RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

This case took place on the 12th of January, and is another example of why riders should avoid overtaking on the approach to a junction (even when that junction is on your left) and where there is a hatched area on the approach.

Rider was held to be 80% responsible for the cause of the crash.


VINCENT RINGE v EDEN SPRINGS (UK) LTD (2012)

[2012] EWHC 0014 (QB)

QBD (David Pittaway QC) 12/1/2012

PERSONAL INJURY - NEGLIGENCE - ROAD TRAFFIC

APPORTIONMENT : ARTICULATED VEHICLES : CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE : MOTORCYCLES : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : SPEEDING : COLLISION BETWEEN MOTORCYCLE AND VAN : VAN EMERGING ONTO MAIN CARRIAGEWAY WITHOUT SEEING MOTORCYCLE : LIABILITY OF BOTH DRIVERS

Although a van driver should not have emerged from a junction onto a main carriageway when he did not have a clear view of approaching traffic, a motorcyclist bore considerable responsibility for the resulting accident because he had been significantly exceeding the speed limit and had overtaken a lorry in an improper way immediately before the collision.

The court was required to determine liability in a claim for damages relating to personal injuries sustained by the claimant motorcyclist (R) in a road traffic accident involving a van driver (W) employed by the defendant company. R had been driving on a single carriageway with a 40 mph speed limit, on which the northbound and southbound carriageways were separated by a hatched area bordered by broken lines. R had overtaken an articulated lorry by driving in the hatched area. W had emerged from a junction onto the carriageway, intending to turn right. Once R had overtaken the lorry he saw W and began to brake, but he collided with W's offside door. R alleged that his speedometer had read 50 mph when he overtook the lorry. W claimed that the lorry had been approximately 60 metres away when he had emerged from the junction, and that he had thought that he had enough space to make his manoeuvre. Eyewitnesses gave evidence on R's speed prior to his braking. The court considered (i) W's liability; (ii) contributory negligence.

HELD: (1) W should have waited until he had a clear view of the road to his right before attempting to make his manoeuvre, Powell v Phillips (1972) 3 All ER 864 CA (Civ Div), Heaton v Herzog (2008) EWCA Civ 1636, (2009) RTR 30 and Farley v Buckley (2007) EWCA Civ 403, (2007) 104(21) LSG 27 considered. The size of the lorry was such that he did not have a clear view of approaching traffic, so was unable to see if any vehicle was overtaking the lorry (see paras 29, 32-35 of judgment). (2) R bore considerable responsibility for the accident: he was an experienced motorcyclist who was familiar with the road and with the type of traffic that usually travelled on it. R was aware that there were junctions and that the hatched area was not intended to be used as an overtaking lane. It was unnecessary for him to enter the hatched area to overtake, and it was not safe to do so. He breached the Highway Code when he overtook the lorry. Further, R was travelling at a speed significantly exceeding the speed limit. R's evidence that he had seen that he was travelling at 50 mph was not accepted, because he had shown afterwards that he had limited recollection of the accident. From the eyewitness evidence, it was probable that R was travelling at a speed of between 60 and 70 mph. Accordingly, contributory negligence was assessed as 80 per cent (paras 36-43).

Judgment for claimant in part

TC wrote:Do you overtake when approaching a junction on your left?

Generally no - but if the other vehicle is slowing to turn left, the road is clear then yes - it's my right of way. If something was waiting to pull out I'd exercise more caution in my decision as I'm less concerned about post accident liability than mid-accident bone crunching. If I couldn't see what's waiting then I'd almost certainly hang back - another opportunity always comes along when you are on a bike.

Surely the point about that ruling was that the bike was speeding and had overtaken improperly (though 80% against the biker still seems mad when the van should not have pulled out without having a clear view).

I presume the hatched area had a solid border if it was deemed to be an improper overtake.

I would hope that if you did it at a safe speed and the hatched area was dashed, then the bike would be 0% liable.

Even before reading that I would have said the guy was 100% wrong for overtaking something at a junction whilst a car was coming out.

D-Rider wrote:
Surely the point about that ruling was that the bike was speeding and had overtaken improperly (though 80% against the biker still seems mad when the van should not have pulled out without having a clear view).

I presume the hatched area had a solid border if it was deemed to be an improper overtake.

I would hope that if you did it at a safe speed and the hatched area was dashed, then the bike would be 0% liable.

Speed on its own cannot be held against the rider, in other words it is not for the rider to prove that he was under the speed limit, but for the third party to prove he was exceeding the speed limit.

Where the hatchings was controlled by a broken line it is still a should not (as opposed to a must not), but the Judge has decided that the circumstances surrounding the overtake were inapprorpiate for the circumstances and therefore taken into account the evidence of what appeared to be inaapropriate speed for the circumstances, coupled with entering the hatched area and the fact that the rider also had a limited view.

Liability always comes down to the evidence and what can be established on the balance of probablility, unlike the criminal justice system where it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.

Simple answer for me is NO, but if the car in front was turning into this junction, nothing was coming towards me and I could clearly see there was no vehicle waiting to come out of the junction, I would overtake the turning car.
In earlier years I would have been more likely to overtake but not these days.

Rider was at fault IMHO

He could not see through the artic - ergo he assumed it was clear... The car driver assumed a car could not be overtaking so pulled out....

I think the moral is :
Always ride defensively

This is a difficult area. We all know every road user must drive with due care and attention, Hoping your van can make it out in front of the lorry is not an example of d/c/a. Sorry but the same can be said for riding over the cross hatch markings approaching a junction. Its a harsh judgement against the rider , I would have th ought 60/40 van / bike fairer. Shit does happen when deaf dumb and blind drivers emerge from junctions,
Epetition allowing us to shoot them ?

fatboy wrote:This is a difficult area. We all know every road user must drive with due care and attention, Hoping your van can make it out in front of the lorry is not an example of d/c/a. Sorry but the same can be said for riding over the cross hatch markings approaching a junction. Its a harsh judgement against the rider , I would have th ought 60/40 van / bike fairer. Shit does happen when deaf dumb and blind drivers emerge from junctions,
Epetition allowing us to shoot them ?

I don't understand your reasoning?

The motorcyclist contributed to hos own misfirtune.

Hatchings should have immidiately flagged up a warning to the rider that he was in an area where there is a know hazard.

He then tried to go past a vehicle considerably larger than himself which means that his presence was blocked from the view of other road users.

His speed was inappropriate, although not initself contributory.

He was an experienced rider who knew the road and therefore knew that the junction was just ahead of him and therefore he should have anticipated the possibility of a vehicle pulling out on the basis that only a large slow moving vehicle could be seen approaching.

I think he was lucky to get 80/20.

Had it gone 60/40, I would have been advising that the defendant appeal even though I deal primarily with bikes.

Yeah, soulds like a bit of a stupid one on from the rider. 80/20 split is probably the best he could have hoped for.

If you are stupid enough to try and overtake across a junction then you should be prepared to accept the consequenses. As D-Rider said, on a bike, there would probably have been another opportunity to overtake a couple of minutes later.

Dale

Nit-picking here but surely it's not actually called a dual carriageway if there is not a barrier in the middle?
Nothing to do with the outcome though. It still seems a bit harsh at 80/20.

The rider couldn't see and still overtook, the driver couldn't see and still pulled out. Why did he think it was impossible for a car to be overtaking if it was a dual carriageway?

BikerGran wrote:Nit-picking here but surely it's not actually called a dual carriageway if there is not a barrier in the middle?

There does not need to be a central barrier for it to still be a dual carriageway

Fair judgement I think. Experience can also contribute to greater risk taking, and since he 'knew' the road, even more so. Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. This case just proves the point.

For once, I'm agreeing with the courts.. Must be going soft

If i could se there was nothing there then yes. I never overtake if there is a right hand junction.

Wasthe van White ?
End of argument

flatlander wrote:Wasthe van White ?
End of argument

I resent that being a white van man