Talkback: Court overturns rider's crash compensation

Not wishing to sound paranoid, but is it just me who's noticed that it is now apparently impossible for any kind of cager to be prosecuted for murdering or maiming a motorcyclist in this country?

Seems to me that the authorities now work on the basis that the motorcyclist is guilty of something/anything by default in the event of an incident, and the cager gets off scot-free automatically - look at the case of the ignorant bint driving an unroadworthy MG without a license, insurance or authorisation a few months ago; dead biker, no charges, business as usual

So is it a coincidence that all of the 'people' running our courts have simultaneously decided that our lives are worthless, or is it more likely that our beloved government are trying to make motorcycles so unattractive that we'll give them up before the EU vermin dream up new legislation effectively banning the machines?

Disgusting treatment! M/C was on his side of the road, lorry wasn't. Simple!

@ pauln_yzf

Awful story - here's a link to the details about the case

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25986

Would have been different if the rider had not accepted part liability earlier for hugging the line, lesson learnt as. Thing to note, large vehicles do have authority to cross 'the line' as some roads are not wide enough, as long as they proceed with caution. Not making excuse's here for either party, as we are without the full facts.

It's the usual us and them attitude showing it's ugly head where the law doesn't like all bikers even if it's the law abiding ones that get stuck with the stigma because of a few idiots on bikes in the past have now casted a long shadow saying that all bikers are reckless on the road. If the lorry driver had a genuine reason to cross the line say to avoid potholes or to prevent brushing the vehicle against over hanging tree branches then that's understandable but he SHOULD have pamped his horn to warn oncoming vehicles and if he didn't then he is guilty of causing a danger to other road users!

I'm a motorcyclist, bus driver and I have access to Google.

The decision is definitely open to debate, but it's not nearly as obvious as this article suggests.

What the writer fails to mention is that when the Lord Justice said "unacceptably high standard of driving" what he meant was it was unacceptable to think that the lorry driver should have to drive his vehicle with it's offside wheels in the air, being that the narrowness of the road forced the lorry into the other lane, or at least it was forced into the other lane at the corner.

The blame always lies with the person who could have reasonably avoided the accident and NOT with the one who disobeyed the Highway Code, for example, someone steps onto a crossing when you, in a car, have right of way and you hit that person, if you could have stopped but didn't, then it's your fault. Therefore, the only question is what each person could have reasonably anticipated the other to do and this is where the ambiguity come in. If the lorry driver should have presumed that the motorcyclist would cut close to the centre line, then he should have slowed down or stopped. If the motorcyclist should have anticipated that the lorry would cross the line, then it's the motorcyclists should have given more room in his lane.

My feeling is that the Judge decided that the motorcyclist was fixated on his line through the corner, and didn't properly assess the situation, whereas the lorry driver could reasonably presume that since the motorcyclist had plenty of space in his lane, he would maintain a sensible distance from the lorry. Therefore, it's the motorcyclists fault.

I agree with TwentyTrees, Im a bus drive and truck driver ( and biker ), the highway code says HGV's can use what ever part of the road they need to complete a maneuver, looks like the biker was going to fast if he couldnt change his line to avoid an on coming truck, dont forget they are limited to 56mph ( uk ones )so he couldnt have been going to fast.
I feel sorry for the guy, looks like 50/50

Or the possibility is that that the lorry driver approached the corner to fast and took it wider than he should have to avoid possibly tipping his vehicle to bring it back within his lane? I've seen plenty of HGV/buses travelling way to fast through villages at 40mph or upwards, etc, to keep on a tight schedule and even around tight bends and so end up having take it wider due to them not caring about other road users!

So, it comes down to this that YOU must assume ALL drivers are IDIOTS and drive with extreme caution!

And here was me thinking that not keeping wholly within a lane was an offense and that bikes were permitted by law to use any part of a lane.
Should we get rid of lane markings altogether?

As with most things nowadays things are not black and white. However the party crossing the white line, in this case the truck driver, should have ensured that his actions did not put other parties at risk.
If the injured party had been a car driver I think the judge might have taken a different view. As Scotsman418 says "assume all drivers are idiots" and expect to be proved right.
My family have beeen in the trucking business for 50 years and are still amazed at the stupid things we see on the road.

Was the biker turning left or right?

Holy agree about how difficult to proscute a cgae driver. I was hit by a cage driver on the wrong side of the road and when I say the wrong side I mean wholly in my lane and got a way with it saying under braking he lost control on oil.

But I did win the insurance claim although in my opinion it was way to little compensation.

Basicly, the UK roads are unpoliced. Usually there is questions and heartache after serious events. The Police very rarely deal with foreign trucks offences, mainly due to the fact that in any incident - they have to refer the truck and driver details through their foreign embassies. It is just too time consuming for the UK Police. This is not the case abroard - where there is regular big fines and banning for foreign drivers who break the law there. Until recently, a lot of UK truck operators were registering their trucks abroad too avoid high UK road tax (alot cheaper abroad), and then had the added bonus that very little bother from the Police. It is only the insurance companies that have changed this situation, because foreign trucks are now classified has 'high' risk, and so charge 'extra' premiums for them in the UK.
My advice is - always use a video camera (like a Roadhawk). And do not rely on the law (legal system) to be fair and proper. Remember also, that most foreign drivers (lefthand drive vehicles) will instinctively drive near the center of the road until they gain experience of driving on the lefthand side.

Don't get me wrong I love riding my Fireblade but all the time I get overtaken by bikers who will not stay in the line of traffic and who will go down the centre of the road down/ near to the white line. This to me is fraught with danger and is bad practice.

On another note a friend of mind had his car crushed by a foreigh HGV; the driver of the HGV could not see him as he pulled out to overtake & rammed my friend into the armco barrier under the wheels of the truck. The foreign driver could not speak english. A truck with foreigm plates ? Avoid them....

From reading all the posts I have 2 main questions:

1: If the lorry was forced over the central lane due to lack of space, were there warning signs placed by the government (or relevant authority) to warn other road users of this? Surely there should of been either restrictions for certain sized vehicles or warnings to road users that large oncoming vehicles may be crossing the central line? Could the guy sue the government for a lack of warning or proper monitoring/assessment of the road and it's users?

2: If it was deemed that they were both liable, why is the ruling 100% in the truck drivers favour?? Surely it would be logical and decent to split the compensation 50/50. i.e. if the damages amounted to £500,000 then the truck driver's insurance should be liable for only £250,000 of that payment and the biker's insurance should be liable for the other half. If there's a murder and someone is involved but didn't actually commit the murder, they don't get convicted for first degree murder, they get convicted for being an accessory to murder. They don't get set free. Using the same logic, how can the court rule that they were both in the wrong, yet the truck driver is 0% responsible??

Another thought: The Judge ruled that "A finding of negligence in this case would, to my mind, be to impose an unacceptably high standard on the driver.”

It should not be an unacceptably high standard of driving to be able to stay in your own lane. If it requires an unacceptably high standard, then that standard imposed on road users by the authorities that are in charge of the roads. This is blatantly admitting that the roads weren't suitable for the vehicle in question.

Why would it be an "unacceptably high standard" if the roads were suitable?

Doe's it say if the wagon was right or left hand drive ? Makes a difference to the poisitoning of the vehicle if it's a left hooker

Oh my, whoever is to blame, losing a leg and getting no compensation is just awful. The legal system is tragically unable to deal with real life, and as usual, the only winners are the lawyers.

he did not win his case because his solicitor was not good enough, simples

Kendizx9r, I think you have the most likely answer here....if you are involved in a crash and have a claim, NEVER accept your insurance companies recommended solicitor. Some of these companies are utter rubbish and a qualified solicitor probably never looks at your file, only a part-trained claims handling numpty. Hire a specialist motoring/biking firm.