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.

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.

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?

If you take a very broad view, yes. Within that, though, for example, some major insurers would let a smallish minor injury claim go to trial, knowing 100% that the claimant would beat the offer produced by Colossus (or whatever auto-claim-value software) on the basis that, overall, it would be worth it for the savings on the cases that undersettled (even though it was known the offer was too low) as these savings would outweigh the costs of letting those who wouldn't take the low offers go to hearing.

All change now, though, what with QOCS battling violently with Part 36. Remains to be seen how that one will pan out.

Wow. they design blind spot mirrors - to deal with the problem of blind spots which according to you don't exist? Well, there's a thing. Why would they do that?

Convex add-on or even integrated mirrors are nothing new. there are loads on the market. Each in a way helps, but NONE can eliminate the blind spot perfectly, for the reasons already stated. including yours. The stick -on varieties have various views ranging from poor to very distorted, and obviously restrict the view of what you would otherwise be able to see in the area behind the stick-on; also, the distortion in the mirror is very annoying and distracting for many:



The funniest part is you say you can see the "leading edge" of the vehicle - but only by turning your head to the right, to look out of your driver's door window - yet which action you dismiss as a facetious suggestion by the Highway Code. If you were looking ahead, (you know, looking where you're going) the view out of your driver's door window is obviously NOT in "your direct sightline";

Next - so, if you can see the "leading edge" by turning your head to look to the right rear (which you can apparently do, without doing it); and you claim that the "rear edge" is visible in part of your mirror somewhere - tell me - where t f is the rest of the vehicle, then? It couldn't be in the non-existent blind spot, by any chance?

Odd things, these non-existent blind spots.



I wonder how many of those drivers had previously spouted the same sanctimonious sort of nonsense as you about blind spots? Or maybe while you are writing to the Highway Code telling them to revise their facetious advice, you could drop a line to the NHTSA as well?

I think my work here is done.

Can I just throw three pennoth in ?

Humans have a field of vision that is ALMOST 180 degrees, get someone to test yours, its actually quite surprising what you can see to the side of you, I already know what both of my eyes are like for field of vision because I have it tested by my doctor every six months, but a simple test such as getting someone to approach from behind and then holding your hand up when you can see then should surprise you.

Further to that, your vision is also alerted more by moving objects, its an animal instinct sort of thing.

So, a moped approaching your car from behind won't be visible to you yet, but if you turn your head even just slightly then your 180 degree field should pick them up easily, especially if they are deviating from a static location in relation to your eye, in other words they are pulling out to overtake and moving across you field of vision.

What we really need is an almost 360 degree field like some birds do.

It is, but not for the reasons you think.

I had earlier in the week dismissed you as simply that annoying stereotypical Yorkshireman that we have all encountered on our foreign travels. You know the one, perched on a stool at the end of the bar, an opinionated buffoon spouting his thoughts on everything under the sun, whilst the rest of us quietly slide out of door.

But there was something that still niggled, and you were right, the penny dropped. The obsessive attention to detail...., the fixation on one single point,...... the ridiculous amount of time spent trawling the Internet in the hope of unearthing something,..., anything which might add weight to your point of view.... the anxiety displayed in case you were wrong...as manifest in your refusal to go and see for yourself regarding the CRV mirror.


I suspect you suffer from OCD/OCPD, and could genuinely benefit from some professional [url=http://www.ocdaction.org.uk/support-groups/yorkshire-humberside/bradford/advice[/url


Personally, I hope it transpires you are simply an opinionated buffoon, and that we can continue to enjoy your comedic value, but I do have doubts.....

I suspect that his work is not actually done, despite what he wished.

It is, and it's not just your "vision", as such; what happens is that such messages from your eyes, as well as going to the part of your brain that gives you pictures, also go DIRECT to your brain's "fight and flight" centre so that picks up sudden movements first; that is, we are made so that any sudden movement is picked up by the fight/flight system BEFORE you "see" it, so you can react to it quicker, and so that the dedicated self-preservation centre of your brain gets its own dedicated signal so it can decide how you react to it. Otherwise, you would have to wait until your visual cortex had worked out what it was seeing, and worked out a plan to deal with it.

Was a brilliant documentary about this a few months back. They discovered that a person who after brain surgery, no longer had any physical sight in one eye, (but still a working eye, just nowhere to send the visual signals to) could still "know" when objects moved across a computer screen. It turned out that he just "knew" when something moved across the screen as it was immediately detected in the f&F centre.


Agreed, if there is appreciable relative movement. But bear in mind they may just be keeping pace with you and thus not "moving" relative to you, so not as easy to pick up as a moving object.


Aye, I often think Mrs. A. has got eyes in the back of her head!

Bless