A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Crash



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 08, 03:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Crash

Some of you may recall that just under a year ago I was knocked from
my bicycle by a van turning right to reach a parking bay on the far
side of the road. The van ran over the front wheel of my bicycle. I
suffered a acromio-clavicular joint separation, and have a permanent
lump on my shoulder. I suffer no great discomfort from it now, though
I do get a clicking sensation when I swim breast stroke.

The defendent is denying liability, and is claiming I am 80:20
responsible, quoting Powell V Moody (1966).

I have just Googled Davis v Shrogin (2006), which says "A filtering
motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not
be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take
avoiding action."

Does anyone know any case law invoving a cyclist passing slow moving
traffic?

The van driver claims he was signalling right. I do not believe this
to be the case at the time that I passed the rear of the vehicle he
was driving.

The van driver claims he stopped and looked to the right. This cannot
possibly be true. Had he done so he would have seen me.

The van driver claims I "drove too fast in all the due circumstances".
My speed was about 6mph, and certainly no more than 10mph.
Ads
  #3  
Old April 13th 08, 09:23 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,323
Default Crash

Tom Crispin wrote:
Some of you may recall that just under a year ago I was knocked from
my bicycle by a van turning right to reach a parking bay on the far
side of the road. The van ran over the front wheel of my bicycle. I
suffered a acromio-clavicular joint separation, and have a permanent
lump on my shoulder. I suffer no great discomfort from it now, though
I do get a clicking sensation when I swim breast stroke.

The defendent is denying liability, and is claiming I am 80:20
responsible, quoting Powell V Moody (1966).

I have just Googled Davis v Shrogin (2006), which says "A filtering
motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not
be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take
avoiding action."

Does anyone know any case law invoving a cyclist passing slow moving
traffic?

The van driver claims he was signalling right. I do not believe this
to be the case at the time that I passed the rear of the vehicle he
was driving.


Do you have witnesses?

I believe I was knocked off the same day. I was overtaking a stationary
queue of traffic behind a bus. A 4x4 behind the bus pulled out without
looking or signalling, knocked (side swiped) me off and drove off.

I wasn't hurt but it made me realise how vulnerable I was and how little
protection I had from the law, all she had to do was to lie and say that
she was signalling.

The van driver claims he stopped and looked to the right. This cannot
possibly be true. Had he done so he would have seen me.

The van driver claims I "drove too fast in all the due circumstances".
My speed was about 6mph, and certainly no more than 10mph.


People involved in a crash always seem to have some justification as to
why it wasn't their fault, often involving lying. The trouble is that
there is often very little evidence one way or another which makes it
very difficult to prove.

Given the asymmetry or risk between motorists and cyclists I think we
should have an automatic presumption of driver liability.

Good luck but I don't fancy your chances.
  #4  
Old April 13th 08, 10:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Geoff Lane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Crash

Tom Crispin wrote in
:

The defendent is denying liability, and is claiming I am 80:20
responsible, quoting Powell V Moody (1966).


I don't think that Powell v Moody can apply here (although that doesn't
stop the driver's insurers from trying it on). Here's a quote from a
quick 'net search:

----8-----
In the case of Powell v Moody a motorbike was slowly overtaking a lorry
which had waved a car on to pull out in front of him on the main road.
As the car pulled across the front of the lorry to turn in front of it
the motorbike collided with it. The judge in that case concluded that
the motorbike rider must be incredibly careful when overtaking when he
cannot see what is in front of him. Whilst insurance companies will
always quote the Powell v Moody case as a defence to a claim it normally
does not prevent a claim being made. If a bike is overtaking traffic,
unless it is a lorry the rider can normally see ahead and assess what is
happening. If someone pulls out quickly it is not the motorcyclists
fault if they collide with them.
----8-----

However, in your case your view ahead of the the van was not obstructed,
the driver did not stop to let someone out, and you collided with the
van not a third road user. So, the circumstances in your case are very
different to the circumstances to which Powell v Moody relates.

So, unless the driver signalled in good time and/or moved to the right
to position the van for the right turn, you could claim that you had no
clue that the driver would turn. In any case, if the driver did
indicate, that doesn't give him or her carte blanche to carry out the
intended manoeuvre. The driver must exercise due care and attention.
That said, so must you. You attempted to overtake at a junction
(contrary to advice in Highway Code 167) and I suspect that you'd put
yourself in the van driver's blind spot. It's also possible that the
driver did signal but your viewing angle and/or strong sunlight masked
the signal.

In short, I suspect you won't be able to pin 100% of the blame on the
van driver but at least a good solicitor should be able to make
mincemeat of the Powell v Moody defence. Also, you might like to know
that the later case of Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard (1972) moved the
share of blame to 50:50.

Now Davis v Schrogin deals with very slow speed filtering where the
driver makes a manoeuvre (a U-turn in Schrogin's case) that could not
have been anticipated. However, in your case the van's manoeuvre could
have been anticipated (he turned right at a junction!) so I suspect
Davis v Schrogin won't apply.

HTH,

Geoff
  #5  
Old April 13th 08, 11:29 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Zog The Undeniable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 487
Default Crash

Tom Crispin wrote:
Some of you may recall that just under a year ago I was knocked from
my bicycle by a van turning right to reach a parking bay on the far
side of the road. The van ran over the front wheel of my bicycle. I
suffered a acromio-clavicular joint separation, and have a permanent
lump on my shoulder. I suffer no great discomfort from it now, though
I do get a clicking sensation when I swim breast stroke.

The defendent is denying liability, and is claiming I am 80:20
responsible, quoting Powell V Moody (1966).

I have just Googled Davis v Shrogin (2006), which says "A filtering
motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not
be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take
avoiding action."

Does anyone know any case law invoving a cyclist passing slow moving
traffic?

The van driver claims he was signalling right. I do not believe this
to be the case at the time that I passed the rear of the vehicle he
was driving.

The van driver claims he stopped and looked to the right. This cannot
possibly be true. Had he done so he would have seen me.

The van driver claims I "drove too fast in all the due circumstances".
My speed was about 6mph, and certainly no more than 10mph.


I've always thought filtering is at your own risk, although filtering up
the outside (as I understand from your post) is normally more acceptable
than filtering on the inside.

Nevertheless, he caused an accident by not checking his mirrors or
looking over his shoulder, so a decent lawyer should get a result for you.
  #6  
Old April 13th 08, 11:42 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Crash

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:31:28 -0500, Geoff Lane
wrote:

Now Davis v Schrogin deals with very slow speed filtering where the
driver makes a manoeuvre (a U-turn in Schrogin's case) that could not
have been anticipated. However, in your case the van's manoeuvre could
have been anticipated (he turned right at a junction!) so I suspect
Davis v Schrogin won't apply.


He didn't turn right at a junction. He swerved across the road to get
into a loading bay on the opposite side. I was ahead or nearly ahead
of the van when he started his manoeuvre. I was clobbered on the back
of my head by his wing mirror just before I went down.
  #7  
Old April 13th 08, 12:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Geoff Lane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Crash

Tom Crispin wrote in
:

Now Davis v Schrogin deals with very slow speed filtering where the
driver makes a manoeuvre (a U-turn in Schrogin's case) that could not
have been anticipated. However, in your case the van's manoeuvre could
have been anticipated (he turned right at a junction!) so I suspect
Davis v Schrogin won't apply.


He didn't turn right at a junction. He swerved across the road to get
into a loading bay on the opposite side. I was ahead or nearly ahead
of the van when he started his manoeuvre. I was clobbered on the back
of my head by his wing mirror just before I went down.


Ah, my apologies! That, of course, changes everything and you may well
be able to use Davis v Schrogin. AFAICT, the essential elements of that
are that the driver's manoeuvre could not be anticipated, that the
traffic was moving "at a crawl", that the rider was filtering past that
traffic at a reasonable speed, and there was insufficient time for the
rider to react. If these four elements fit, I truly hope it works out
for you. However, the driver has only to show that one of these elements
were not met (e.g. that on the balance of probability he was signalling
- and so his manoeuvre could be anticipated) and AFAICT Davis v Schrogin
goes out of the window. You say he is both claiming that he was
signalling and that you were travelling with excessive speed - so you've
probably got a fight on your hands. At the very least, Davis v Schrogin
puts the onus on the driver to carefully check before manoeuvering,
which you can hopefully use to lever a settlement more in your favour.

Hopefully, you'll at least be able to fend off their citing Powell v
Moody by showing the conditions of that case are very different to those
of your own, and if that fails you can use Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard
to move the split to 50:50.

That said, here's a few more thoughts: He says that he checked and
didn't see you yet he also claims that you were travelling excessively
fast. If he didn't see you, how can he make such a claim? If he did see
you, why did he continue the manoeuvre? At the very least, his testimony
is inconsistent, which should do wonders to undermine his credibility
and thus his claim of signalling.

HTH & good luck,

Geoff
  #8  
Old April 13th 08, 01:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Crash

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:20:09 -0500, Geoff Lane
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote in
:

Now Davis v Schrogin deals with very slow speed filtering where the
driver makes a manoeuvre (a U-turn in Schrogin's case) that could not
have been anticipated. However, in your case the van's manoeuvre could
have been anticipated (he turned right at a junction!) so I suspect
Davis v Schrogin won't apply.


He didn't turn right at a junction. He swerved across the road to get
into a loading bay on the opposite side. I was ahead or nearly ahead
of the van when he started his manoeuvre. I was clobbered on the back
of my head by his wing mirror just before I went down.


Ah, my apologies! That, of course, changes everything and you may well
be able to use Davis v Schrogin. AFAICT, the essential elements of that
are that the driver's manoeuvre could not be anticipated, that the
traffic was moving "at a crawl", that the rider was filtering past that
traffic at a reasonable speed, and there was insufficient time for the
rider to react. If these four elements fit, I truly hope it works out
for you. However, the driver has only to show that one of these elements
were not met (e.g. that on the balance of probability he was signalling
- and so his manoeuvre could be anticipated) and AFAICT Davis v Schrogin
goes out of the window. You say he is both claiming that he was
signalling and that you were travelling with excessive speed - so you've
probably got a fight on your hands. At the very least, Davis v Schrogin
puts the onus on the driver to carefully check before manoeuvering,
which you can hopefully use to lever a settlement more in your favour.

Hopefully, you'll at least be able to fend off their citing Powell v
Moody by showing the conditions of that case are very different to those
of your own, and if that fails you can use Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard
to move the split to 50:50.

That said, here's a few more thoughts: He says that he checked and
didn't see you yet he also claims that you were travelling excessively
fast. If he didn't see you, how can he make such a claim? If he did see
you, why did he continue the manoeuvre? At the very least, his testimony
is inconsistent, which should do wonders to undermine his credibility
and thus his claim of signalling.


Here are full details of his claim.

1. It is admitted than an accident occurred on the day, and at
the palce and between the vehicles as alleged in the particulars of
the claim.

2. It is denied that the defendent was negligent as alleged in
the particulars of claim or at all. Each and every allegation of
negligence alleged against the defendent is specifically denied. The
defendent will say that he stopped and checked to ensure the road was
clear, indicated and proceeded to turn right into the loading bay on
the opposite side of the road when the claimant cyclist, in overtaking
the defendent's turning vehicle, collided with the defendents
correctly proceeding vehicle.

3. The accident was caused wholly or in part by the negligence of
the claimant.

Particulars of Negligence

The claimant was negligent in that he:

i) Proceeded to overtake the defendent's vehicle despite the
defendent indicating his intention to turn right;
ii) Attempted to overtake the defendent's turning vehicle when it
was clearly unsafe to do so;
iii) Drove too fast in all the due circumstances;
iv) Failed to have regard for other road users and, in particular,
the defendant;
v) Failed to stop, slow down or in any way howsoever to manage or
control his bicycle so as to avoid colliding with the defendant's
vehicle.

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.

5. No admissions are made as to any matter of injury, loss or
damage whether as alleged or at all and the claimant is put to strict
proof in this regard. Causation is denied.

6. No admissions are made as to the injuries as set out in the
medical reports of Mr T W Odedun and the claimant is put to strict
proof in this regard. The defendant may seek to put questions to the
claimant's expert and/or seek to rely on their own medical evidence.

7. The claimant's claim for repairs to damaged bicycle as pleaded
in item 1 of the schedule of special damages annexed to the
particulars of the claim can be agreed, subject to liability.

8. The claimant's claim for miscellaneous expenses for the
pleaded sum of £100 is not agreed as no documentation or breakdown has
been provided as to how the claimant has arrived at this figure. The
claimant is put to strict proof as to this head of claim.

9. The claimant's claim for damaged key ring for the pleaded sum
of 50 pence is not agreed as no documentation has beed disclosed in
support of this head of claim.

10. The claimant's claim for damaged trousers, damaged cycling
shoes, cycling shoes cleats and waterproof panniers as pleaded in
items 4 to 7 of the schedule of special damages annexed to the
particulars of claim can be agreed, subject to liability.

11. The claimant's claim for interest can be agreed under Section
69 of The County Court's Act 1984 at such rate of such period as the
court deems fit.


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.

The witness, standing at the bus stop, observed my entire progress
from the roundabout and the crash. She is known to me being the
mother of a child in my class.

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.

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.
  #9  
Old April 13th 08, 02:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Crash

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?
  #10  
Old April 13th 08, 02:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Scandrett[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Crash

Tom Crispin wrote on 13/04/2008 13:28:
Here is a diagram of the incident:
http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/ph...tilation/crash


Very minor point - if this diagram is to be used in official proceedings
you might like to ensure that the traffic lights are the right way up! :-)

Peter

--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/
Email: Remove the suffix to reply
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-B-K Crash Bill C Racing 0 March 5th 08 06:46 PM
The Crash William O'Hara Techniques 2 September 26th 06 03:27 AM
Now That's A Crash! TBF::. Mountain Biking 10 November 13th 04 09:06 AM
My First Crash Mark Thompson UK 2 November 25th 03 07:37 PM
Crash!!! Erik van Leeuwen Racing 28 July 15th 03 04:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.