Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:I'm also incredulous that any blame should attach to the driver.
I'm not.
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:One of the first things we're taught about overtaking, certainly as part of advanced driving, is not to overtake where there are blind junctions or entrances on either side, but particularly on the right.
Indeed. But that doesn't mean that if you
do overtake me past a junction on the right, I turn right and we collide, that I am entirely blameless.
What seems relevant in this case (I've only read what the OP posted) is
T.C wrote:As the size of the vehicle behind E's car meant that E could not see clearly, he should have inched out. Where a driver could not see what was behind him, he had to take that step.
It seems the court felt that there was more the driver could have done. It's not sufficient to make a decision based on what you happen to be able to see. You have to consider whether you what you can see is enough, and if not, whether there's anything you can do about it. It seems the court felt there was something the car driver could have done about it, and that doesn't seem inconceivable to me.
The motorcyclist's part of the blame seems to be down to his speed. In that case, I think the question is, if the motorcyclist had arrived at the same point at the same time, but doing a speed that would be considered reasonable, and the car driver had done exactly what they did, would the collision still have occurred? If the answer is yes, then it's reasonable to think the car driver might share some of the blame.