For all anyone knows it could have been the correct verdict.

__________________
I've a feeling I'm not in Kansas anymore.

If the reason quoted below was indeed part of the rationale for an acquittal, then no it can't be thre right verdict.

That is equivalent to saying that if you travel by a particular mode of transport, you are automaticaly partially, if not entirely, at fault

You judge based on the circumstances; how a vehicle was being driven. Not what vehicle it is, unless it is not roadworthy or illegal from some other reason...

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

"The young motorcyclist was riding his bright red motorcycle in a small pocket between the cars in the moving queue that had formed"

I'm not sure about this, and I'm interested to know other people's opinions.

After all, what's sweeter than riding through a load of slow moving traffic. But, isn't it the case that although it is legal to filter, you are personally choosing to take a risk by doing so. You could, after all, choose to queue with the rest of the traffic. So, who should be responsible for the risk that you choose to take?

It be a muddy moral dilemma

__________________
‎"People who say it cannot be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it" George Bernard Shaw

I was also wondering. Does this mean he was riding between the cars (lane splitting) and if so is this illegal? I just find it hard to believe the judges would vote on behalf of the car driver because she hit a motorcycle, not a car. Somehow I feel that we're not getting the complete story. It is true though that cagers are not looking for us and for that reason we need to drive defensivly, like we are invisible. Could it be that the bike rider was young and inexperienced and was riding like a squid? More info please.

Interesting feedback here.

A couple of things should be mentioned:

1) The car driver neglected the "yield" sign/rule, thus causing the accident (we have this general rule in Norway that says that you have to yield to traffic from the right unless signposts says otherwise)

2) Lane splitting is OK in Norway. Not sure if he did lane splitting though.

3) The court records says he was riding in the same speed as the general traffic, approx 60 km/h

__________________
HansP
All you wanted to know
about riding in Norway

Man here I was thinking people in Norway had a brain or at lest the judges. Did they get there law degree online? If I drive a truck is it ok to run down a car? it is not a truck must be ok. Can a car run down people walking there? In the USA if the car driver dose this better dam well pay the rider dose not have a gun and shoot back. You try to run down a cop or any one they have the right to protect them self with a gun if need be. A car is a lethal weapon and some time used to kill people. This sucks hope the case is sent to a higher court

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLbiten If I drive a truck is it ok to run down a car?

We are waiting for West Yorkshire Police to comment on that...

Truck driver caught on film with car stuck to bumper at 60mph.

Stephan

Even though it is not illegal, you wouldn't be covered by insurance if you had an accident. :confused1:

__________________
‎"People who say it cannot be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it" George Bernard Shaw

On that basis the insurance company could refuse to pay up for bad weather, riding with a cold, not having glasses under a year old, going out in the rush hour on the day the clocks change to summer time and a host of other risk based assesments. They'll try all the above, but if filtering/lane splitting is legal you are covered to the minimum degree required. After that you have to enter the shark tank and fight for your cash just like any other claim involving the in-sewer-ants.

What I think the magistrates have failed to express in a clear way is that they believe the motorcyclist was partially at fault due to their lane position and that the car driver couldn't reasonably be expected to react in a way that would have avoided this. They are saying it was an accident to which no blame could be levelled, which I guess although unlikely could be true. You will always get this sort of perverse judgement unless there is forensic evidence. The women judges have basically accepted that a no doubt well dressed and polite young women who's lawyer will have stressed that she really isn't a bad person didn't mean any harm. If that's all they'd said we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'd wonder if the magistrates actually drive? In the UK a magistrate who's only ever been on the train can sit in judgement on traffic offences and the same applies to juries.

UK magistrates and Juries come up with this sort of rubbish all the time. Look at the number of nasty street thugs who turn up to court with a suit, a shave, a puppy dog expression and a crucifix instead of their usual gang signs and hoodies and get off because all the old dears on the jury think he's a nice young man and the young girls fancy him. The good news is that the badly worded comments will probably be grounds to dispute the judgement in a higher court.

Andy

Of course its ok for cars to whack motos. You all know this from the first day you rode a bike. So dont be surprised at this story

Sorry, there's no such thing as a UK magistrate. You can have an English magistrate, or in Scotland, a Sheriff. Its different. There is no UK legal system, only the different legislatures and courts of Scotland and England.

Why not?

I commented on this previously. You are fully covered. It's a surprisingly common misconception though and if riders don't know it's legal, fully insured and actually covered in the highway code as a warning to car drivers, what hope have we against the cretins who try and block and the mindless clowns who think putting an indicator on for three seconds is a substitute for using their door mirrors.

Filtering wise, Vive La France, most courteous drivers I know.

Andy

Sure, but that does not automatically put that person in the wrong. Other road users are still obliged to make observations, use signals, check blind spots before making.

Even if the rider were filtering, if another road user effected a manoeuvre without correct observations, that road user is partly at fault at the very least...

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

Bit of a strange title for a thread on a motorbike forum!