Explain how this happened

Originally Posted by maccecht

I think the van driver thought I had kryptonite judging by his statement. Bearing in mind the evidence above. Have a giggle on me

Nice letter. So he sees you and still moves. Worse, he states he has right of way since it's OK to force you to brake. That's just what you need

Originally Posted by Thermostat9

It's what I said in post 5.



Any 'swerve to avoid' and 'lane change' clearly depend on which side of the story you want to believe and are not pertinent as to how the van was damaged, but gives one persons view as view as to why. (The drivers explanation is, however, hilarious as they appear to have admitted seeing the bike coming and still changing lanes!)

Horse's explantation was more precise as he had the van changing lanes, you merely had a closing gap and the lane change is pertinent as it would explain the angle of the van and why only the middle section of the van suffered damage. You can have a like for your efforts though.

What actually happened was, he went to change lanes as I was next to his tailgate. Hard braking side slide and turning the bike to the left caused it to hit the centre of the van which was by then at an angle hence the rocker cover damage to the van. I bounced off and fell sideways and the back of my lid connected with the bumper of the van in the middle lane. Grab handle of my bike hit the inside of my knee and broke the top of my Tibia. No damage to my clothing at all and no other injuries. Bike stopped within 8m. Van is 5m long and I stopped 3m forward of it so speed was 15-20mph. Another witness has me doing 35-40 a further witness was on a bike 10m behind me and his statement matches mine exactly. Curently going through the insurance so it's a waiting game.

Originally Posted by maccecht

Curently going through the insurance so it's a waiting game.

In which case, if I were you I'd seriously consider deleting this thread . . . You don't wish to give the 'other side' any potential ammunition ("even those bikers can't agree!"), do you?

Didn't you used to have a gaudy 'hi-viz' RS?

Originally Posted by Horse

In which case, if I were you I'd seriously consider deleting this thread . . . You don't wish to give the 'other side' any potential ammunition ("even those bikers can't agree!"), do you?

Didn't you used to have a gaudy 'hi-viz' RS?

Actually all the witnessess as R1 Loon pointed out seen the incident unfold at different times and if you examine what they say it all backs up my recollection of the event. I may be gullible but would like to think that justice and truth will will win the day.
As for Gaudy that is harsh My late friend owned it before me and had a liking for Hi-vis paint. I have owned it for 6 years and use it as my commuter so I seen no reason to change it. I did add the LED's to make it more visible but they and the hi-vis paint failed me. It is now just a bit more scratched and bent and can be resurrected for £800 if I do it myself and use 2nd hand parts.

Originally Posted by maccecht

As for Gaudy that is harsh My late friend owned it before me and had a liking for Hi-vis paint. I have owned it for 6 years and use it as my commuter so I seen no reason to change it. I did add the LED's to make it more visible but they and the hi-vis paint failed me.

Failed you? You don't know that. You know he saw you - or at least he claims to have. What you can't know is why he made the decision to then act as if you weren't there . . .


Stephen Prower, when he was with the BMF, made up a list that went something along the lines of:

Driver doesn't look
Driver looks, but you're hidden from view
Driver looks, but doesn't see
Driver looks, sees you, but makes the incorrect decision, perhaps based on lack of understanding
Driver looks, sees you, but doesn't care



If you wanted us Safety Nazis to get all vindictive on yo bruised @$$ , then Thermo'll add some info on the 'Habit of the invisibles' and risk compensation and Spin (who knows far more about filtering than I ever want to) will add some suggestion on worst case scenarios, safety margins, predictions etc.

FWIW, have you ever driven a van and experienced the poor rear visibility, particularly to the left quarter? I'm not saying 'don't filter' - just suggesting that, perhaps, it wasn't the best place to commit yourself . . .

I consider my self a reasonable rider and have ridden enough miles to have gained a decent Spidey sense and normally detect when an unplanned event is about to transpire. However in this case as there was another van parrallel in the middle lane and no gap for another vehicle to attempt to change lanes into the manouvre by the van in the rh lane caught me off guard. I still managed to lock the back wheel up in less than a meter so my reactions were quick enough unfortunatly the door and been closed on me and it was a forgone conclusion that I and the Tarmc were destined to meet. If it wasn't for the fact my own bike landed on my leg I would have got off scot free. My view is if you are not going to filter you might as well take the car. Yes it's a risk but riding a bike is a risky business because of all the points you have outlined above.

How wide was the gap that you didn't hit the van in L2?

Originally Posted by Horse

How wide was the gap that you didn't hit the van in L2?

The van in lane 2 was perhaps a meter behind rather than exactly level with the van in lane 1 after the incident. I can only assume the traffic in lane 2 moved forward slightly and the van was slow to move as I fell into the gap and made contact with no other vehicle. The van in lane 1 looking from my prone position was up to the white line and at an angle. My Lid either hit the tyre or bumper of the van in lane 2 I think, but the mark is the only clue to that. The fairing had cleared the van in lane 2 before the rocker hit the road and spun me into lane 2.

Originally Posted by Splat

Nice letter. So he sees you and still moves. Worse, he states he has right of way since it's OK to force you to brake. That's just what you need

He doesn't say that he moves and in fact says that he doesn't change lane. His case seems to be that he wanted to turn left, Macchect was filtering too quickly and panicked when Mac saw his indicator. Mac then braked too hard, and fell off dismounted while filtering.

He does put his foot in it when he talks about Mac not being able to stop when he (Mac) sees the indicator. Say what? There is a conspicuous absence of impact in his description though - I wonder why?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Macchect was at fault here, but I read Mr Van Driver's explanation differently.

Originally Posted by hawker

He doesn't say that he moves and in fact says that he doesn't change lane. His case seems to be that he wanted to turn left, Macchect was filtering too quickly and panicked when Mac saw his indicator. Mac then braked too hard, and fell off dismounted while filtering.

He does put his foot in it when he talks about Mac not being able to stop when he (Mac) sees the indicator. Say what? There is a conspicuous absence of impact in his description though - I wonder why?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Macchect was at fault here, but I read Mr Van Driver's explanation differently.

My explantion is only one of 5 people who seen the incident. Three are independant witnessess. One sees what I see as he is directly behind on another bike. He sees Van move at same time as indicatiing as I am alongside. The other two differ slightly as one has the van indicating but at an angle up to the white line and stationary. The other has the van straight on and no indication and stationary. Both see me pass between the vans whereas van driver has me falling off before passing between the vans. It will be an up hill slog no doubt.

Originally Posted by daesimps

I like how he said you didn't leave enough distance to stop in case someone indicated left. I don't stop if someone indicates, I just slow and assess the situation. Simply putting your indicator on should be done before you move, so why would you have had to stop just because he allegedly indicated? Indicating doesn't give you right of way...

If you slow and assess the situation, presumably the plan you come up with to deal with it includes stopping... self-preservation dictates that, which in turn puts a limit on your speed as being one that allows you to stop before you hit the van.

Originally Posted by maccecht

I still managed to lock the back wheel up in less than a meter so my reactions were quick enough

Errrr... would that be panic reactions? If you locked up the rear, you didn't do a particularly good job of controlled braking. Stopping distance in the dry from 25mph is about 3 bike lengths IF you're covering the brakes and expecting to brake.

My view is if you are not going to filter you might as well take the car.

Y'now... I hate that statement. Your goal is to arrive safely.

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Errrr... would that be panic reactions? If you locked up the rear, you didn't do a particularly good job of controlled braking. Stopping distance in the dry from 25mph is about 3 bike lengths IF you're covering the brakes and expecting to brake.

Think of it like this Spin. I had from the back of the van to where the crease starts to stop from 15-20mph could you? Distance is about a meter I doubt Rossi himself could do it. I have many times stopped in the distance you refer to but generally people only go for gaps when the go to change lanes. When there is no gap it is a bit of a suprise. As for panic braking I am suprised I had time to hit the brakes at all it happend so quick. I always have my brakes coverd when filtering only a fool wouldn't.

Originally Posted by maccecht

Think of it like this Spin. I had from the back of the van to where the crease starts to stop from 15-20mph could you? Distance is about a meter I doubt Rossi himself could do it. I have many times stopped in the distance you refer to but generally people only go for gaps when the go to change lanes. When there is no gap it is a bit of a suprise. As for panic braking I am suprised I had time to hit the brakes at all it happend so quick. I always have my brakes coverd when filtering only a fool wouldn't.

Wasn't there, didn't see it etc.. so hard to say precisely... but it does seem that if the gap closed that much that you couldn't make it through when you were already level with the back of the van, he either swung very hard left, the gap was much smaller than I'd suggest was sensible or you were actually committed from rather further back than you recall or your witnesses realise.

I don't know why you think it's a surprise when drivers chance position in lane - it happens all the time. For example, when a driver tries to get a better view of the road situation ahead.

I know I'm on a hiding to nothing because everyone knows it's always the driver's fault, but it does seem from what you've said you contributed to your own bad luck. Quite a few times I've clonked a leg or crash bar on the side of a car or a van, been pushed over and onto the bonnet of another car on another occasion, and in one memorable incident I got stuck in a narrowing gap as I misjudged the light sequence, and as the truck alongside moved off my mirror caught in the truck's tautliner (fortunately the stem unscrewed as he moved off - another despatch trick to avoid having to continually replace mirrors after a minor spill or the bike being knocked over!) and I can honestly say that on those occasions it all went pearshaped a retrospective view told me I really shouldn't have put the bike there.