Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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?
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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. '"
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.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "Common sense does kick in eventually in the legal System, '"
Nope, the whole thing would be determined by the law of negligence.
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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?
Quote: rumpelstiltskin "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.