If he'd just changed lanes without warning resulting in there being no safe gap, and then slammed
> his brakes on.
>
> It does happen.
>
Or if they had faulty brake lights. Hard to prove though if you've just shunted somebody - they're
surely going to have duff rear lights then!

I think also there's a clause about suddenly slamming brakes on for no visible reason at all, but
can't remember the technicals on that.

--
Tina Eager

 

[Simon Proven]

Tina Eager wrote:

> Or if they had faulty brake lights. Hard to prove though if you've just shunted somebody - they're
> surely going to have duff rear lights then!

Problem with that one: does that mean cyclists are fair game for rear-ending?

 

[Marc]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> (Not crawling, but doing 16 mph or similar, a speed you can keep up with.) What you have to do
> then is fall back to provide adequate stopping distance. Another car does the same and another
> and an...
>
> You never get yourself out of the danger zone and you never get anywhere.

You must be getting somewhere, you're still doing 16mph. I remember the school dinner queue havign
the same idea as you, hence 200 boys trying to squeeze into a corridor that took 75 comfortably,
they didn't get into dinner any faster or slower for all the shoving neither will you.

 

[hohobike]

Contact a lawyer. Get his advice. Take some
pictures of your current condition, before they
start healing. Stay in contact with the people
who saw it happen, you may need them as
witnesess. If the lawyer decides to take the
case, you will certainly win.....get your bike
repaired/replaced and get money for pain
and suffering.

 

[Tina Eager]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:43:22 UTC, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tina Eager wrote:
>
> > Or if they had faulty brake lights. Hard to prove though if you've just shunted somebody -
> > they're surely going to have duff rear lights then!
>
> Problem with that one: does that mean cyclists are fair game for rear-ending?
>

No. It just means that the driver of any vehicle with faulty brake lights (note *brake* lights not
rear lights) which gets shunted can be judged to be at fault. It isn't automatically the fault of
the shunter, it may still be, but it's not automatic assumption of blame.

Since bikes don't IME have brake lights can't see that it's going to be a problem. Of course anybody
who goes around on the roads after dark and without lights....

--
Tina Eager

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:[email protected], Tina Eager <[email protected]> typed:
>
> No. It just means that the driver of any vehicle with faulty brake lights (note *brake* lights not
> rear lights) which gets shunted can be judged to be at fault. It isn't automatically the fault of
> the shunter, it may still be, but it's not automatic assumption of blame.
>

I think you will find that legally they are not at fault for the shunting. They might get done for
having faulty brake lights but the lack of brake lights does not make it their fault if someone
drives into the back of them.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

 

[Tina Eager]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:29:01 UTC, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:[email protected], Tina Eager <[email protected]> typed:
> >
> > No. It just means that the driver of any vehicle with faulty brake lights (note *brake* lights
> > not rear lights) which gets shunted can be judged to be at fault. It isn't automatically the
> > fault of the shunter, it may still be, but it's not automatic assumption of blame.
> >
>
> I think you will find that legally they are not at fault for the shunting. They might get done for
> having faulty brake lights but the lack of brake lights does not make it their fault if someone
> drives into the back of them.
>
> Tony

Sorry, I rather thought I'd said that.

--
Tina Eager

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:[email protected], Tina Eager <[email protected]> typed:
>>>
>>
>> I think you will find that legally they are not at fault for the shunting. They might get done
>> for having faulty brake lights but the lack of brake lights does not make it their fault if
>> someone drives into the back of them.
>>
>> Tony
>
> Sorry, I rather thought I'd said that.

I phrased it ambiguously. I mean that even if your brake lights are faulty it is still the fault of
the person behind if they run into you.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

 

[Dg]

Missed the beginning of this thread, but think I have the general idea.

Just because a car/bike/whatever goes into the back of another vehicle, it does NOT mean that they
are regarded in law as being responsible for that collision. That is a common misconception, often
used in arguments by insurers.

There have been various cases decided by the Courts that found the vehicle at the back only partly
to blame, or even free from blame.

Every case is different and the Courts will decide on the facts of each.

Seek proper advice, it makes a difference.

DG."Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected], Tina Eager <[email protected]> typed:
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think you will find that legally they are not at fault for the shunting. They might get done
> >> for having faulty brake lights but the lack of brake lights does not make it their fault if
> >> someone drives into the back of them.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >
> > Sorry, I rather thought I'd said that.
>
> I phrased it ambiguously. I mean that even if your brake lights are
faulty
> it is still the fault of the person behind if they run into you.
>
> Tony
>
> --
> "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain