There is no different standard of negligence applied to motorcyclists than anyone else. It's not what they do, it's whether, in any particular case, it was negligent and if so, whether it was causative of a crash. It's also fair to say that the Highway Code goes to great lengths to assist motorcyclists, they have an extra section just for them (as do pedestrians) and they do have to comply, if they don't then the failure can be used as evidence of their negligence.

If the negligence of a car driver either causes or contributes to a crash, why shouldn't he have to accept the consequences of that negligence? It's not an ass, it's just basic fair do's. If a court accepts that a motorcyclist was 100% at fault and the driver did nothing wrong, then the motorcyclist doesn't get paid out. What's wrong with that?

I think you've got me all wrong, I don't have a vendetta against motorcyclists, what I have an issue with is that some, like the one in the original post, seem to think it completely acceptable to weave through traffic and speed.

The motorcyclist in the original post should be held completely at fault. They shouldn't have been overtaking on a residential street unless the car in front was indicating to pull up and it was suitable to do so.

I agree it should be basic fair do's but unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of solicitors that will argue black is white or search for any technicalities to imbalance the fairness. Whether the driver looked in his blind spot, although advisable, should be irrelevant to the case for the reason stated above. The driver could have been slowing down because there were children in the road, they would have had a bit of explaining to do if they had overtaken then.

This one can't have been speeding unless the OP was, as it was following him earlier.


He could be 100% at fault. It is just that we all have responsibilities and if a car driver fails in his duty to look where he should look, and that is causative of a crash, there isn't any good reason why his negligence should be wiped out just because another road user has been negligent. It might be that (for example) a judge would hold him 20% liable and the moped 80%. Or whatever proportions. It must be fairer for each to take their fair share of the blame - if both contributed - than letting a negligent driver off altogether.


Nah. Big bad defendant insurance companies are represented by highly skilled and pretty ruthless lawyers. They can (and do) look after their side. In civil liability, technicalities don't really enter into it - that is much more in criminal prosecutions.


But, if by doing so, a crash could have been prevented, how can you argue it is - or should be - irrelevant? Anyway, as the law stands, that's academic, as if you are negligent then it is relevant. I don't see anything wrong with that as a principle.


Absolutely.

Plus there's the added danger that if you turn into your drive, chances are you will be reversing back out into the main road, which in itself is not a good manouvre to do.

Might not have been speeding, I never said they were. Do you think it is acceptable for them to overtake under the circumstances?

The driver failing to look in his blind spot is not the cause, in my opinion. The moped overtaking when the car in front has slowed, indicating and in a residential area is the cause of the accident.

I think I'm getting mixed up with the insurance companies acting in the best interest of the motorists and insurance companies acting in their best interests.

When the motorcyclist decided to overtake, in a residential area, past a car that was slowing and indicating, why should the driver be apportioned any blame for failing to prevent the crash. The motorcyclist created the situation. I applaud the driver for his quick action and preventing the crash in this situation.

What would be your reaction be in the drivers situation? If you were the motorcyclist, would you have overtaken in that situation? Why?

Nah. Big bad defendant insurance companies are represented by highly skilled and pretty ruthless lawyers. They can (and do) look after their side. In civil liability, technicalities don't really enter into it - that is much more in criminal prosecutions.
Actually, Insurance Companies are clever enough not to go near a court except as the very last resort. They don't waste money if they can help it, especially on court costs.

It's not often I agree with the earthpig but you are talking complete and utter bollox.

There isn't an automotive mirror on the market that can offer a 90 degree angle of vision. You will have blind spots, you are simply too blind to see them

No

But the moped was not invisible. If it was there to be seen, but a crash occurred because the driver failed to look, when if he had looked, he would have seen and avoided, how can it be said that failing to keep a proper lookout wasn't partly the reason? What you appear to be arguing is that really, people needn't check blind spots, they should be allowewd to assume there's nothing there, even though it is guaranteed that from time to time, there will be.


No. If the car does not turn to the right, there is no accident.


They only ever do the latter.


He wouldn't be. He would only be apportioned to the extent that he was held to have caused the crash.


Indeed.


In the driver's situation, I'd have checked the blind spot, seen the muppet, and not set off. I think we are all agreed that nobody but a muppet would have overtaken. But you can't crash with them, even if they are muppets.

I never claimed a 90 degree angle of vision. I stated very clearly that in my car there was no blind spots (to the rear offside) in which an overtaking cyclist could disappear. Feel free to take up the offer I gave Rodders and get your tatty old van with its flat glass mirrors down to the nearest Honda dealership, and check out the latest advances in automobile mirror design.

Or you might be able to stretch the old grey matter far enough to work out that a well designed convex lens consisting of 2 elements, would have the ability to show both the leading, side and trailing edge of the object in view as it moved through the viewing arc, with eventually the leading edge (the front of the car/bike/whatever) being in your direct sightline through the drivers door window, whilst the rear edge was still showing in part of the mirror.

Nah, perhaps easier of you just went and checked it for yourself.

Your Welcome.

That'd be my "tatty old 2013 plate van" would it? The one with split-plane convex mirrors that exceed current EU legislation and still leaves me with blind spots. That tatty old van you mean?