Ok, here’s the scenario,
A motorcyclist is filtering past, to the offside of a long queue of stationary traffic. Whilst the motorcyclist is filtering, a car driver in the stationary queue decides to carry out a ‘U’ turn and in doing so collides with the motorcyclist. This is all the information to go on.
Here’s my question, who in your opinion would be considered to be at fault?
Thanks in advance for your responses
last time i’ve checked, u turns were illegal.
Where did you get that from???
@OP… it depends!!!
We need more info. Was the car indicating that they were preparing for a turn? Is it really a U-turn or turning to a side road? Where was the motorcycle positioned when the car started turning?
I can keep going with the questions if you see my point!
There were actually two threads about it on the forum in the past few months. And, yes, as Chris said, it really depends on a lot of things.
Where on earth did you check that?
Almost impossible to form an opinion with so little information, so it could be argued that either both or neither are at fault.
Also, opinions don’t count for much when it comes to the law, interpretations however… 
… Next we move to Davis v Schrogrin, a Court of Appeal decision in 2006. The accident occurred on a long straight section of road with one lane in each direction. There was a long queue of stationary/slow moving vehicles. A motorcyclist travelling in the direction of the queue was overtaking at about 40 mph. He was riding over the central white line, and half to two thirds of the way into the opposite carriageway, was displaying a dipped headlight and a right hand indicator. He had been in that position for approximately half a mile and was not weaving in and out of traffic. A car driver lost patience and decided to carry out a U turn when the motorcycle was no more than five car lengths back, and the inevitable collision occurred. The Court found the car driver wholly at fault on the basis the motorcyclist was there to be seen. Even if the motorcyclist had been travelling more slowly, it would have made no difference because he had been right on top of the point of the accident when the driver first did anything to alert the motorcyclist of his intended manoeuvre.
R
U turns are not illegal unless there are signs in place to prohibit it, as other have said a lot more details would be needed to say for sure but even then it could go anwyay with the insurance comapnies!
Funnily enough, with so little info… 83% of the votes say that the car driver was on the wrong!!!
Liiiiiiitle bit biased or is it just me???
pretty sure about the fact that its illegal to carry on a three point u turn in the middle of the road while stuck in traffic with no clear visibility ahead!
Setting aside the fact that a three point turn is a completely different manoeuvre to a U turn, both manoeuvres are completely legal. What would be illegal is carrying out either manoeuvre without due care and attention. If you look carefully to ensure that the road is clear, signal your intention to carry out the manoeuvre, and carry it out at appropriate speed, it would most certainly not be illegal, unless there was an explicit road sign or marking banning it (for example a “no U turn” sign or an unbroken white line).
Not enough info sorry. However, recent presidents have been set whereby no fault has been established for a motorcycle filtering within these limits.
If greater detail was provided, then more qualified individuals than myself may comment.
I would love you to be able to point me to the act and section that makes carrying out either a U turn or a 3 point turn a specific offence, other than stated where there is a No U Turn sign.
In 35 + years of dealing entirely with traffic law, I have yet to come across such an offence.
But as someone has already pointed out, it is illegal to drive without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other road users.
In respect, as to who is liable, first indications would be that the driver is liable, however!!!
Much depends on knowing the full circumstances and seeing the evidence available, and whether (aside from filtering) the rider did anything that contributed to the cause of the crash.
I’d love to see the same question posed on some other forum full of car drivers to see the prevailing opinion from the other side.
Either way, I would have thought that at best the car driver was wholly to blame. But other factors like filtering at a junction, filtering after a no-overtaking sign, over solid white lines, going wrong side of a keep left island, excessive filtering speed, pulling a monster wheely, wearing super tinted visor at midnight, high off your face on booze’n’coke, with 6 whores pillion, running over lines of Hare Kishna kittens and so forth could easily swing it the other way. Regardless, insurance will probably go 50/50, so they pay the least out and reap the most back long term.
The car driver should carry out a sequence of checks prior to their manoeuvre includingMirrorsSignalLookManoeuvre
Its probably, and I stress the probably, the case that the car driver didn’t use his Mirrors or Look. Had he done so he would have seen the motorcyclist and, I would hope, not have made the manoeuvre. If that is the case the car driver was driving carelessly.
Although, as said, there are two sides to ever coin.
Surely you have to look in the mirrors? 
:rolleyes::hehe:
Yes usually true but Addison Lee and Jaguar drivers are exempt from doing this under the highway code if you check the small print.
Usually the car driver at fault as they’re doing the dramatic change in speed/direction without making sufficient checks that it is safe to do so, the bike is usually travelling at a constant speed/direction and wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) be doing so unless the path ahead was clear.
Filtering in what is deemed unsafe conditions (speed, visibility etc) and/or if road signage prohibits it would start to place more blame towards the motorcyclist, though if visibility is that bad then it’s usually not a great place to do a turn in the road, either.
And 3 point turns are completely legal, otherwise they wouldn’t be a part of a car driving test. Similar for U-turns - both properly known as turn in the road (as it’s really a function of how wide the road is), and if they were blanket illegal then there wouldn’t need to be any ‘no u-turn’ signs.
Ignoring attempts to contextualise a statement, doesn’t really help.
Silver explained what she meant: that doing a U-Turn without having visibility would be classified as illegal, and as you well know, it probably would be, it would likely be deemed to be careless driving (driving without due care and attention) as any competent and careful driver wouldn’t have made the same manoeuvre in those circumstances; and therefore the level of driving would have fallen below that standard.
As to the OP.
I agree with everyone else, you have provided very little information and it wouldn’t be that easy to know the outcome. In such circumstances, as Blade posted, the case law appears to indicate that if the motorcyclist is there to be seen and the driver fails to see the motorcyclist then the car driver is usually at fault.
However, without a full set of facts it isn’t always clear.
For instance, if the motorcyclist was travelling at 120mph, and the car driver made every effort to judge that the road was clear, then perhaps the Court MAY take the view that the blame is there to be shared.
Biker vs Cager…clearly the cager was at fault. Just because. 
