Accountability for an accident--feedback please

**FROSTY:Me** · 14th February 2009, 10:12

Heres a senario to concider. Whilst out on a group ride a bike was going round a left hand corner. the bike hit some of the corrogations apearing where trucks are digging into the tarmac and suddenly the bike wouldn't turn. It goes straight ahead into a clay bank at relatively slow speed. The motorcycle was completely road legal in every way.
A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction ,saw bie/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action.
As a result of the evasive action the ute got out of control and the trailer jacknifed skidding onto the wrong side of the road. The trailer ran into a motorcycle legally stopped at the side of the road (Ie had it been moving it would have been oncoming traffic to the ute) This caused extensive damage to the stopped motorcycle and some damage to the trailer..
The boat on the back of the trailer was not secured by any tethers,tiedowns etc and had shifted on the trailer. Also relevant or not the trailer itself was not registered and did not have a current WOF -or indeed show sighns of having had one.
On examination the alloy back wheel on the first bike had literally collapsed causing the bike to be unable to turn left or right.

Given the information above is completely true and for the sake of argument insurance is not involved. Who should pay who for damages?
Also again given the information is not "adjusted" which rider/driver should be charged and with what?

**PirateJafa** · 14th February 2009, 10:15

Technically the ute would have been "unable to stop" within the visible distance, which would put them at fault for their own and the second bike's damage, as I understand it?

**Gubb** · 14th February 2009, 10:32

Ute driver should have been paying more attention to the road, rather than what was happening beside it.

**smoky** · 14th February 2009, 10:36

The first bike is responsible for his bike only

The ute is totally in the wrong and responsible for his damage and the second bike

Even if the second bike was parked illegally it would be hard to argue that it wasn't entirely the fault of the ute driver

String em up, hang em I say......................I'll get a rope, you find a tree

**Winter** · 14th February 2009, 10:42

Yeap what they said.

First bike pays his own damage (then sues council for shitty roads? ha!)

Ute is responsible for his ute, trailer, and the second bike he hit.
Hope ya mates ok.. post pics of his back wheel!

**FROSTY:Me** · 14th February 2009, 11:14

Originally Posted by Winter

Hope ya mates ok.. post pics of his back wheel!

The first bike rider is basicly ok. The rider on the second bike wasn't so lucky.-Not REALLY unlucky but painfull months off work kinda unlucky
Aparently this particular model is actually KNOWN to break rear wheels.
Bizzario in my mind

**Squiggles** · 14th February 2009, 12:58

Is this in relation to the classic ride on the 14th of December?

**portokiwi** · 14th February 2009, 13:07

First bike needs to take it up with who ever looks after the road.
yes ute seems to be at fault, not stopping in time, non secured items no WOF ect.
Shit happens.

**Daffyd** · 14th February 2009, 13:26

Yup, ute driver should go for a skate. Insecure loading alone is a serious offence. Add to that; unable to stop in visible distance ahead, and no WOF on trailer.

Wouldn't like to be in his shoes.

The local roading authority should be liable for damage to the bike, but the level of difficulty in getting compensation from them would be the same as poking butter up a wild cat's arse with a red-hot gimlet!

**FROSTY:Me** · 14th February 2009, 20:54

Originally Posted by Daffyd

The local roading authority should be liable for damage to the bike, but the level of difficulty in getting compensation from them would be the same as poking butter up a wild cat's arse with a red-hot gimlet!

Um no aparently tis a desighn flaw in that exact model -Ohh yes er we know that models back wheel colapses at random --but hey sall good

**MadDuck** · 14th February 2009, 21:02

Ute drivers fault. Should be driving to the conditions and stop in reasonable time.

Without details would need to see a graphic. Was the bike parked in a position that would render him in a dangerous or silly place.

Motorbikes are dangerous dont ride them

**reofix** · 14th February 2009, 21:15

first riders insurance pays all ... damage and subsequent down to his veering over the road... reasons maybe mech failure but lack of wof in other vehicle is only relevant if it contributes( eg bald tyres)

**FROSTY:Me** · 15th February 2009, 08:22

Originally Posted by reofix

first riders insurance pays all ... damage and subsequent down to his veering over the road... reasons maybe mech failure but lack of wof in other vehicle is only relevant if it contributes( eg bald tyres)

see ya logic. Do you feel it is relevant if the other vehicle was not in a road safe condition --Ie load was insecure and its shifting therefore was relevant to the second accident.

**Manxman** · 15th February 2009, 09:13

Originally Posted by PirateJafa

Technically the ute would have been "unable to stop" within the visible distance, which would put them at fault for their own and the second bike's damage, as I understand it?

Yup, agree with that.