Just saw this article

[Oldfart 0]

WHEN Soham rider Robert Whiteford won the right to damages after losing a leg in a crash caused by a Lithuanian truck that crossed the central line on a road near Ely, it didn't make the news. But now the truck operator has been sensationally cleared of negligence by the Court of Appeal.

Whiteford lost his right leg when the truck struck him a glancing blow back in August 2009. He was on his side of the road and evidence showed the truck had been partially across the central white line. Cambridge County Court last year awarded Whiteford the right to claim damages, potentially worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, from the truck's Lithuanian operator.

However, the operator appealed, claiming that it was wrong to “impose so high a standard of driving” on the lorry driver, and saying that the motorcyclist was riding too close to the centre of the road. The Court of Appeal agreed. Yes, you read that right; the HGV crossed into his lane and the court still decided the accident was the rider's fault. Compensation? Zero.

The problem was that Whiteford had earlier accepted part of the responsibility for the accident when the lawyers for the truck firm claimed that in the circumstances he should have been riding in the middle of his lane instead of near the white line.

In the appeal, Jonathan Watt-Pringle QC argued for the truck operator, saying: “The collision occurred for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the claimant was driving right close to the centre when he accepted that the course should have been a very different one.”

In his ruling, Lord Justice Richards said: “A finding of negligence in this case would, to my mind, be to impose an unacceptably high standard on the driver.”

The BMF has now written to Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke, asking “how it can possibly be right that a driver licensed to drive the largest and most dangerous vehicles on the road is not expected to stay on his side of the road?”

[Iano 0]

sounds all wrong, seems one side wins the other gets nothing whereas there is at least shared blame although why shouldn't the bike rider be wherever, nearside, middle or offside if he is on the right side of the road.

apart from injustice this higlights the dangerous nature of our roads.

this morning I waited at a junction for the road to be clear before pulling out (in a car) because I hate it when cars pull out in front of me - the young woman in the car behind hooted me for doing so.

[BanditMike 0]

There's two things I find strange:

“The collision occurred for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the claimant was driving right close to the centre when he accepted that the course should have been a very different one.”
Didn't the collision occur because the truck was on the wrong side of the road?

the operator appealed, claiming that it was wrong to “impose so high a standard of driving”
I thought this was driving within the laws of the road?

I could understand this if the bike had been overtaking something and was late getting back into his lane. But if he's on his own side of the lane, why is it his fault? I'm surprised the Riders QC didn't pick up on these and argue them?

I suppose it shows the potential downside of accepting part of the responsibility for the accident, but how can it be anywhere near his fault? I wonder if they've said accept partial liability and get a quick settlement?

So even if we're hit while on the right side of the road, it's our fault? Only in the f g UK!!!!

[Iano 0]

- after reading this case I'm keeping well over on right handers even if it compromises the best line etc. We are far to vulnerable to other peoples errors.