Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:23 am  

Euclid wrote:

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Regarding the Highway Code and its contents. It is called a Code for a reason, and not the Highway Law.

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:

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Something most Legal types would already know...

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

... 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.

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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?

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:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’

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".

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:11 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

snip.

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?

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:15 pm  

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

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:21 pm  

Euclid wrote:

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

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

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:09 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Common ground at last.

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Thank you for confirming that it is not a legal requirement to check a blind spot,

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? "Well, 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"? Is that your point? Do you actually think it makes sense?

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

although I wonder where it leaves your previous over confident prediction that a failure to do so would result in blame being apportioned!

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

despite the reckless actions of the guy on the motorbike.

<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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Incidentally, i checked the field of view in my drivers mirror today. It is a Honda CRV, there is no blind spot.

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Perhaps the Highway Code would benefit from some updating?

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:33 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:55 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

God Almighty, ...

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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)

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?

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

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?

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.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

In fact, get that pinstriped backside of yours down to Stratstone Honda in Bradford, and check it out for yourself.

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

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

There will be no need to apologise, as I am already embarrassed at arguing with someone so intellectually challenged.

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Thu Nov 21, 2013 4:37 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

And so modest....

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:18 am  

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.

Re: Hypothetical RTC with a moped : Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:44 am  

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.