With right of way, who's fault is the accident?

[Rusty0]

Who hit who?
Did the bike t bone the car or did the car hit the bike with the front of the car?
The later is the cars fault, the former can be contested in court and can be the bikes fault.

 

[Zenbaas]

Who hit who?
Did the bike t bone the car or did the car hit the bike with the front of the car?
The later is the cars fault, the former can be contested in court and can be the bikes fault.

The car turned in front of the bike and the bike hit the car. I don't see how it can be the bikes fault unless he was speeding excessively.

 

[Colin62]

The car turned in front of the bike and the bike hit the car. I don't see how it can be the bikes fault unless he was speeding excessively.

It's the bikes fault because he has no license. And all those comments about insurance - it wouldn't pay even if he had, because he has no license.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

The car turned in front of the bike and the bike hit the car. I don't see how it can be the bikes fault unless he was speeding excessively.

shame about your friend; hope he gets better soon;

one more question:

did the road have a solid line or dashed? if it was solid; no turning is even allowed; but seeing as it was an intersection; the car should have waited for it to be clear before turning;

driver of the car didnt even "see" the bike because its smaller and people have a psychological block against seeing bikes;
also rider of the bike; didnt slow down before getting near an intersection; Im assuming there was no yield signs; speedbumps ect.......

reminds me of my own accident a few years back; although mine was more clear cut;
"genius in a deathtrap" jumped a red light and drove straight through in a turning only lane;

so lucky I was in a cage (car); if I was on a bike; I would be dead no question;
also lucky he didnt quite t-bone me; hit the front fender; not passenger side impact;

bikes are dangerous things; can only imagine what would have happened if I was on a bike......

 

[DA-LION-619]

It's the bikes fault because he has no license. And all those comments about insurance - it wouldn't pay even if he had, because he has no license.

read the thread title...

 

[Colin62]

did the road have a solid line or dashed? if it was solid; no turning is even allowed;

You can turn over a single solid line, but not over a double barrier line.

 

[Colin62]

read the thread title...

Ok, I did. Overlooking the grammar error, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

[DA-LION-619]

You can turn over a single solid line, but not over a double barrier line.

I don't think you can turn over a single solid line, you can only turn where there is a break.

If you go over a solid line, it's a fail in a driving test.

 

[Ridolfc]

Looking at the drawing its totally the car drivers fault... does the car driver have a reason he says its your friends fault? Like you friend didn't have his headlight/s on or something?

I got ran over by a woman in an SUV last year. She was at fault but when I wanted her insurance to pay for my damaged gear she told them I was driving on the wrong side of the road and since there were no witnesses I could not do a damn thing about it.

 

[DA-LION-619]

Ok, I did. Overlooking the grammar error, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

Just because the bike rider had no license, doesn't mean his to blame for the accident. The car didn't have right of way.

 

[Arthur]

It's the bikes fault because he has no license. And all those comments about insurance - it wouldn't pay even if he had, because he has no license.

Fiddledeesticks.

As to insurance paying or not: It's a contractual matter between the insurer and the insured. Most insurers require that their insured be a licensed driver. But that has nothing to do with the third party (ie the bike+rider in this case). Whether a third party is licensed or not does not affect the delictual liability of the negligent person, insured or not (the car driver in this case). This is well established in local law, despite many an insurance claims clerk saying otherwise.

By the way, being unlicensed isn't enough to let the insurer off the hook. It depends whether it's materially relevant. An insured knowingly lent his car to an unlicensed driver. The car was hijacked, and the insurer refused to pay. The High Court held that it was irrelevant that the driver was unlicensed, and instructed the insurance company to pay. They did. (This is not applicable to the OP's case; just mentioning it here in passing as additional info).

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

I don't think you can turn over a single solid line, you can only turn where there is a break.

If you go over a solid line, it's a fail in a driving test.

exactly; OP didnt say if there was a solid line or not; could be there was one; and the car driver wasnt actually "allowed" to even turn into the intersection;
ive seen this kind of thing before; usually if you allowed to turn in front of oncoming traffic; there usually is something to allow some control?

IE a yeild sign;stop sign?

my Driving instructor told me technically if its a solid line; they you MUST make a uturn somewhere else can come from the other direction;

seems a bit strange what OP is stating? what was the car turning into? his driveway?

things not adding up fully that's all;

 

[silver6933]

1. Biker has right of way.

But it is a bend and the driver can say he checked and there was no vehicle. When he crossed the median, the biker appeared at high speed and he could not avoid the accident.

2. Not having a valid licence (esp a expired learners license, places him in a predicament). It is assumed he has not met the required competency to drive on the road.

3. If the other guy has insurance, your buddy is in ***.

4. See if he can find some witnesses. house/business nearby.

You cannot get insurance on an expired learners.

 

[Colin62]

I don't think you can turn over a single solid line, you can only turn where there is a break.

If you go over a solid line, it's a fail in a driving test.

A solid white line is a no overtaking marking and you are allowed to cross it but not to overtake. A double white line is a no crossing marking and you are not allowed to cross it.

http://www.arrivealive.co.za/print.aspx?s=5&i=3029
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rc...k3dvKBvGFI5lwKxOpS5hWgA&bvm=bv.86956481,d.d24

 

[Colin62]

By the way, being unlicensed isn't enough to let the insurer off the hook. It depends whether it's materially relevant. An insured knowingly lent his car to an unlicensed driver. The car was hijacked, and the insurer refused to pay. The High Court held that it was irrelevant that the driver was unlicensed, and instructed the insurance company to pay. They did. (This is not applicable to the OP's case; just mentioning it here in passing as additional info).

If you're talking about Mutual and Federal vs Manuelle Gouveia then that was appealed by M&F, and they won the appeal, and the Plaintiff (the insured)'s claim was dismissed with costs.

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rc...Dr6PEc8ZBypVIs1uQdaGaBw&bvm=bv.86956481,d.d24

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

A solid white line is a no overtaking marking and you are allowed to cross it but not to overtake. A double white line is a no crossing marking and you are not allowed to cross it.

http://www.arrivealive.co.za/print.aspx?s=5&i=3029
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rc...k3dvKBvGFI5lwKxOpS5hWgA&bvm=bv.86956481,d.d24

ok fair enough; OP what was the lines at the time? do you got pics?
also you didnt answer what was the car trying to pull into? his driveway or an uncontrolled intersection?

if so he should have been a bit more cautious before pulling out; didnt check the road is clear; but if OP friend was going to fast for conditions;
didnt slow down before approaching an intersection; what if somebody "popped " in front of him and he codnt slow down;

what would he say; IE if somebody just appeared in front of him suddenly; coming from that intersection;

fair enough both parties got a bit of a F*** up here; car for not looking and bike for not slowing down and seeing a car in front of him;
I think it has to go to the car driver for not seeing him coming; unless theres more to the story here; like he was pulling wheelies or checking behind himself;

 

[SauRoNZA]

Fiddledeesticks.

As to insurance paying or not: It's a contractual matter between the insurer and the insured. Most insurers require that their insured be a licensed driver. But that has nothing to do with the third party (ie the bike+rider in this case). Whether a third party is licensed or not does not affect the delictual liability of the negligent person, insured or not (the car driver in this case). This is well established in local law, despite many an insurance claims clerk saying otherwise.

By the way, being unlicensed isn't enough to let the insurer off the hook. It depends whether it's materially relevant. An insured knowingly lent his car to an unlicensed driver. The car was hijacked, and the insurer refused to pay. The High Court held that it was irrelevant that the driver was unlicensed, and instructed the insurance company to pay. They did. (This is not applicable to the OP's case; just mentioning it here in passing as additional info).

Would the same be applicable if the driver of a vehicle was drunk but it had no bearing on the accident?

Say for instance a drunk driver has right of way and a green light and is doing the speed limit with the only problem being that he is drunk, then another driver crosses the red light and T-bones him from the side.

Obviously the drunk driver is in the right as it's green and he has right of way and the person skipping the red is in error?

Would him being drunk automatically disqualify him or would the red light party still be held accountable?

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Would the same be applicable if the driver of a vehicle was drunk but it had no bearing on the accident?

Say for instance a drunk driver has right of way and a green light and is doing the speed limit with the only problem being that he is drunk, then another driver crosses the red light and T-bones him from the side.

Obviously the drunk driver is in the right as it's green and he has right of way and the person skipping the red is in error?

Would him being drunk automatically disqualify him or would the red light party still be held accountable?

I would think that drunk driving is extreamly difficult to prove conclusively at the scene of most accidents;
problem is a breath test needs to be performed and we all know how regularly that happens especially with most cops barely having a working pistol.........

more likely skipping red light would be punished, not drunk driving; unless they did a breathalyser and blood test immediately afterwards;
simply its "easier " to prove.........

 

[DA-LION-619]

A solid white line is a no overtaking marking and you are allowed to cross it but not to overtake. A double white line is a no crossing marking and you are not allowed to cross it.

http://www.arrivealive.co.za/print.aspx?s=5&i=3029
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rc...k3dvKBvGFI5lwKxOpS5hWgA&bvm=bv.86956481,d.d24

You're not allowed to cross it unless there's a break hence no over taking.

 

[SauRoNZA]

The car turned in front of the bike and the bike hit the car. I don't see how it can be the bikes fault unless he was speeding excessively.

Potential Accident vs Avoidable Accident vs Actual Accident.


The car causes the potential accident in the first place, but the bike's action whether by speed or failure to brake accordingly or swerve is what makes the potential accident an actual accident.

If there was to be an insurance drama or someone sued someone then they would decide who was responsible for how much of the accident and award payment accordingly.

This is where having no insurance is a very bad idea, because if you hit a Porsche which costs R1 000 000 with your Golden China motorcycle which costs R10 000 even if he causes the potential accident and the court decides you were responsible for 10% of the accident...then you owe the Porsche driver R100 000 and he owes you R9 000. (Don't quote me on those figures, but it amounts to something like that).