Thought some of you might be interested in this article re- outcome of Court of Appeal case we have just had circulated. Seems a greater burden may be placed on overtaking motorcyclists in future !
Also interesting that "nose poking" is to be encouraged !!!! Yuck
FYI - On Lawtel Today
From: District Judge Stephen Gerlis, 14/5/2007
FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007)
CA (Civ Div) (Pill LJ, Wall LJ, Maurice Kay LJ) 3/5/2007
NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY - ROAD TRAFFIC
FORESEEABILITY : REASONABLE CARE : RECKLESS DRIVING : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : NOSE POKING : ACCEPTABLE MANOEUVRES : LACK OF EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
This case is more important than it might at first seem. The reason is that, as the Court of Appeal confirmed, many road accidents involve collisions between two vehicles, one emerging from a side road into a major road along which the other is travelling. For some years now the approach of the courts has seemed to be that, even where the emerging car "nose-pokes", i.e. slowly edges forward, he may still be 50 per cent liable for the accident which subsequently occurs. The present case puts a different spin on "nose-poking". It also deals with the common and dangerous practice of motor cycles overtaking lines of traffic. This all takes place in the light of the recent announcement that the new Highway Code is going to omit the word "accident" from its text and substitute the expression "collision". In road traffic there are no "accidents"!
The facts
The claimant was riding his motor scooter on a main road on which the speed limit was 30 mph. At the time he was overtaking a long refuse lorry which was indicating to turn left into a side road. The claimant was travelling at 30 mph. The lorry could not complete the manoeuvre until the defendant's car, which was in a side road to the left, had exited onto the main road. The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front of the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which was just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
Other relevant facts were that the refuse lorry at the time of impact had been moving very slowly; that there were only a couple of feet between the offside of the lorry and the centre of the road; the motor scooter must have been virtually on or over the centre white line; that the defendant had stopped at the junction but was travelling at some 5-8 mph when it passed the front of the refuse lorry.
Should the defendant be 50 per cent liable for the accident, as was usual in such circumstances?
The view of the Court of Appeal
In reaching its decision the appellate court reached the following conclusions:
1. The defendant was travelling "slowly and cautiously" at the time of the collision.
2. The act of the claimant in trying to overtake the refuse lorry in the manner in which he did was reckless.
3. There was hardly any room between the offside of the refuse lorry and the centre line to enable the defendant to accurately estimate the amount he would have to "nose-poke".
4. The defendant had not in fact "nose-poked" but had moved in a continuous motion, albeit slowly.
Under the circumstances the appellate court upheld the decision of the judge in the court below that the defendant was not liable for the collision between the two vehicles. However, they did express a couple of caveats. Although emerging at 5-8 mph was reasonable in the context of the present case, in the great majority of cases that would not be an acceptable speed to emerge from a minor road. The court emphasised that the defendant had not in fact "nose-poked", which might have been preferable. Even then, "nose-poking", although often necessary, is not without risks. This includes the risk that the motor cyclist might swerve in a hazardous manner in order to avoid the emerging vehicle.
Practice points:
1. This case should enable practitioners to consider that the 50/50 liability split in such cases may not be the expected outcome. Of course each case will depend on its own facts.
2. The practice of motorcyclists overtaking a line of traffic or a long vehicle on the offside, especially at speed, is almost certain to place a much greater burden on them to be attentive to emerging traffic.
I don't know how it is in the UK, but here overtaking just before or at a crossing or sideroad is considered reckless driving, no matter the vehicle. Reason being that both the one overtaking and the one on the sideroad are unable to see each other, creating a hazardous situation. This will most definately be taken into account when the responsible party needs to be determined.
Gijs
BMW R1100S |homepage |gallery
BMW K1200S 'tri-color ICBM' | ABS/ESA
throttlemeister wrote:I don't know how it is in the UK, but here overtaking just before or at a crossing or sideroad is considered reckless driving, no matter the vehicle. Reason being that both the one overtaking and the one on the sideroad are unable to see each other, creating a hazardous situation. This will most definately be taken into account when the responsible party needs to be determined.
Aside from the legal aspects, overtaking or filtering across junctions is just plain stupid.
Tis a daft thing to overtake at junctions,you just dont know what could happen.People flash others out in front of them without checking whats happening behind them.Preventive measures and lady luck riding your pillion are the key.(lady luck gets luckier the more you pay into her fund) If you know what i mean.Still no excuse for people pulling out on you with out THERE clear field of vision though.But then again,the legal profession have to make a living.Or is that killing,
gus
Put yourself in the car driver's position and the chances are you would edge out in the same manner. Doubtless all of us would, by experience, realise that a lorry trying to turn into a junction but not being able to (or doing so very slowly) might indicate that somebody is in the junction trying to come out and that it would be better to wait behind the lorry until everything sorts itself out, or to proceed very slowly in case the lorry is obstructed by a stationary object. It is not good practice to maintain the same speed as you pass the lorry in this instance. I think the ruling is about right in this instance.
My regular bi monthly London 'wake up' usually involves this sort of scenario, in past I have even attempted to overtake cars indicating right . When you are endlessly filtering through slow moving or stationary traffic its only a matter of time before your attention slips and you do something silly - so far I've always been lucky.. (touch wood)
The best one was whilst squeezing through a gap in Kings X, the car to my right turned his wheels to move left which caught my kickstart on the protruding tyre and brought the vespa to a rapid halt... I ended up half on the scooter half sprawled across his bonnet - no harm done as I was travelling at walking pace..
I think with a twist and go its probably worse, no clutch, rapid acceleration, decent brakes - not having to concentrate on actually driving the thing means that your attention can wander even more easily.. Not that fiddling with the reserve tank lever, whilst trying to change gear and negotiate traffic is any less demanding on concentration... I'm sure we've all been there.
Isn't there something somewhere about any driver pulling out of a side road has to give way to oncoming traffic from both directions, and thus is responsible for not impeding the flow of said traffic?
IE anybody turning out of a minor road is always at fault if he has not taken account of ALL vehicles on the major road?
I was "filtering" past traffic.... not speeding and there was no traffic coming the other way. There were no junctions however there was a layby on the opposite side of the road. A young lad (just past his test, mum and dad in the back) decided he wanted at the lat minute to turn right and go into the layby thus enabling him to go back the way he came.... He indicated... but just as I approached him...too late to avoid. the t595 brakes are bloody amazing... but the front whel folded..I decked it and hit his wheel arch. bike was a right off (£5950)
WHO's FAULT was it???
.......~ ~
....-(@ @)-
ooO-(__)-Ooo
Ride due west to the sunset, turn left at the Rocky Mountains. (Jeremiah Johnson)
R1100S 2003. The Fast Colour. G650 Xchallenge 2008. F650CS Black 2003 SWMBO
I'm no legal eagle, but I think it maybe your fault. From what I've read, a layby appears to be regarded as a junction, and to bear that out there's one near me with its very own statistics signpost. I've seen the police there, measuring how far a rider flew, on more than one occasion.
If you know what i mean.Still no excuse for people pulling out on you with out THERE clear field of vision though.But then again,the legal profession have to make a living.Or is that killing, 
