Undue care and attention for me?
 

Here's the scenario.
It's dark and dry (18:50hrs) and I'm on my way home from the Staffs bike show having displayed the SP4S there.
I pull up at a set of lights that are RED, next to a black Clio I'm on the outside of the car in the outside lane.

Lights turn green and I accelerate (not fast) away from the lights. Next thing i know I'm flying. :puzzled: Enough adrenalin to make a phone call to Linda; Help I'm in trouble T-boned outside ASDA, then collapse into the middle of the road where the Police find me; then the next thing I remember is it's 22:30 and I'm in hospital.

Apparently a car turned right in front of me and I collected it just behind the front wheel of the car.

I have vague recollections of the RTC, no more than that.

The witness in the black Clio has said it was my fault because I should have waited for the other car turning right to complete the turn and I accelerated from the lights too fast. The bruises on my left foot tell me I was changing up, so short shifting; therefore not blasting away from the light as she says.

Interviewed by the Police but have no witness statements and since I have only partial memory and at the time no idea where I was in relation to any traffic my statement is not the best.

I get a letter saying Driver Improvement for you! OK says I, but in signing the forms I do not admit liability as I am not sure of my legal position.
I then go back to the lights, in the car and shoot vid' sequences of the tights and their timing. From the other cars side, she loses priority (right filter) after 3 seconds then 5 seconds later my lights turn green. She lost priority and still came through.
I have sent the solicitor, my insurance and the Police these vid' sequences and asked for the undue care and attention to be dropped.

Today I get through the post the following (eMail from Linda)
"Got a letter from the police this morning-you are not going to like it-they have decided there is sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution against you for driving without due care and attention. They have arranged for a summons to be issued after your return from overseas."

I have already had one U2U from a serving Police Traffic officer saying fight it, and a second legal opinion from White & Dalton saying the same as I had a green light before I moved. Witness statements say, 'he waited for green'

Incidentally the original traffic officer (bike rider) retired and it got left to another traffic officer (non bike rider) to sort out.

So, boys and girls what to do? It would seem obvious wouldn't it. Fight it, but realistically what are the chances against a magistrate who will almost certainly not be a bike rider and a witness statement that says it's all my fault.

Thanks.

Ains. :(

Is it a yellow box junction?

No, it is a standard T-Light controlled junction with a right filter for the oncoming traffic. Right filter has a green arrow for priority which extenguishes and leaves a normal green light for traffic going straight on or right with caution.

Ains.

Hi Ains

Bad luck on the accident. Hope you're ok. (Is that another rare 888 down?)

I'm a driving instructor of 15yrs, and come across this situation almost on a daily basis. Usually its my car that's 'stuck in the middle' waiting to turn at the filter arrow because my pupil is slow moving off, and the oncoming cars move away too soon. Bear in mind that the green light controls the solid white line (not the junction) and only means you can go if it's safe to do so.

From your point of view: If the oncoming car had already crossed her line (which it appears she had from what you say), I'd have kept my pupil behind the line on my side until the crossroad was completely clear. So long as she was over her line before you were over yours, she'd have priority, and you shouldn't move off.

Hope you get it sorted.
ATB
Steve

Steve, the bike is down but not out; me, I'm OK now.

The lights have a pecked white line dividing the oncoming lanes. She would have lost priority, and moved forward to turn; then continued after I got green on my side.
Thing is, the vid has proved she would have lost priority before she crossed her solid line so should could move forward but be prepared to stop, she didn't. I recorded the sequence travelling at between 15-20mph which is what the witness statement said.
She was also the only car turning, there were no other cars in front or behind her. Again, I can't remember this, but the witness statement states it.

What is more, from pictures taken showing the wreckage in the road, I would have been more than half way across the lights.

Ains.

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

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

Ains

I've a lesson booked for 10.15am, so am dashing about late! I'll post again tonight if you've not heard enough by then. Someone on here will have the answer!!

(The bottom line is: Whoever crossed their solid line first would have priority - however long it took them to complete their manoeuvre).

Steve

....Nick Freeman!

Question is Ains-did you see the other car waiting to turn-indicating right maybe? If she wasn't indicating to turn and came through a red light it's got to be her fault surely. Bit dodgy though mate since we all know that by riding bikes we are guilty as hell unless proven innocent-and even then we are partly to blame.............Hope it gets sorted right for you.
I think we need Andy and Rushjobs help on this-you reading this guys??

John

It sounds a bit dodgy though - if she had already crossed the line and was in the junction before you went green surely you would have seen her?

That's the problem, I have only been given snippets of information and tried to make a memory in my head up to fit the information I have been given. I do not remember the lights going green, but I waited for them. [witness statement].
I don't remember the car either and only have vague recollections of going up in the air. Witness statement says she was indicating to turn right.

The whole of my statement was trying to find a reason why I would not have seen her; when the real reason is I did, and was duped into thinking she would stop.
That is the only reason I would have left the lights.
It's that I just can not remember no matter how hard I try.

Ains.

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

Ains/Philthy:

Here's what I teach my learner drivers. It's a bit simplistic for experienced road users, but it might explain the mind set of the woman driver involved.


1) A normal circular traffic light generally controls only the solid white line behind which you have to wait. When on green, it means you can cross the line and creep forward, but you've to decide for yourself when it's safe to continue. You must give priority to oncoming vehicles.

2) The green filter arrow, on the other hand, is timed to coincide with the oncoming traffic's red light phase. You have priority if you're turning. Oncoming vehicles should not move forward before you have had time to turn - even if your filter light has subsequently turned red behind you, and their light has turned to green. Oncoming vehicles should only move forward when it is safe to do so.

Seen from the woman's point-of-view...
Once she'd crossed the solid white line during the green filter light phase, she'd have expected the oncoming vehicles to be waiting at their red light long enough to have allowed her to turn. At this point she'd probably have forgotten the lights entirely, and switched her attention to looking into the road on her right before turning. (I speak from experience, since my pupils' do this all the time, leaving me to double check for approaching vehicles!) However, if she was slow to turn, and the oncoming vehicles moved off before she was clear of the junction, she probably wouldn't even have been looking their way. Moreover, a motorcycle sharing a lane alongside two cars may not even have been recognised as a hazard.

The timing of the light sequence is critical. Vehicles turning right are given only a finite amount of time to turn. Obviously, if they're slow to move and oncoming drivers' go immediately on their own green light, then problems arise.

Obviously this is conjecture Ains, since I wasn't there. I give the woman's point of view only to play Devil's advocate. If the case reaches court, then I expect her team will be using much the same argument. Here's hoping you can prove it happened otherwise.

Best of luck (...and be sure to get that SPS sorted quickly. Summer's coming!)
Steve

Steve, you are probably pretty close to what she was thinking. Reason being apparently she had put in her statement that I jumped a red light. At the time I wouldn't have known either way so was shocked to have been told that. It's not conducive to life longevity on a bike!

It also gets into an arguement about how competent do you have to be to get charged with undue care and attention. The way my interviewing officer was talking it would be if you didn't know you were doing something wrong you can't be charged with undue care and attention. I would have thought ignorance is no defence myself. And if you are that incompetent how the hell do you pass the driving test?
The whole basis of road regulations and law is common sense and a sustained basic level of competence, if that is taken out of the equation then the whole edifice falls on it's ar*e. E.g. allowing people to drive in the UK who are from a foreign country that has a driving standard way below that which is acceptable in the UK.

I think it is telling that also on todays posts is the Think Bike sequence that ends with the caption reminding drivers to look again. Considering those guidelines (and the highway code) are held in high regard in RTC court cases then there is an onus on the other driver to have seen the bike, recognised the implications and not gone over the carriageway so late in the light sequence. If she didn't see me, or didn't take into account the lateness of her turn (remember it's over 6-8 seconds after she lost priority) then surely it is she that should be looking at an undue care and attention charge.
It would seem my mistake was thinking that since she had left it so long to turn she wasn't going to. That is not undue care is it?

Ains.

On a lighter note Ains.......I would think about changing that avatar just in case they use that in court. ;)

Best of luck mate

Ains

Regarding responsibility:

If I had been turning right across oncoming vehicles under the exact same circumstances, and had missed the potential hazard from the bike, I'd blame myself whatever the law/rules might be. I teach the same to my pupils'. So yes, the woman must share any blame. We all have a responsibility for our own and others' safety. Sadly, too many people are wont to 'pass the buck', and blame the other guy. No-one likes to accept that they're fallible. I've come to the conclusion over the years that it's the good drivers/riders who make the roads safe for the rest of us. The rules of the road are a guideline, yes, but sometimes they have to be bent by the good guys in order to make a situation safe for the fools. I teach this too - probably to the chagrin of the DSA!

As for the foreign licence holders: Don't get me started..!

Ains

****, I aint no lawyer and knowledge of the law is limited at best but surely 6-8 secs after priority was relinquished she has to take some responsibility?

Common sense says to me fight her to the bitter end but hen again since when did common sense play a role ....

Anyway dont give up and I'll put a tenner into your fund for what it's worth - anyone else?????

Best of luck

D:mad:

:lol::lol::lol:

Ains.

i agree that the undue care should be the other way round
imagine the scenario if it had had no-one waiting at your lights and you arrived at them as they turned green
you would have gone through quicker (though you would have slowed somewhat) than you probably did and rightly
when turning right across oncoming traffic you may only do so when it was clear to do so
more so at a lighted junction
fight it
and claimfor your damaged bike and injuries against the other driver
need any further advice call me and i will help as much as i can