Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:32 pm  

LF13 wrote:

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.

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

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:57 pm  

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:07 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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

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.)

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 rehearsed 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 dude is not seen as a postive attribute?

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.

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

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.

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!

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:29 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Only an utter moron would START overtaking you AFTER you had started to turn, though.

As in the events described by the OP...

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:24 am  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Where does it say that the OP had stopped?

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?

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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.

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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 rehearsed 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.

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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?

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I rather think my unsupportable hogwash would carry the day, whether in Peckerwoods case, or in general.

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Common sense does kick in eventually in the legal System,

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

and I suspect the Magistrate would be inclined to dismiss your thoughts,

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?

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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!

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:30 am  

LF13 wrote:

As in the events described by the OP...

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:37 am  

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

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:05 am  

Euclid wrote:

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?

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:07 am  

Euclid wrote:

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

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

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:22 am  

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!