What it be Q absurd to settle for a third?
I was overtaking a long line of stationary cars (heavy traffic moving slowly once every minute or so) on the right-hand side using the area with broken chevrons when a car pulled out and knocked me off. I couldn’t have avoided it by braking or steering to the right because I was next to his window when he started his action. Luckily there was no oncoming traffic and I was only slightly hurt. The man behind the driver also confirmed that I was riding slowly outside stationary traffic and that the guy used no indicators as he tried to do a U-turn. Now his insurance is claiming I was overtaking and hence am mainly to blame, resulting in them wanting to offer me only 30% of the damages. I realise you should only use the chevron area when necessary and safe to do so. Peter, Newcastle
A The definition of “necessary” and “when safe to do so” are open to judicial interpretation. But the many cases like this I have dealt with have resulted in 75% to 100% for clients – in other words the flip side of what you’ve been offered. Each case is fact-specific but in your case I would seek to rely on Davis v Schrogin, a Court of Appeal case that went 100% in favour of the biker. My feeling without seeing the papers but based on your detailed account is 100% in your favour (other road users were aware of your presence, so why was the negligent driver not?) but there is always an inherent risk involved in going to court.
‘There was a Court of Appeal case that went 100% in favour of the rider’
Motorcycle Accident Solicitors