Anyone living in the North West and who commutes in the car would probably have heard those annoying Sorry Mate motorcycle compensation adverts. The narrator goes on about a biker weaving through traffic on the right when a car suddenly turns and the biker collides with the car, the biker can suddenly claim compensation.

Well, it got me thinking after I nearly had a near miss with a prat on a moped. I was driving home along my street (residential area, not on a main road) with said prat on the moped close behind me. As I approached my drive I indicated to turn right and began to slow down. I began to turn, without stopping completely but slow enough in order I can get onto the drive with due care, when said muppet on two wheels decided to weave around me in the direction I was turning. I can't help but think he was lucky I didn't take to the drive any quicker, because he would have hit me had I not slowed down considerably.

But the description in the Sorry Mate advert got me thinking. If that had been a car behind me, I have no doubt the other driver would have been at fault. In fact due to the size of the vehicle that would have been behind me, they would have had to wait for me to turn completely before carrying on their journey. But would it be OK for an individual on two wheels behind me to go around me in the direction I was turning, and for me to be at fault if a collision had happened? I've seen motorcyclists go through traffic on the right loads of times so I'm not disputing that the practice is legal, but I can't help but think it's one rule for one and one rule for another in this scenario when a collision occurs.

Anyone who tries to overtake you whilst you are in the process of lawfully turning right will be liable for the collision, assuming you have properly indicated your intention to turn right.

The adverts are probably being run in the hope there will be an admission of liability by the car's insurer on a 50/50 basis, thus allowing the solicitor representing the biker to claim their costs.

Above ^^^

Same also applies to any rider on two wheels who undertakes anything even if they are in a bike lane to the extent where if approaching traffic lights at red with vehicles already waiting it not worth going up the left hand side to try and get to the front, sooner or later you're going to end up like a teacher at my daughters old school did and that is dead underneath an HGV that was turning left while he was also turning left but trying to go on the inside of the trailer, it just ain't worth it.

Absolute nonsense, I'm afraid. You astonishingly state that as long as you indicate, this absolves you from any responsibility, but that is wholly wrong. .

Your use of the word "lawfully" doesn't add anything, and only serves to confuse the issue.

However, and whilst the Highway Code is not "the law", it can be pointed to (and very often is) in support of allegations of negligence, as in, we are all supposed to know it, and comply with it.

On this specific question (with the most relevant bits highlighted) it clearly states:


The clear logic is:
a) did you know there was a motorcyclist behind you before you manoeuvred? If yes, then you should have been aware it may choose to overtake you, and are thus negligent. If no, then unless it patachuted in, you failed to see it and are negligent.

b) As you crashed whilst being overtaken, how can you possibly argue that you properly checked "to MAKE SURE" you were not being overtaken?

Checkmate, I'm afraid.

None of this, of course, prevents the motorcyclist from possibly being found contributorily negligent, but a sob story equivalent to "it came from nowhere m'lud" won't cut it.



In most such collisions (and it happens regular as clockwork) there is an apportionment of liability, and rightly so, as in most cases, both road users are at fault.

Mirror....signal....mirror.... maneuver. A simple enough sequence to follow, and one which I am sure you will all repeat in your statement to Plod.

Oh, and love the facetious advice given in the Highway Code, of checking your "blind Spot" It's, eerm, called that for a reason, and you could festoon your car/commercial vehicle with mirrors a la a 60's Mod scooter, and you would still have a "blind spot" Possibly even creating a new one!

Still, if you really wanted to check it was still there.......why not?

Clearly, there is a difference between being overtaken before you make the manoeuvre and someone overtaking you whilst you are the process of manoeuvring. However, fault can only be determined from the exact circumstances and evidence of any individual case.

Not facetious, the blind spot is real and dangerous. A good example is on the motorway, every time just before moving to another lane I automatically glance over my shoulder into my blind spot. Not often, but still on a significant number of occasions, there's something there that I couldn't see in the mirror.

If you don't know what your blind spot is then I'm afraid you're a bit of a hazard. The best way to explain it is park on a narrow road; watch a car approach in your rear view mirror. Note that at one point it will disappear from view in your mirror, but will not yet have passed you. It is in your blind spot. If you rely on your mirror and pull out at that moment you will crash. It will be your fault.

There are various gadgets, extra wide angle mirrors etc that claim to address this but nothing imho beats that momentary glance over the shoulder. The reason it is still taught by your driving instructor and is still in the Highway Code after all these years is simple; there will always be a blind spot and any careful driver needs to know this.

To see in action have a look at /watch?v=00N2kQRKVdY in a popular video sharing site.

Only an utter moron would START overtaking you AFTER you had started to turn, though. But even if it did, your problem would be that, as you (by definition) never saw the overtaking motorcycle, then you cannot possibly give evidence that that is what it did. You won't even know that that is what it did. You would only be assuming.

Also, if you knew that the motorcycle was behind you, and if you truly did check your mirrors before turning, then it's hard to see how you could fail to be aware; if the motorcycle is no longer behind you at that second- let me think, where could it be?

Elementary my dear pinstripes. A competent driver would know that as the vehicle starts turning, then the field of view in the mirror also changes, thus the motor cyclist could safetly be pottering along the road as before, but not in your field of view......which incidentally should now be focused forwards looking for oncoming traffic and dilatory pedestrians, as you turn into your driveway entrance.

Of course, we could adopt your strategy of cranning one's neck around and holding that position until safetly parked up in the drive, although I can see some potential problems with that course of action.......

I suspect M'Learned Friend would have a chuckle and agree that as all reasonable steps had been taken, then the fault clearly lies with the biker.

Who, if we are talking Bradford, will most likely not have insuance!

You need to keep your eye on the ball. The law expects you to make one last check in your mirrors and blind spot immediately BEFORE you manoeuvre. Not after. For the reasons I cut and pasted.


You could say it is stating the bleedin obvious, to say that once you've made your final check, then you look where you're planning to go before you actually set off. (Although very often people don't.)


The word is "craning". I do not crane nor does the glance into the blind spot take more than a mere fraction of a second. But crack on making ridiculous stuff up.


Your proposition that "All reasonable steps had been taken" is, I'm afraid, unsupportable hogwash. I can only comment (as we have nothing else to go on) about the evidence in the current version of Peckerwood's witness statement:

then we see poor old Peckerwood is totally knackered, as he didn't check behind him at all, not even in the mirrors. He just indicated, slowed, and began to turn. Oops.

Highway Code section on overtaking:
167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example:

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
where the road narrows
when approaching a school crossing patrol
between a kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
at a level crossing
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled - do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic

Doesn't add anything we didn't already know. Like I said, nothing the car driver does would prevent the motorcyclist from possibly being found contributorily negligent, and again repeating myself, in most such collisions there is an apportionment of liability, as in most cases, both road users are at fault.

And which part of the very clear advice I gave of "Mirror...Signal...Mirror... Manoeuvre" do you feel is at odds with this?



Where does it say that the OP had stopped? Unless it was a very tight entrance, or was obstructed by pedestrians, he would simply have indicated right....slowed down.... and if safe to do so, turned into his drive. That he was aware that there was a motorcyclist behind, would indicate to most people he had checked his mirrors, and I am sure in reply to the question, "when did you last check" would give the answer, (as rehed with his own solicitor, "of immediatly before starting to turn!" Your assertion that any liability can be apportioned to the car driver, after following the above is ludicrous. How on earth can blame be apportioned (to the car driver) for the random actions of another road user who is clearly in breach of the Highway Code recommendations on overtaking? Surely, being a complete is not seen as a postive attribute?



Yes, as one gets older, you do loose a bit of flexibility in the old neck muscles.




I rather think my unsupportable hogwash would carry the day, whether in Peckerwoods case, or in general. Common sense does kick in eventually in the legal System, and I suspect the Magistrate would be inclined to dismiss your thoughts, which if followed to their logical conclusion, would have no one risking a right turn without getting out, checking all around their car. making sure there was no other vehicle within a couple of hundred yards, prior to going for it!

As in the events described by the OP...

The bit where you fail to advise to check your blind spot. Please try to pay attention.


It is irrelevant whether he stopped or not. It is not compulsory to stop. The key is when you decide to set off to TURN RIGHT. There is no issue while you are moving in a straight line (if you are). Why do you want to complicate a simple situation?


You miss the elephantine point that if being overtaken by a motorcyclist, it is patently NOT safe to do so. That is, you miss the whole central point of the discussion.


On the contrary, the OP has not made any such assertion. And no solicitor worthy of the name would coach him to lie.
Even given that you are claiming he checked his mirrors before starting to turn - which the original post did not state - as I've specifically pointed out, but in you discomfiture you seem to have again missed) that is NOT ENOUGH. He would be asked why - as advised by the HC - he didn't check his blind spot. We know he didn't. I don't care if you think it "ludicrous", it is nevertheless an accurate explanation of the law of civil liability in negligence.

Again, you are completely confused. Blame is apportioned for the actions or omissions of each party to the litigation. No blame is apportioned to this car driver for anything done by anyone else. Blame is appportioned for the causative effect of his failures to comply with the law. Pretty simple. If any failure to comply with the law by the motorcyclist are also found, and if they contributed to the collision, then he will also be found negligent, but the basic point you strangely miss is that however much of a pilllock a motorcyclist may be, this has no bearing whatsoever on what the car driver did, or failed to do, which is a completely separate question.

If you can't drive safely, whether due to neck muscles or anything else, stay off the road. Simples.

I know you do. You're 100% wrong, and I couldn't have explained why any more clearly . You either can't or won't understand simple points. I not you don't argue them. You just ludicrously say you "think" your argument would "carry the day". Quaint, if stupid.

Nope, the whole thing would be determined by the law of negligence.

What "magistrate"? the discussion is all about civil liability. Surely you know the difference between a civil claim, and the issues dealt with by magistrates which are nothing to do with civil liabilty, but deal with whether a criminal offence has been committed?

Leaving aside that abandoning your car in the middle of a road would very likely be at least the criminal offence of causing an obstruction, you are getting increasingly silly. The recommendations in the Highway Code are simple, and nothing else needs to be added. I am simply explaining that the rules are those in the Highway Code, and that road users need to follow them. If you genuinely believe that the Highway Code leads to such preposterous "logical conclusions" then I suggest you write in to the Department of Transport which I am sure will give your objections all the consideration they merit. I didn't write it. I just explained what it says, and why you need to follow it.

Point already specifically dealt with. I haven't argued that the moped driver isn't a moron and indeed on the limited info given, he more than likely is. Crashing with a moron isn't relevant to the issue of your own standard of driving, though.

Any of these comments by people with legal qualifications, or is it the usual ill-informed speculation?

Feel free to contribute. I suspect you have much to add on this rather chilly and dismal morning.

Regarding the Highway Code and its contents. It is called a Code for a reason, and not the Highway Law. Much of it is simply advice aimed at promoting safer driving standards for us all, and the few pieces in it which are legally enforceable are clearly stated and linked to the appropiate Regulations.

Something most Legal types would already know.....

I'm not sure that the "check the blindspot" advice so belabored by FA is actually a legal requirement. Perhaps Euclid could point us in the right direction?

Given that the original question was speculative you should be able to draw your own conclusions.

A speculative question invites precise knowledgeable answers as well as further speculation, I would have thought.
There is nothing wrong with speculation in itself, it just seems to me that some are tempted to speculate as if they know the answer and have the requisite knowledge. I was merely speculating on the expertise (or not) behind the speculation!

Speaking for myself, I'm not speculating.


Great straw man. It's main problem is that nobody was arguing that the HC was a statute. See the thing is, "laws" are passed by this thing called "Parliament" and are contained in "statutes". If you really don't get it, I suggest you read the introduction. Here, I'll even quote a bit:



Epic fail, given that in pretty much my first comment I said:

Maybe you are getting yourself so het up that you missed that bit?


You are just getting confused. The issue we are discussing is not whether something is "a legal requirement" (it isn't; you won't find any statute that makes it an offence specifically not to check that blind spot, or any blind spot, but I'll come back to that). The issue is whether, in a court of law making findings on civil liability, your FAILURE TO LOOK where you SHOULD LOOK could make you liable. If you did fail, and if your failure was causative, then the answer is "yes". Can you understand this concept?

Let me explain it this way; there is no law, no magic term of art or any great significance as you seem to be obsessing on the term "blind spot"; it is just that that specific reference in the HC covers one very particular and very well-known blind spot. You might understand it better if you just thought of it as
a) any area of road which for whatever reason you cannot see; AND
b) because of what you intend to do, it is an area of road that you SHOULD check before you do it.

Do you get that? If I don't intend to manoeuvre, then I don't need to check that particular blind spot. In turning right, the HC advises you to check that particular blind spot for the reason that there IS an area behind and to the side where you can not see in your mirrors, and if you are moving to the right, you DO need to first know if it is or isn't occupied with a vehicle. Does that make sense now? It is just convenient to refer to that blind spot, as most competent drivers know about it.

Going back to the point whether "blind spot" is contained in some specific law, the only relevant criminal law in this context is the offence of driving without due care/consideration. That is the offence. Failing to check in any area you can't readily see, but should in the circumstances have looked, and as a result having a crash, can be used as EVIDENCE by which the offence is proved. Try to understand the distinction. it will help.

The HC states:

You should know that the HC isn't just some bunch of do-gooder valedictions invented by some junior lackey. Rather, it is issued with the authority of Parliament (see Road Traffic Act 1988, s.38(7) from which the above proposition is taken). The section I quoted which cites this blind spot is not "facetious" but is the distilled wisdom over many years of one specific and hazardous situation, armed with which knowledge, prudent drivers can drive more safely.

I'm not the one who thinks the Highway Code is "facetious".

Common ground at last.

Thank you for confirming that it is not a legal requirement to check a blind spot, although I wonder where it leaves your previous over confident prediction that a failure to do so would result in blame being apportioned! despite the reckless actions of the guy on the motorbike.

Incidentally, i checked the field of view in my drivers mirror today. It is a Honda CRV, there is no blind spot. I even moved the dustbin and stuck a broom in it, and at no time or position was it out of view. I then tried that old FA favourite of glancing over my shoulder, which simply left you looking at the b pillar. To obtain a view out of the rear offside involved twisting around in your seat, to obtain the same view previously obtainable with no effort from the drivers mirror.

Perhaps the Highway Code would benefit from some updating?

So, Aardvark, you are a qualified lawyer? You know everything?
or both?

You may think that. But I couldn't possibly comment.

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.