Insofar as any of the pennies have dropped with you, I suppose, yes.





You are having a lot of trouble with this, aren't you?



If the car driver is held liable because he failed to check a blind spot and this caused a crash, then was it a legal requirement that he should have done so? "[iWell, yes, I wrote my car off, and my insurance company has to pay the motorcyclist £1m in damages because I didn't look over my shoulder, but the main thing is I didn't break any legal requirement[/i"? Is that your point? Do you actually think it makes sense?





Please do not misrepresent what I have said. Clearly, if you failed to check a blind spot, AND THAT FAILURE WAS CAUSATIVE of a collision, is the actual point.





<sigh> Again, he has his own actions to answer for, and as I seemingly have to keep repeating, it's a separate issue. If the motorcyclist's negligence was causative then liability will also rest with him. What you need to understand is that him being a moron doesn't absolve the car driver's negligence if causative - it only affects the apportionment of blame.





You most stupid remark so far. Well done. Fook me, your car has magic mirrors that have a 360 degree field of view. Sure they do.





Look, your mirror is surrounded by a black edge. EVERYTHING outside that edge can accurately be described as being in a blind spot. The mirror only has a very limited field of view.



I'll even give you a picture to illustrate.





In the example, you can ONLY see the quite narrow angle coloured in blue. You can't see anything outside it in that mirror. NONE of the motorbikes, or the car, are visible from the right door mirror. ALL of them are in a blind spot. One glance over the right shoulder would reveal all of them but if the driver of the parked car set off and turned towards the right then he could cause a crash which he could and should have avoided.





I think it's clear what needs updating and it ain't the Highway Code, but like I said, do write in, I'm sure they will welcome your valuable input. Mention your magic mirror, all cars should be fitted with them.

God Almighty, I have employed solicitors of varying degrees of competence over the years, and the occasional QC who considered it a good day if he managed to get his wig on straight within 10 minutes, but you my friend, are a Rodney of a completely different league.



I clearly stated "My drivers mirror" which would surely indicate to even someone who flounders in the shallow end of Bradford's legal Pool, that I was referring to the sightlines on the offside of the car only.(The drivers side for the terminally confused) The mirror has not got a very narrow field, as already described and checked, there are no blind spots on that side of the vehicle. Got it? In fact, get that pinstriped backside of yours down to Stratstone Honda in Bradford, and check it out for yourself. There will be no need to apologise, as I am already embarrassed at arguing with someone so intellectually challenged.



Nice piccy by the way. You should have fun colouring it in, and I'll bid you Good Night.

No, I'm good, but wouldn' go that far





Indeed. Which is why the example (and my pretty picture) illustrates precisely that. You do appear to be terminally confused. Was there a point trying to get out?





There are blind spots, you fool, apart from teh bit you can see in the mirror, everything else! Again, try to get your head around the picture.





Why would I do that? A mirror - ANY mirror - plainly obviously has a limited field of view. The technical term is "the edge".





I note you can't argue your position without feeling the need to combat your own insecurity by claiming intellectual superiority. However you are being totally pigheaded, and the seeming fact you don't see it is embarrassing.



The fact is, it is you against everyone else who knows how to drive properly. The Highway Code is right, and if you manoeuvre without checking your blind spot then you are a danger on the roads and sooner or later will hit someone. If despite the clear explanations, the driving instruction you (presumably, though not certainly) had, and the clear words of the HC, you still maintain there is no blind spot, then you are dangerously arrogant. I suggest some re-training.

And so modest....

If some fool in a moped bumped me I would have accelerated in to his backside knocked him on to the deck and reversed back over him to complete the job. Then posted on twitter to see if I could make #bloodyflattenedmoped go viral.

I know there are a number of legal types on here, but the fact that this is even being considered as anything other than the moped driver being completely at fault is a perfect example of the phrase "the law is an ass".



Most of the legal system has been created by legal professionals who make money out of the laws, etc. they have created.



Personally, motorcyclists should act as if they are a car. Weaving, speeding and over/undertaking just because they're on a motorbike should not be acceptable.

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.