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 bitMany 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’.'"

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.
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.

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.