Rear End Crash - Advice

#1
For any MT experts out there, advice needed please.

I have been involved in an RTA, riding a motor bike. In short, a car made an unsignalled left turn into a carpark exit (wrong way). I was travelling behind, not directly but near the kerb so that should the car have stopped I would have a clear run, however as he made this unexpected left turn, I slide into the back of him.

This illegal turn was witnessed by the car park attendant on CCTV and by another witness, however the driver is claiming it is my fault as I went into the back of him.

Where do I stand, and can he claim that it was my fault - Any advice appreciated
 

BB51

Old-Salt
#2
Mate you are to blame. Driving to close to the vehicle in front. If you drive into the back of someone it is automaticaly your fault, regardless of what the vehicle in front is doing.

I am a DRSA & a DDE so know what I am talking about (makes a change)

It's called anticipation of other road users.

I know it's not what you want to hear mate sorry.

Hope you were not hurt during the accident.

Seen a bad accident this morning at the front gates in Bulford, not pretty.
 
#3
BigHorse said:
For any MT experts out there, advice needed please.

I have been involved in an RTA, riding a motor bike. In short, a car made an unsignalled left turn into a carpark exit (wrong way). I was travelling behind, not directly but near the kerb so that should the car have stopped I would have a clear run, however as he made this unexpected left turn, I slide into the back of him.

This illegal turn was witnessed by the car park attendant on CCTV and by another witness, however the driver is claiming it is my fault as I went into the back of him.

Where do I stand, and can he claim that it was my fault - Any advice appreciated
If it is on the CCTV you shouldn't have a problem.
 
#4
Much as you have my sypathy and the C0CK shouldn't have made an illegal turn into the exit of a car park IMHO things are against you.

You were not at the correct distance to stop in time in case of an emergency. To say you were near the kerb to give you a clear run if he stopped is the same as saying your safety was planning to undertake him. What if he had just stopped because a kid ran out in front of him, you would happily accelerate into Little Timmy just before Christmas.

Car drivers are a strange breed, insulated in their little cage, warm relaxed and listening to Radio 4. Beware, think of the strangest thing they could do and multiply by ten.
 

BB51

Old-Salt
#5
Regardless of whats on CCTV he was still driving too close to the vehicle in front.............
 
#6
Sorry bighorse but I'm with BB51 on this one. The fact that you were relying on being able to scoot up the inside of this car if it stopped indicates that you were too close.
 
#7
I had one a bit similar to this (car pulled out in front of me and then stopped sharply at ped x-ing), and the insurance companies went 50:50.
 
#8
I can see why your insurers went 50:50 Dilfor as there's every reason that you would have been going at a speed that would have enabled you to stop in time for the pedestrian crossing. A car pulling out in front of you could have mistaken your speed as allowing them to pull out without realising they would need to stop in a short distance - hence your stopping distance is again reduced but through little fault of your own.
 
#9
Just asked the missus who is a driving insructor and she said the same as BB. Its all Hazard Perception these days, and part of that is keeping a safe distance behind the front veh to enable you to stop in case of incident.
Like others have said not what you want to hear, and being an ex biker i know the feeling.
 
#10
Horridlittleman said:
I can see why your insurers went 50:50 Dilfor as there's every reason that you would have been going at a speed that would have enabled you to stop in time for the pedestrian crossing. A car pulling out in front of you could have mistaken your speed as allowing them to pull out without realising they would need to stop in a short distance - hence your stopping distance is again reduced but through little fault of your own.
Funny - that's exactly the story I told them!
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#11
Might depend on where the car park is, if it's in a shopping centre then it may not qualify as a public road. (The majority of signs and road markings in a shopping centre are not law but adhered to by the majority of the public.)

Anyway a rear ended shunt is the shunters fault whatever the cause.
 
#12
I'm sure that although your insurers, on your behalf (with or without your agreement, by the way) will accept liability for you driving too close to the rear of the vehicle in front, as pointed out above by variously qualified posters, the other driver should have any successful claim reduced by an approrpiate amount for what is known as contributory negligence for his own actions which materially contributed towards the loss - usually anywhere from 1/4 - 1/2 of the blame. Small comfort, I know, but there you go.
 
#13
Sound like "Driving without due care and attention" to me. Did the Police get involved?
 
#14
if the turn was not signalled and cctv footage is obtained by your insurance company then you may be successful in a defence. A driver has to check mirrors before manouevre but they rarely do so. It now a case of manouevre, mirror, signal. There are times in a rear end shunt where the vehicle in front is to blame.
 
#15
Rear End Crash?

Sounds like a bad day with an over zealous date.
 
#16
Big horse - guilty I'm afraid. If it is any consolation however, the other chap could be done for due care? No, I thought it wouldn't be. Hard lines.
 
#17
BB51:

Notice I'm really far to late to chip in with anything meanful in the debate and I'm glad your insureres eventually went 50:50, which doesn't sound too far out depemnding on how close you were behind this guy, but there was a lot of erroneous legal advice on this thread, particularly from BB51, that might have deterred your claim unnecessarily.

At law, there is a split between negligence (primary liability) and contributory negligence (by the party who is not to blame). Once primary liability is established then you'll have a claim against that person, even if contributory negligence reduces your payout to nil.

If this chap had been indicating then he would not have been negligent. But he didn't indicate and so he was. He breached the laws of the road and in so doing did not give you correct notice of his intended manoevre, which meant that you could not react to avoid this. On the facts, prima facie liability lies with the driver in front.

If in doubt, just ask the question - 'would the accident have happened if the car had indicated'. This was the first 'act' which might have avoided a collision and this establishes primary liability.

However if you had left an appropriate gap, then the accident may not have happened. You therefore contributed to the occurence of the accident but you were not its cause.

That is the position at law. I have no idea what DRSA and DDE mean..
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top