Doesn't the witness statement place her car when your lights went green? Can the police ask them?

That is the confusing thing, the witness statement I have (which is from a reply to my solicitor) says I only travelled about 4m before hitting her. That is utter rubbish and the vid seq's and pictures shows it to be so. You can't get to within 4m of me at the line without missing the turning!
What's more at 4m there is no way I would have NOT seen her. It was a white Rover 620!
To get into the side road you have to turn early around the central traffic island and that means I would have been most of the way across the lights on impact. You're looking at 3-4 seconds or so to get across the lights which means she turned around 8-10 seconds after losing priority.
If that is the case it is touch or go whether I crossed the line first or her. Thing is I can't damn well remember!

It's that witness statement!

Ains.

Hi Ains

Sounds to me as though the whole thing happened in under a second!

I seem to remember being told that a green light means that you proceed only if the road is clear. I assume she is saying that she was already turning as you hit her and is not admitting to taking a chance and trying to beat the oncoming traffic. Also the only other witness seems to agree with her.

Were you in your own lane or were you sharing a a lane with the clio? If you were sharing a lane I imagine the police will assume that you would have accelerated away faster than the cars to get clear space. Sounds like that is where the police are coming from.

All you can do is stand your ground. I had an accident when another car hit me from the nearside as I went through a set of lights. I was sure that I had gone through on green but the woman whose car hit me was adamant that I'd gone through on red. I got the blame off the insurance companies and lost my no claims. Now when I go through a green light I slow down and look both ways before continuing. Hard lesson learnt.

I wish you the best of luck!

Phil

Yes philthy, that's about right between 1 and 2 seconds.

I was sharing a lane with the Clio, I wouldn't need to accelerate any faster than normal to clear a car unless it was a Porsche or something. Yeah I would have checked clearance but no more than that.

I pointed out in my missive to the Police that 'fast' is contentious.
1. No handbrake on a bike to release
2. Hand clutch quicker than foot
3. Was in 1st gear so didn't need to change gear (how do I know) because the bike had just been serviced and an extra plate fitted, it was hard to get neutral with the engine running. So I didn't bother trying to find it.
4. Gearing on the bike is high in 1st I need to put about 3500 rpm on before pulling away or it makes a right show and dance of getting off the line. 50mm straight thro' termi's = a lot of noise hence 'he was too fast off the lights'.

Infact, if I had dialled in 6 thou and hurled across the lights we wouldn't even be having this discussion as I would have missed her completely!

I maintain she didn't see me and was looking at the car next to me and where she was going to go.

What else I fail to understand is: why would the Police want to prosecute me? It is not like I was driving without thought, I'm amamant I misread what she was going to do, that is come across the line and stop and wait after all my lights had turned green; there is no way I would not have seen her.
That isn't DWDCA is it?
And, regardless of the experience of other drivers, how am I supposed to know how experinced a driver is at night in a 10 second viewing of the car that appears to be stopping?

Ains.

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by Ains.]

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by Ains.]

Fight it. You don't sound like a numpty, so I can't believe you would have moved off if she was obviously making the turn. IMHO the cops will ALWAYS try to blame someone for every accident, even when common sense says the victims have been hurt enough, I reckon if you make it clear you will fight this with all the evidence you have accrued they will drop it. Even if they don't, if you're evidence is a complete as you say, I would hazard to guess it raises the element of doubt, and our courts still try to prove beyond reasonable doubt!

Fight it mate, I'll chuck the first tenner into the fighting fund, anyone else?

You could not be further from the truth there I'm afraid.

Fair enough, lets have the benefit of your qulaified wisdom, because I for one have lost all faith in the police now.

Thanks Yeti, but I think I'm OK on that front as luckily I didn't cancel the insurance legal costs bit. I checked on the insurance policy and there it was. Phew!

Ains.

You'll love this.
Just received an eMail from my solicitor stating since it is now a criminal case and they are only persuing civil damages they can't represent me in court.
Best advice is to turn up and argue my case with the valid points I have shown. :puzzled:

Tell me, does it get any better than this?

Ains.

Ains

I've tried representing myself..... the result?...... a ban and a threat of contempt of court because I called the copper who booked me a liar in court....which he was.( by the way I'm not anti police...far from it. Without the police there would be anarchy)

There seem to be plenty of solicitors who specialise in bike accident cases. It could be money well spent to speak to some.

One other point, regarding priority, surely if she was going through the lights and they were on green for you, she should never have turned across your path anyway. The fact that you struck her on the near side in the front wing / door area means that you were too close to enable her to complete the turn safely? So it's her who should be done.

The only good thing about the episode is that you lived to tell the tale....and that in itself is far more important than anything else that gets thrown at you.

Chin up!

Phil