Presentation to Moray Coast Motorcycle Club

April 3rd 2013Mill House Hotel - Buckie

Motorcycle Accidents and the Law

Brenda Mitchell

Motorcycle Law Scotland

• Provide an innovative and dynamic legal service for motorcyclists by motorcyclists

• Cover ALL of Scotland from 4 offices• Only handle motorcycle accident and injury

cases• Work on a “No win, no fee” basis• Are passionate about what we do

The LAW and perceived prejudice

• Criminal cases• Civil cases

Sentences for motorcyclists

• “Biker jailed for 6 mths and banned for 18 mths for taking teenage son on 122mph pillion ride.”

• “Motorcyclist sentenced to 9 mths in jail for dangerous driving after speeding at 166mph.”

compared to…..

Sentence for motorist

• 63 yr old motorist Thomas Scully • 2 previous drink driving convictions• Sentenced to 18 wks jail suspended for 12

months and 250 hrs community service. • Scully was 2x over legal alcohol limit• Pulled straight out in front of the 17 yr old

motorcyclist and then drove off at speed after the crash leaving him for dead.

Evidence

• Research suggests judges look for evidence that is:– Consistent– Contemporary– Independent– Common sense and most of all– Concordant with their own experience

An example of common sense?

• Motorcyclist and a lorry approached a bend on a narrow country road. • Left bend for the motorcyclist and a right bend for the foreign owned

lorry. Neither could see each other on approach. • Lorry was over the centre line on the motorcyclist’s carriageway by

about a foot. The motorcyclist was near the centre line but within his carriageway.

• Motorcyclist struck the front offside of the lorry and unfortunately lost his right leg.

• Court of Appeal decided the lorry driver was not at fault as he couldn’t be expected to drive with a counsel of perfection. On the other hand, the motorcyclist had not taken the “proper line" into the bend

• Rule 211

Look out for Motorcyclists

– when coming up from behind, out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering.

– always look out for them before you emerge from a Junction, when turning right across a line of slow moving or stationary traffic.

– Be especially careful when turning and when changing direction or lane.

• Check mirrors and blind spots

Highway code

Case 1• Facts

– B Road– Motorcyclist following a bus– Bus signals to turn left– Motorcyclist overtakes bus– Car sitting at junction sees the

bus signalling left and pulls out to turn right

Case 1 – Result

• Car driver 100% to blame as he should have waited to let the bus get completely into the minor road before pulling out as there was a risk that road users, particularly motorcyclists, could be masked by the bus.

• Case Harding v Hinchcliffe ( 1964 )

Case 2

• Facts– Motorcyclist approached tail end

of stationary traffic– Motorcyclist filtered up the

offside– Car emerged from a side road

into a gap wanting to turn right– Tanker driver signalled car out– Car inched out and collided with

motorcyclist

Case 2 – Result

• Motorcyclist 80 % to blame Car Driver 20% • Case Powell V Moody ( 1966 )

Case 3• Facts

– Car driver wished to turn right from minor road to proceed south on major road

– Petrol tanker travelling north stopped to leave a gap

– Car driver’s view of Northbound carriageway was blocked by position of the tanker

– Car driver edged forward past the tanker

– Struck a motorcyclist who was filtering past the tanker on the northbound carriageway

Case 3 – Result

• Car driver 50 % Motorcyclist 50%• Case : Worsfold v Howie (1980)• There is no principle of law which entitles a

driver to emerge blind from a minor road onto a major road by inching forward beyond his line of vision, even if he did so slowly.

Case 4

• Facts– A motorcyclist was

undertaking stationary traffic.

– Oncoming car turned right into the side road from the main road

– A collision occurred

Case 4 – Result

• Car Driver 50% to blame Motorcyclist 50% to blame.

• Fagan v Jeffers (2005).• Favourite case for solicitors representing

motorcyclists.• The Highway Code stipulates undertaking is not

allowed BUT .....the driver should have anticipated a motorcyclist coming up on the inside.

Case 5

• Facts– A motorcyclist was overtaking

a queue of stationary traffic on a long stretch of road with one lane in each direction.

– A car driver in the stationary queue decided to execute a U-turn.

– A collision occurred and the motorcyclist was seriously injured.

Case 5 – Result

• Car driver 100% to blame• Another one for the good guys• Case Davis v Scrogin ( 2006)

Case 6• Facts

– Coach driver stopped at a T Junction (minor onto major road).

– Wanted to turn right.– Road works and

temporary traffic lights to left of junction and queuing traffic.

– Large tractor and trailer to the right so driver can’t see beyond the tractor and trailer.

– Coach driver pulled out and collided with a filtering motorcyclist.

Case 6 – Result• Motorcyclist 50% to blame Coach driver 50%• Case Woodham v Turner 2012- overturned 2011

decision which was 70/30.• What happened to the principle of Law about field of

vision?• Second motorcyclist pulled in behind trailer.• Motorcyclist doing 20mph.• Judge said 15 MPH would have been better as

motorcyclist would have been able to stop.• Possibly first legal interpretation of what speed is

filtering and what is overtaking.

Case 7

• Facts– A motorcyclist was

following a car.– The driver took a sudden

left hand turn– The motorcyclist

performed an emergency stop but was thrown from his bike and collided with the car.

Case 7 – Result

• Motorcyclist 70% to blame Driver 30% to blame.

• Case Mackeldon v Hinton (2005).• Those travelling in front still owe a duty of care

to those travelling behind.• Car driver indicated late BUT.... motorcyclist travelling too close behind

Case 8

• Facts– Scooter rider proceeding

behind a refuse lorry which intends to turn left.

– Can’t turn in because of its size until a waiting vehicle pulls out of the junction.

– Car pulls out and gets beyond the front off side of the lorry.

– Collision with the moped.

Case 8 – Result

• Scooter rider 100% to blame• Case Farley v Buckley ( 2007)• Scooter rider was speeding• Car driver proceeding slowly• Serious want of care on the part of the scooter

rider

Case 9

• Facts– A car driver exiting from

a minor road onto a major road

– The car driver's line of vision was partially blocked by parked cars.

– Collision occurred with a speeding motorcyclist

Case 9 – Result

• Driver 25% blame Motorcyclist 75% to blame• Case Heaton v Herzog ( 2008 )• The court held that the car driver was under a

continuing obligation to give way to traffic on the major road and take extreme care moving off especially if sight-lines were reduced.

• However, there was no doubt that the motorcyclist was travelling at excessive speed.

Case 10• Facts

– Motorcyclist travelling on a single carriageway with 40mph limit overtook a lorry.

– Northbound and Southbound carriageways separated by hatched area bordered by broken white lines.

– Overtake performed over the hatched area.

– A van driver emerged from a junction intending to turn right.

– Collision unavoidable.– Speed of the Motorcyclist 60-

70mph.

Case 10 – Result

• Van Driver 20% to blame Motorcyclist 80% to blame.

• Case Vincent Ringe V Eden Springs (2012).• Motorcyclist aware of junction because of

hatched area.• Van driver should have waited as size of the

lorry blocked his line of vision.

What if it happens to you?

• It’s your choice, NOT your insurer’s– LEI– Some “myths”

• Motorcycle Law Scotland’s Legal Expense Protection

To register for FREE, go to www.motorcycle-lep.co.uk or pick up a card tonight and activate it.

Hastings v Hastings

• Motorcycle rider insured with Hastings• Reports Accident.• Don’t worry we will look after you. • Car driver is insured with Hastings.

www.motorcyclelawscotland.co.uk

www.facebook.com/motorcyclelaw

www.twitter.com/motorcyclelaw1