Q Driver says I was rid­ing in the chevroned area

Motorcycle News (UK) - - Mcn garage -

While fil­ter­ing past a line of sta­tion­ary traf­fic, a car pulled out from my left and hit me, caus­ing me to crash. I would have thought this was ob­vi­ously his fault. But I was in the area to the right of the ve­hi­cles with a chevroned area with bro­ken white lines to my right. The driver who hit me claims I was in the chevroned area but I def­i­nitely was not. Even if I was, does this make a dif­fer­ence or is it just a red her­ring?

James Davies, Aber­gavenny

The High­way Code states that ar­eas of white di­ag­o­nal stripes or chevrons painted on the road are there to sep­a­rate traf­fic lanes or to pro­tect traf­fic turn­ing right. If the area is bor­dered by a bro­ken white line you should not en­ter the area un­less it is “nec­es­sary” and you can see that it is “safe to do so”. If the area is marked with chevrons and bor­dered by solid white lines you must not en­ter it ex­cept in an emer­gency.

As the driver is claim­ing you were in a chevroned area li­a­bil­ity needs to be con­sid­ered very care­fully with at­ten­tion paid to wit­ness ev­i­dence and so on. If it is found by the court that you were in the chevroned area then con­trib­u­tory neg­li­gence will most likely ap­ply.

How­ever, I can fore­see an in­ter­est­ing le­gal ar­gu­ment over the def­i­ni­tion of “nec­es­sary” – nec­es­sary to make progress would be your ar­gu­ment al­though note the “nec­es­sary” and “safe” – your op­po­nent is bound to ar­gue it was not nec­es­sary and wasn’t safe. As far as I know the “nec­es­sary” el­e­ment has never been tested in court and re­al­is­ti­cally this is likely to be a case of shared blame.

‘Li­a­bil­ity needs to be con­sid­ered with at­ten­tion paid to wit­ness ev­i­dence’

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.