NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - November 2017
Date of the NIP: - 22 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 24 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - 0 Lake Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was traveling down the road with the intention to turn right into a side street across traffic.

I was indicating and waiting for the road to become clear, as traffic oncoming cleared a motorcycle was overtaking a few vehicles from behind (stationary as I was waiting to turn) and didn't see me making the turn and rode into the front/drivers side of the car.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• The first NIP to the Registered Keeper must arrive within 14 days unless there is a valid reason why that was not possible, for example a recent change of details.
  
  This link will take you to the advice provided by the RAC's legal team.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:10:24 +0000

Any questions?

Alleged offence on the NIP?

NIP does not have to arrive in 14 days where there has been an accident.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 15:13

Driving without due care and attention.

There's got to be more to this, was anyone injured? Was an ambulance and/or the police called? Are there any known witnesses or dashcam footage?

Sorry!

At the time of the accident I called 101 and was advised that this is a civil matter and the police did not get involved at the time.
I have found out from the insurance that the rider broke his wrist, at the time of the accident he advised it was sore.

I do have a dashcam but it is forward facing, where he came up the drivers side from behind there is noting on the camera.

This post has been edited by Candelabra: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 15:33

Just to clarify...

You were in middle of road, stationary waiting to turn right.

You started to turn, crossing the centre of the road, and m/cyclist approached from your rear, and hit your driver's side. This suggests the impact occured on the oncoming traffic side of the road.

All correct?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 15:44

Correct

I was here, left hand lane, about to turn right in to the side street.

I had a van behind me and the motorcyclist behind him, the motorcyclist pulled out from behind the van to overtake traffic and went into the side of my car as I was turning into the side street.

Sounds like a NG plea to me.

According to what you have written above, you saw the motorcycle approaching from the rear, overtaking the vehicles stopped behind you, and then you turned right in front of him (whilst indicating). If that's what you (or witnesses) told the police, then a prosecution for driving without due care and attention is not surprising.

--Churchmouse

I didn't see the motorcyclist coming up from behind, I didn't even know he was there as he was behind the van, I was only made aware of his presence when he rode into me.

Do the Zig Zags make any difference?



This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 16:26

Well there is a clear right turn, with a sign post so don't see the zigzags make any difference.

Did the motorcyclist stop and exchange details?

Can you hear the sound of the indicator on the video? The dashcam is in any event relevant evidence because, if anyone alleged that you turned right suddenly and without warning, you have evidence to show that that isn't the case. If nothing else, it can support your side of the story.

The problem you now face is that, if you could have seen the motorcyclist then you would be expected to do so, if you simply didn't see him it sounds like you are technically guilty. Even if he shouldn't have been overtaking you, if you had a chance to see him it was up to you to take action to avoid an accident (which in this instance would have been just staying put).

However if the impact was quite minor, there's a chance the police might offer a driver improvement course.

Possibly not - just filtering ('overtaking') by the bike, I'm just putting it out there but may have no relevance.

I suppose the key question is whether the OP has fell below the standard of a safe and competent driver. Should their (wing)mirror have been checked for any filtering bikes before turning right?

No overtaking on zig zags.

IMO, as turning right and not waiting for people to cross, this wouldn't be relevent.

Or perhaps you could read the bit of the Highway Code you quoted and see that yes, you can overtake on the zig-zags.

Even if the rider was riding without due care and attention the court may decide that's a careful and competitor driver should have checked their mirrror before turning and thus it was DWDCA.

It seems to me to be a 50/50 accident, the OP should have been checking in his door mirror as he pulled out that it was safe to do so, and no one was coming up from behind, the motorcyclist as he overtook a line of stationery traffic should have been aware that a possible cause of the traffic not moving was a vehicle waiting to turn right and been alert for traffic pulling out of the line of traffic to complete that manoeuvre.

The rider probably did commit a ped crossing offence by overtaking on of the following vehicles, and he certainly broke HC rule 167 (Overtaking on approach to junction). That doesn't excuse the OP, however.

Garbage!

If a vehicle is stood in the correct place indicating or having progressed further into a right turn and something over takes you at that point then its on their head.

You do NOT over take near junctions for this very reason.If facts are as said,it would be a clear not guilty plea from me.