Motorcycle Madness

The law for a number of years has regulated the standard of care expected from motorcyclists and other road users. We can identify from the case law a number of common features that are relevant and which are summarised below by looking at actual court decisions: --

1. Speed

It is often assumed that the motorcyclist was driving at an excessive speed and a common allegation made is that the accident occurred because the car driver did not see the motorcyclist because they were driving too fast. In a recent case, Powell v Hansen and Chin [2001] the first defendant car driver pulled out safely from a junction and was followed by another car driver who failed to see the claimant motorcyclist to his right. The motorcyclist claimed that he was travelling slightly above the 30 mile per hour speed limit and that he had his head lights on and had also sounded his horn. However, the court accepted that if he had been travelling below the speed limit the collision could have been avoided and 20 percent of his damages were taken off him for contributory negligence. The court made it clear that the first defendant should never have done what he did, yet the speeding motorcyclist, already fearing some danger, was deprived by his excessive speed of being able to do anything to avoid the collision.

2. Over Taking

Accidents frequently occur when motorcyclists overtake stationery vehicles in lines of traffic. The courts have accepted that motorists when making turning manoeuvres should specifically take into account the risk of motorcyclists overtaking them. In another recent case, Irwin v Stevenson [2002], the motorcyclist was carrying out a double over taking manoeuvre when the vehicle in front turned right causing a collision. The trial judge found that both the motorcyclist and the driver were at fault and apportioned fault on a 50-50 basis. However, the car driver appealed and was successful because the evidence was that as he had begun to turn right he just simply would not have been able to see the motorcyclist.

3. Indicating

In one early case, Wadsworth v Gillespie [1978], the motorcyclist had made a turn but failed to cancel his indicator after completing the manoeuvre. The motorist at a junction saw the motorcyclist and assumed he was turning and accordingly pulled out. The court decided that the motorcyclist had to accept a large degree of responsibility and apportioned liability on the basis of two-thirds against the motorcyclist.

"Because we care"

Back...