firstly, the actual idea that someone here had about becoming a ‘witness’ is ludicrous and i hope, not seriously intended…That is a clear case of Perverting the course of justice and both the poster and his ‘witness’ will get jail time for that…
Moving on.
This is not a case of ‘filtering’.
filtering is when you move between vehicles that are going in the same direction.(between lanes)
What we have here is clear cut overtaking.
Overtaking when not in a safe position to do so.
You NEVER overtake on the approach to a junction because of this very reason…vehicles moving into and out of the junction…
Your counterclaim will be scrutinised as well…as far as your injuries…were Police called? Police deal with all injury RTC’s and it will be deemed your injuries were not as bad as you are making out.
I’m afraid it would seem you are 100% to blame for the RTC in the eyes of insurers…
You overtook when unsafe to do so and on the approach to a junction.
Sorry, to be the bearer of bad news mate but your hopes are getting bolstered here and it’s not that clear cut.
Thanks for the sense check, filtering was probably not the correct term here. I see your point about the junction, although it was not a major junction, merely a residential side road - technicality, but just want to be as precise as possible.
The car did not indicate, and i am assuming did not check mirrors.
I have hospital records to prove that I had a concussion, the police were not called at the time.
Also, in her claim, she described the accident as me
“Emerged into the path of an oncoming vehicle” - basically, she is claiming i pulled out of a junction into her. Where do i stand regarding the factual inaccuracy of her claim? (She also put down an incorrect license plate number for my bike)
Excellent article! Thank you for passing this on. I think I am not in a ‘filtering’ issue anymore, as the previous posts deduced, but the wording and approach are both spot on and could be applied to my case. Many thanks. A
There is pratcially no where in central London where you can overtake that isnt adjacent to a minro road entering the junction, there is case law available thats would exonerate overtaking near a junction, please remember each case gets decided on its own merits!
Fellow riders, I have a victory and a dillema to report:
Victory - Turns out i have the crappiness of Vauxhall’s residual values to thank on this one. Her Nova is worth £150 and her insurance excess is £200, therefore she dropped both the solicitor’s and insurance claims. Result.
Dillema (both moral and financial) - Do i take it personnal and go after the bat? Standard rules of engagement, she fired first, therefore I’m entitled to a retort. However, being a biker, and this being London, there are different scenarios resulting from making a claim:
a) 100% her liability - I win, big. All my costs are covered and no claims bonus stays in tact.
b) 50:50 hers and my liability - According to dancbr600rr and Rider Support, this is the most common outcome (or a variation on this theme, e.g. 70:30) in London. Basically blame is allocated to both parties, and her insurance pays for 50% of my costs of bike, gear and personnal injury. Here’s the interesting part. At this point, I have accepted some liability, but I can only pay up to 50% of £150 (value of her car) in damages, otherwise the car’s a writeoff, which I can settle in cash and the insurance company doesn’t need to be involved. No claims remains.
c) 100% my liability - I lose, it’s a fair cop. No win, no fee, so no cost to the insurance anyway
So, here are the outcomes. No claims should remain in tact regardless, however, dancbr600rr mentioned that if you notify insurers that you had an accident, even if no claim is made, the cost can go up. Has anyone experienced this?
Who thinks i should go for it? Who has reservations? As always, the comments of the biker community are greatly appreciated.
"Mr Schrogin was stuck in a traffic jam in his car on a straight road. Mr Davis was riding a motorcycle along the same road in the same direction and was able to overtake the stationary queue as nothing was coming in the opposite direction. Mr Schrogin decided to leave the queue by executing a U-turn. Although Mr Davis’ motorcycle was visible, Mr Schrogin did not see him until his car collided with the motorbike. Mr Schrogin accepted in evidence that he was looking the wrong way. Mr Davis first saw Mr Schrogin’s car moving towards the kerb in preparation for the u-turn and was no more than five cars’ length back from the point of impact.
The trial judge found Mr Schrogin negligent in making the u-turn without looking properly, and that Mr Davis was not to blame. Mr Schrogin argued that Mr Davis had accepted that he had paused to react and was contributory negligent. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Davis was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, so there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence.
Comment: In previous decisions, motorcyclists have borne in excess of 50% of liability. The Appeal Court’s unwillingness to challenge the decision of the judge’s finding confirms each case will be decided upon its own facts."
I’m surprised at you mate. After the discussions you had about wanting to join the Police and you’re talking about committing perjury and risking time inside.
I don’t mean to sound rude mate, but if you’re willing to risk your own liberty like this then there is not a chance in hell that I would ever want to work with you. You may be a nice bloke and all that but I and many others of my kind wouldn’t want to risk everything over something as daft as this. If you’re willing to risk your own liberty over something minor, what would you risk other people’s liberty for ?!?!?!?
Pork has told you what the score is, take it or leave it.
If I’ve read this right…Basically if you’re lying you have a good chance of being found out (IMHO) Unless you are an accomplished liar you are under pressure in a court room. You swear an oath and there you are standing up giving evidence. It’s not a comfortable situation to be in and pressure builds up.
What I’m saying is that if you are coming forward as a witness and the trial is for a serious offence then bet your life the legal team has gone over your statement and probably knows it better than you do. As PS said if you pop up later on and come forward you’d have to answer questions about why you came forward late for a start.
It’s the legal reps job to discredit your evidence. It’s not nice but they will test your evidence and re ask questions in different ways. Yes the presiding judge will offer you some protection however do not be fooled if you come across as being a bit full of yourself you’ll just as likely be left to it for a bit - especially as the judge is probably the most experienced ‘barrister / legal mind’ in the Court Room at the time of you giving evidence so is even better placed to spot a wrongun.
Being a convincing liar is very, very hard. Your body language will invariably give you away, convincing those questioning you to dig harder and sharper.
I’d rather never tell a lie. Being economical with the truth is another matter, sometimes it can save lives.
Someone likes to live life on the edge.