Rider denied compensation for crash with lorry that crossed white line - | Motorcycle News | Bike News | Motorbike Videos | MCN If it was a car involved and not a bike there would be no doubt that the lorry driver was to blame, its a disgrace
Agreed, I don't see why he took partial blame for being positioned towards the center line when he is allowed to use all of the road his side of the white line !!! Madness this just proves how shite the justice system is in general, the bloke has lost a leg and seems to be innocent of any crime !
difficult, I read this on another forum and without more information it's hard to comment really. re the lines, was it unbroken white lines, was it normal road markings etc...? is the area of road tight as large lorrys will need to cross the center line when going around corners. I just feel for the poor sod and his family who lost his leg.
+2. We all do it, centre line for left hand bends and nearside for right handers, even the police riders hand book says so.
It's another situation in which the decision is based on specific wording of the situation rather than an interpretation, or adherence to the spirit, not the letter, of the law. The foundation of this decision has little to do with actual justice, whereby a road user believing himself safe based on his position on the road has been injured by another road user who, rightly or wrongly, transgressed the rules and caused the accident to occur. It has, however, got everything to do with somebody trolling through piles of reports and statements and finding an uncrossed 'T' or a dotless 'I'. Until we reach a point in the evolution of the legal process where somebody at a judicial level can say 'Yes that's a very interesting find, but it is obvious to all here that this was not the context in which it was meant, merely that in which it was reported at the time', then this kind of moral injustice will continue. This is not a miscarriage of justice. It is a triumph for pedantry.
I have seen this type of situation on a fairly frequent basis, however what people forget is that a lot more evidence will have been disclosed that has not been reported in the press, and so the story becomes somewhat lopsided and biased as they will only report in a manner that is likely to sell more papers. From the little knowledge of the case I do have, it appears that at no time have the claimants ever instructed an expert who understands the dynamics of motorcycling, and who can explain the principals of positioning, safety and view. If they had done, then I am sure that the court would have been told that riders are advised/encouraged to adopt a dominant position to maximise the view through a left hand bend but position should be sacrificed to ensure safety. But in the same vein, the truck should not encroach into the opposing carriageway or if they have to, then the speed should be adjusted and if appropriate change their position slightly. But none of this appears to have come out in evidence, and whilst it may be that the rider did not sacrifice some of his position, from what I can make out he was still within his own carriageway. So worst case scenario, he maybe might have been required to accept a degree of contributory negligence, say 10 - 20% but not 100%. Things may become clearer though when the full transcript is released, but don't make a judgement until then as the press are terrible at reporting only a small fraction of the full facts.
