was involved in a filtering accident last year. passing a line of cars when one of them turned right on me. no real damage to my bike really as i kept it upright but this vw had half it’s front wing torn open (crash bungs have more than one purpose). no witnesses so was looking at proportion blame after getting advice from several legal sources.
anyway got a cheque through the post last week stapled to a blank comp slip. phoned up my insurance company and they informed me it was my no claims bonus reinstatement. looks like i’ve been found 100% in the right!
seems like the tide is changing boys and girls. don’t know any more details yet but i don’t really care! 3 years no claims should sort my insurance out just fine. so if you do get involved in a filtering accident fight your corner. looks like the law isn’t so one sided after all now
I’m told (always a dubious source) that there was a legal judgement a little while back that separated “filtering” (passing between lines of stationary traffic or undetaking) from overtaking.
Which is what you are doing passing stationary or slow moving traffic on your left.
This is the excuse insurance companies have used to “apportion blame” for some years. Never did see that one. If someone changes lanes from left to right, it’s their duty to check behind.
yeah needless to say it put a BIG smile on my face. my insurance is going to be £500 cheaper come renewal time :w00t:
interesting one old guy. i spoke to white daltons who as you probably know are proper legally trained barristers that ride bikes. they told me to go for 50/50. i was prepared to accept that. i asked for the third party to send me details of their damage claim. that took about 2 months to come through and since receiving it i haven’t done much. just been trying to string it out for as long as poss (was gonna pay for the damage myself to keep my no claims but wanted to do this as close to renewal time as poss - just in case i bin it ;)) then all of a sudden this happens! so yeah, it seems something may have changed recently. either that or the sketch i drew did me a huge favour!
i know the case law they used to use was well out of date (harks back to the 70s when a bike was overtaking a tanker?!?!) and have heard of new cases where the biker was found 100% in the right. but as the solicitors said they could come with up case law that finds me in the right, and the 3rd party could come up with case law that finds them in the right. that’s why they suggest 50/50. hmmmmm interesting one. i’ll post up more details when i find them out. almost reluctant at the mo just in case they’ve made a mistake!
The law has changed. Cant remember the details though Bike magazine has reported on it. Precident was set that it was 80/20 in favour of the car driver on some legal case set in the 70’s, I think so dont quote me as i’m not sure of the exact details. Anyways, someone challenged it and it was found in their favour:)
Good news for us and bad news for the cage drivers
I’d kinda like tothink that we could expect a bit more equity and common sense from the courts and insurance companies from now on.
Do you mind if I don’t hold my breath while waiting for that?
Er…years ago when I had my (one and only) brand new push bike stolen, my Dad told me that “Insurance is for paying, not claiming”
A maxim that has proved quite accurate for the last half century. I pay my premiums promptly, they take for ever to pay me what I’m due after treating me as if a con artist.
The law hasn’t changed, but the body of case law that has built up includes more up to date examples - most insurers use Boner Vs Shathead or whatever that silly case was from the 1930’s.
It’s not carte blanche to pass traffic queues on your rear wheel though. I’d much rather remain upright than hit the deck and be “in the right”.
Sorry, My bad terminollogy. No, as I said I cant remember the exact details, but it is either the case that set the precident in the claims court for years was either challenged or a case was tried on it’s own merrit and the findings came out that the car driver was infact negligent. The bit that powerpuffgirl nice and kindly found for us. (Thanks)But either way the insurers cant claim negligence on the motorcyclist for filtering anymore.:PCant remember, aaa, old age and altzhiemers setting in. Who are you??:D;) Where am I? and what’s that wet stain doing there???:blink:
and it’s a fair and true comment that you’re best of avoiding this sort of claim all together. although that’s easier said than done when you ride the london rush hours everyday, 12 months of the year, in all weathers
it’s just nice to know SOME cagers can’t drive like blind thoughtless tw(ats) anymore and get away with it
but this vw had half it’s front wing torn open (crash bungs have more than one purpose). no witnesses so was looking at proportion blame after getting advice from several legal sources.
My bad terminollogy. No, as I said I cant remember the exact details, but it is either the case that set the precident in the claims court for years was either challenged or a case was tried on it’s own merrit and the findings came out that the car driver was infact negligent. The bit that powerpuffgirl nice and kindly found for us. (Thanks)But either way the insurers cant claim negligence on the motorcyclist for filtering anymore.:PCant remember, aaa, old age and altzhiemers setting in. Who are you??:D;)
Where am I? and what’s that wet stain doing there???:blink: