Do law courts favour bikers?

[Philos]

Hi,

A few years ago I had a road accident, between myself on a motorcycle and a bus coming around a blind bend on my side of the road. The result will be obvious to the reader.

Eventually the insurance case came to court.

During 6 hours in the courtroom I became aware that the female judge was doing a lot of nodding and smiling towards the bus driver, but was sharp with me. Then she said “You bus drivers do a wonderful job”. At that moment I knew that I was toast.

Towards the end of this session, the judge said to me, “Why didn’t you ride onto the pavement?” With a sinking heart I explained that a bike has only two wheels and would not mount a pavement at an angle, as a car would, but I realised that she didn’t get it.

This case was decided even before we went into court, as I could tell from my own barrister’s face.
She said, “Its about his job.” So, the legal position is decided not by the facts of the accident, but by the type of vehicle and status of driver?

Nice one.

A.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sounds like a highly biased judge and grounds for an appeal.

 

[DBT]

What about the cost and time, perhaps limited funds, lawyers are expensive, and the uncertainty associated with mounting an appeal? That would probably put some people off. I think the law favours not only bus drivers as in this case, but the rich in general.

 

[Philos]

Guys,

Thanks for some much needed moral support.

No chance of an appeal as my side was paid for by legal insurance cover and it ends here. No more cash.

One good thing is that the judge ruled me "no fault" in the accident, which begs the question, what happened? If I am not at fault and the other driver is not at fault, then .....?

Whitewash.

A.

 

[abaddon]

... a bus coming around a blind bend on my side of the road...

Blind bend on YOUR side of the road. Does that mean there was no blindspot at all for the bus driver and that he could and should have seen you?

If I am not at fault and the other driver is not at fault, then .....?

Maybe in all accidents, either one or both of the drivers could have done something differently. But if no one driver is particularly at fault I can see a judge correctly deciding not to press the matter about it being either this driver's or that driver's fault.

 

[bilby]

Blind bend on YOUR side of the road. Does that mean there was no blindspot at all for the bus driver and that he could and should have seen you?

It means the bus driver should have been in his own side of the road, so it didn't matter who could or couldn't see whom.

If I am not at fault and the other driver is not at fault, then .....?

Maybe in all accidents, either one or both of the drivers could have done something differently. But if no one driver is particularly at fault I can see a judge correctly deciding not to press the matter about it being either this driver's or that driver's fault.

Driving on the wrong side of the road means you are at fault, in my book.

Perhaps the fault could be placed on the designer of the road, if it is such that a bus could not negotiate the bend without crossing to the wrong side of the road.

 

[bilby]

Blind bend on YOUR side of the road. Does that mean there was no blindspot at all for the bus driver and that he could and should have seen you?

It means the bus driver should have been in his own side of the road, so it didn't matter who could or couldn't see whom.

If I am not at fault and the other driver is not at fault, then .....?

Maybe in all accidents, either one or both of the drivers could have done something differently. But if no one driver is particularly at fault I can see a judge correctly deciding not to press the matter about it being either this driver's or that driver's fault.

Driving on the wrong side of the road means you are at fault, in my book.

Perhaps the fault could be placed on the designer of the road, if it is such that a bus could not negotiate the bend without crossing to the wrong side of the road.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Judge clearly took the path of least resistance, did what was easy and convenient.

But I agree that driving on the wrong side of the road is clearly the fact that matters most.

 

[abaddon]

Ah. Didn't understand the description. Yes of course it was the bus driver's fault then.

 

[Philos]

It means the bus driver should have been in his own side of the road, so it didn't matter who could or couldn't see whom.

bil,

The bus driver had crossed onto my side of the road, and as the driving seat is on the right of a vehicle in the UK, then he would not have a clear line of sight around this bend. I would not have a clear line of sight either, but I was on my own side of the road, and tucked in.

Two more quotes from the trial:

My barrister, to me, as we discussed pre trial: "Its his job".

The judge , summing up: "Of course, a bus will have to go onto the other side of the road sometimes."

Obviously, there is no way the judge was going to find against a bus driver (even worse he was a school bus driver!). In hindsight, my solicitor should not have pushed the case, but how could he tell me of court bias? I knew, as soon as I saw the judge all smiles with the bus driver, but not before. Stupid me.

A.