For clarification on the zig zags, here is the Highway code para, less the mention about parking:
191… You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
You can overtake the lead vehicle provided the crossing is not in use and the vehicles are queuing due to congestion.
I would agree, so long as you are sure it is not in use, obviously. You would have to be careful that there wasn’t anyone obscured by the lead vehicle before you went past it.
To my eyes it still looked like the scooter rider was more responsible. He did not ride taking in to account potential dangers and the car driver needs to stick his bonnet out to be able to see if there are any bikes any way.
Would be interested to hear the opinion of our resident coppers.
Some interesting points here but from the description seems he was riding like an idiot with little regard for himself so I hope he gets the blame he deserves and learns a lesson before he does some serious damage to himself or some one else.
I saw a lady on a scooter go down in a very similar manner near Clapham a few weeks ago. She had also just gone the wrong side of a traffic island that I was waiting at 500 yards before she crashed.
She didn’t actually hit the car that was emerging, but braked hard and locked the front. I picked her up and made sure she was OK but had little sympathy.
Advice I was given is to filter as far away from the traffic that you can, even on the other side of the road if possible. That way you can see a car emerging earlier and they are more likely to see you as well.
Seems to me there are some strange opinions here…
Looks clear-cut to me- the guy wanting to turn right should not have moved into the gap left by the van unless he could see the way was clear for the whole of his manoeuvre. If he couldn’t see he should have waited until the van had moved off. Simple.
Not as clear as you think,the law states that once you are in a controlled area (inside the zig zags either side of a crossing you can’t overtake) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—- to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or - to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/24/made Therefore from the car drivers perspective the road was clear, as it is against the law to overtake the van in this case.
The way this reads, was the scooter rider essentially overtaking through a junction? Thought that was a no-no?
Interesting debate, this very very nearly happened to me once, when like ukcanuck I was driving the car.
I very nearly took a bike down pulling out of a junction to turn right where a car had stopped to let me out. I spotted him in time and managed to stop, but was pretty shaken up and spoke to a copper mate of mine, who said that it categorically would have been the bikers fault. His argument was that filtering does not automatically create an extra lane of traffic. The bike was filtering/overtaking outside his lane and therefore should have been paying additional attention to any possible hazards. You, as the car driver, can’t foresee that someone isn’t travelling with the ambient flow, which has stopped to give way to you.
I can understand his argument, but wouldn’t be too sure which way it would go in court.
I am no legal expert and whatever the law says about apportioning blame it seems to me that whatever the scooter was doing it can't really be his fault regardless of the zig-zag lines. If a car drives into a section of road the car driver can't see then it is his fault, particularly in this case as he could have simply waited until the van had moved on and the traffic had cleared allowing him to see where he was going. If it was a little old lady walking across the road where there were zig-zag lines then how would that be the little old ladies fault? Put it another way- if a car driver decided to shut his eyes and turn out of a side junction causing him to collide with something surely it would be his fault for having his eyes shut. If he can't see past the van he might as well have his eyes shut. He can't rely on the zig-zag lines as a shield of invincibility just as he can't rely on the misplaced courtesy of the van driver...all IMO :).
A bit of a digression but in a different scenario if the car turning right couldn't see because there was an empty van actually parked near to the junction which was obscuring his view he would be within his rights to edge forward far enough to be able to see the whole road before he turned. In this scenario, on a clear road an approaching scooterist would have time to react to the emerging bonnet of the car and to allow enough room to pass in order to be seen and not hit. Of course if the law was equable it should really be either the parked van drivers fault for leaving it so close to a junction that it obscured the view of the approaching traffic on the road or, you could argue, the authorities fault for allowing parking too close to a junction.
The scooterist could not see past van either (reason he hit car) but decided to pass van anyway?
If it was a pedestrian that stepped out instead of a car he would have hit them as well.
Nope the scooterist couldn’t see past the van, but perhaps he did not know there was a road on the left and assumed it was ok to filter outside the traffic without having a good view of the nearside kerb.
Commercial Street is fairly narrow at this point, especially with a road on the left and right and the car driver pretty much has to almost complete his right turn before he can see anything on the outside of the traffic.
Obviously I have replayed the scenario over and over in my mind and I am actually fairly certain that the car driver did not emerge with caution, but instead just pulled out because the van driver gave him a signal to do so.
I guess given all this the accident was 50/50. The scooter rider was over-taking, not riding in a legitmate lane and therefore must exercise caution with an overtaking manouvre. At the same time the car driver almost certainly assumed it was completely safe to turn right, because the van driver let him go and did not edge out slowly to give any potential other traffic a chance to see him emerging.
So whilst my initial thought had been that the scooter rider was more to blame, I actually think they were equally to blame. Either way I hope the rider is ok, as he was complaining of back pain after the accident.
However, If you actually read the FULL text of that link you’ll see you’re totally wrong! :
Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—
(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.
Well fun as this is, the fact is that if the scooter rider had been using better road sense he wouldn’t have been lying on the floor with a smashed up bike. Perhaps this is what we should b focusing on…or are we all preparing for our law exams?
I am surprised T.C. hasn’t posted.
One of the cases he talks about a lot, Powell v Moody, involved just such an accident and the rider was found to have contributory negligence for the accident.
Though the facts are not identical, they are close enough for me to think that the scooter rider would be found to have the same level of contributory negligence. 80% / 20% in favour of the car driver.
When filtering past a junction, when you know there is a junction, and you cannot see the junction clearly, the courts have interpreted all of the above law to mean that you should exercise some care.
Add the Zig Zag lines and that 20% might evaporate.
Still can’t see how that makes me totally wrong ? As waxy said :
“The copper I gave my statement to said the scooter shouldn’t have been over-taking on zig-zag lines approaching a crossing!”
If the car pulled out in a careless manner as waxy is thinking it might have, then it’s a different situation and it will come down to witness statements etc. Either which way were on pretty thin ground when it comes to filtering and I guess this is why lawyers make such good money.
I’d hate to think that the van driver who seemed to be doing a courteous thing, would get the blame.
From my non-legal perspective I would say that the blame is squarely on the car for emerging from the side road when he couldn’t see beyond the van. The scooter was filtering so should have exercised care but who says he wasn’t? The car driver couldn’t see, drove out and hit him. It wouldn’t matter if the scooter rider was doing 5mph he would have been hit. Car drivers fault but the law says otherwise I know. The law is wrong sometimes imo.
I suspect this statement “…It wouldn’t matter if the scooter rider was doing 5mph he would have been hit…” is probably true, but the guy showed no caution whatsoever.
I’d love to know how this one pans out. It’s quite an interesting situation.
Fortunately the guy is okay and hopefully he’ll at least realise that he could have done a lot to prevent this himself . Irregardless who was in the right or wrong, the simple fact that we as motorcyclists will always come off a lot worse from a collision with a car means we have to be as cautious as possible.