Crash

In article , Tom Crispin
e says...

I claim that the van driver was not indicating right when I passed
him, and would not have been as he was not in the correct position to
turn into the parking bay. If he later indicated, it was after I had
passed him or was alongside. Critically, he pulled out earlier than
could have reasonably been anticipated to reach the parking bay
because the pedestrian lights had turned red, and he saw an
opportunity to overtake one or two stationary vehicles to reach the
loading bay while oncoming traffic was held up at the lights.

Precisely.

After the van had stopped and I was on the road it was not indicating.
The driver appologised to me and I told him he was not indicating. He
said that he was to which I replied that in that case his indicators
were not working. He walked over to his van, turned on the right
turning indicators to show that they were working. If he had been
indicating, he cancelled the indicators as soon as he realised he had
hit me. This I find very dubious.

It doesn't seem particularly relevant to me whether or not he was
indicating - he should have made adequate observation before pulling
out, which he clearly failed to do. I wonder if you can demonstrate
that you were in a blind spot. Was it a box van or a regular Transit-
type body?

The fact that the van ran over my front wheel is evidence that I was
filtering slowly. Had I been cycling at a faster speed the bike would
have not ended up under the van.

There was no way that I could have reasonably anticipated the actions
of the defendant.

Indeed. He got ****ed off that the traffic had stopped when he was
nearly at his destination, and recklessly decided to drive down the
wrong side of the street to get there.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:00:30 +0100, JNugent wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

Here is a diagram of the incident:
http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/crash

The diagram is close to scale. It was drawn by tracing over a Google
Earth image. The orange line shows by progress down the road, passing
crawling or stationary traffic. The blue line shows the progress or
intended path of the van driver. ...

Out of interest, where did the van come from?

It can only have come from one of three roads approaching the
roundabout. The two roads on the right are cul-de-sacs and the road
on the left is one-way. I expect it had come from the left at the
roundabout. That is only because the driver lives in North London and
I expect he lives close to the Kerry Foods depot.

This is pure guess. I didn't see or notice the van until the position
marked on the diagram.

Tom Crispin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

Here is a diagram of the incident:
http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/crash
The diagram is close to scale. It was drawn by tracing over a Google
Earth image. The orange line shows by progress down the road, passing
crawling or stationary traffic. The blue line shows the progress or
intended path of the van driver. ...

Out of interest, where did the van come from?

It can only have come from one of three roads approaching the
roundabout. The two roads on the right are cul-de-sacs and the road
on the left is one-way. I expect it had come from the left at the
roundabout. That is only because the driver lives in North London and
I expect he lives close to the Kerry Foods depot.

This is pure guess. I didn't see or notice the van until the position
marked on the diagram.

I see.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:28:32 +0100,
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:20:09 -0500, Geoff Lane
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote in
m:

4. The defendant will rely on the case of Powell v Moody (1966)
in which an overtaking motorcyclist was held 80% liable when colliding
with a turning motorist.

You should also look at:[1]
Leeson v Bevis & Tolchard (1972) - 50% against overtaking motorcyclist.
Worsfold v Howe (1979) - 50% against overtaking motorcyclist.
Brooks v Burgess (1996) - 50% against overtaking motorcyclist.

Although - see below - I don't think any of them are applicable assuming
your diagram is accurate.

Davis v Schrogin (2006) - 100% for motorcyclist.
This might be more applicable as in this case, it was deemed that as the
motorcyclist was so close that it was impossible for him to take
avoiding action it was 100% the car drivers fault. Also car was doing a
U-turn which is closer to your example where the change to the other
side of the road occurred before the loading bay and therefore could not
reasonably be anticipated at that point - possibly even if the van's
indicator was on.


Here is a diagram of the incident:
http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/crash

The diagram is close to scale. It was drawn by tracing over a Google
Earth image. The orange line shows by progress down the road, passing
crawling or stationary traffic. The blue line shows the progress or
intended path of the van driver.

I claim that the van driver was not indicating right when I passed
him, and would not have been as he was not in the correct position to
turn into the parking bay. If he later indicated, it was after I had
passed him or was alongside. Critically, he pulled out earlier than
could have reasonably been anticipated to reach the parking bay
because the pedestrian lights had turned red, and he saw an
opportunity to overtake one or two stationary vehicles to reach the
loading bay while oncoming traffic was held up at the lights.


IMO the motorist was not turning R when he moved into you/your path. He
was himself attempting to overtake the traffic ahead of him.

Therefore you could also cite Powell v Moody: "any vehicle jumping a
queue of stationary vehicles was undertaking an operation fraught with
great hazard and which should be carried out with great care".

Although it relates to a two lane road, Crawford v Jennings (1982) might
be applicable as effectively you were, in this case, both considering
the other side of the road to be a separate lane.


It's almost certain he either wasn't indicating at all or turned on his
indicator as he started the manoeuvre. Unfortunately there's no way for
you to prove this - that's part of the reason why I now always ride with
a camera - I've been cycling along when suddenly a car turns across me -
there I am heading towards this amber light on the wing and I think "How
the hell did I miss that indicator" only to discover when I review it on
the camera that it's the first or second flash I'm seeing.
http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20070604/

Tim.

[1] Note that I've only found references to all these cases when googling,
not the cases themselves, so I'm only guessing that they might be
relevant. IANAL
http://www.motorcycle-training.f2s.com/filtering.html
http://www.davies-lavery.co.uk/Defau...&ctID=11&lID=0
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showt...t=33102&page=6


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Tom Crispin wrote in
:

If he had been
indicating, he cancelled the indicators as soon as he realised he had
hit me. This I find very dubious.

Not at all. The natural reaction to a crunch is to steer away from the
point of collision, which would cancel his indicators. So I doubt you can
rely on the indicators not showing when it was all over as evidence that he
didn't indicate. Even if he had indicated for some time, he was in
stationary traffic and you could not have anticipated that he'd pull out to
the opposite side of the road as he did.

I repeat my earlier point that Powell v Moody relates to different
circumstances that your case, which as Tim Woodall wrote is more like Davis
v Schrogin. In any case, Powell v Moody has been superceded by later case
law (see Tim's post).

I'll also repeat that his claim that you were travelling too fast is
inconsistent with his claim that he stopped to check it was all clear as
per point 2. Either his checks were inadequate because he failed to see you
filtering at a reasonable speed of less than 10 mph, or he saw you and
continued to pull out. In either case, his actions appear negligent.

Also, you might want to counter that you will rely on Davis v Schrogin, in
which the blame was apportioned 100% against the driver who carried out a
similar manouever to your van driver. As in Davis v Schrogin, your driver
did not adequately signal his intentions and when he pulled out you were so
close to the point of impact that a collision was inevitable, and thus
there is no basis for a finding of contributory negligence on your part.

However, you're going to need a good solicitor.

Good luck

Geoff

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:19:34 -0500, Geoff Lane
wrote:

If he had been
indicating, he cancelled the indicators as soon as he realised he had
hit me. This I find very dubious.

Not at all. The natural reaction to a crunch is to steer away from the
point of collision, which would cancel his indicators.

I am aware of that possibility - but see no reason to tell them of
that possibility.

Here is my draft reply to the defence. I aim to post a final version
to my solicitor next weekend.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/reply

On 13 Apr, 18:44, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:19:34 -0500, Geoff Lane
wrote:

If he had been
indicating, he cancelled the indicators as soon as he realised he had
hit me. *This I find very dubious.

Not at all. The natural reaction to a crunch is to steer away from the
point of collision, which would cancel his indicators.

I am aware of that possibility - but see no reason to tell them of
that possibility.

Here is my draft reply to the defence. *I aim to post a final version
to my solicitor next weekend.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/reply


The van driver's insurance company must think they have a good case
otherwise they'd settle. You're not claiming anything outrageous as
far as I can see.

In article , Tom Crispin
e says...
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:19:34 -0500, Geoff Lane
wrote:

If he had been
indicating, he cancelled the indicators as soon as he realised he had
hit me. This I find very dubious.

Not at all. The natural reaction to a crunch is to steer away from the
point of collision, which would cancel his indicators.

I am aware of that possibility - but see no reason to tell them of
that possibility.

Here is my draft reply to the defence. I aim to post a final version
to my solicitor next weekend.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/reply

Leave out the helmet bit because they're obviously clutching at
contributory straws.