Presentation by Brenda Mitchell of Motorcycle Law Scotland to the Moray Coast Motorcycle Club

1. Presentation to Moray Coast
Motorcycle Club
April 3rd
2013
Mill House Hotel - Buckie
Motorcycle Accidents and the Law

2. Brenda Mitchell

3. 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

4. The LAW and perceived prejudice
• Criminal cases
• Civil cases

5. 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…..

6. 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.

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

8. 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

9. • 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

10. 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

11. 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 )

12. 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

13. Case 2 – Result
• Motorcyclist 80 % to blame Car Driver 20%
• Case Powell V Moody ( 1966 )

14. 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

15. 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.

16. Case 4
• Facts
– A motorcyclist was
undertaking stationary
traffic.
– Oncoming car turned
right into the side road
from the main road
– A collision occurred

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Case 5 – Result
• Car driver 100% to blame
• Another one for the good guys
• Case Davis v Scrogin ( 2006)

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

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

33. www.motorcyclelawscotland.co.uk
www.facebook.com/motorcyclelaw
www.twitter.com/motorcyclelaw1