On that basis the insurance company could refuse to pay up for bad weather, riding with a cold, not having glasses under a year old, going out in the rush hour on the day the clocks change to summer time and a host of other risk based assesments. They'll try all the above, but if filtering/lane splitting is legal you are covered to the minimum degree required. After that you have to enter the shark tank and fight for your cash just like any other claim involving the in-sewer-ants.

What I think the magistrates have failed to express in a clear way is that they believe the motorcyclist was partially at fault due to their lane position and that the car driver couldn't reasonably be expected to react in a way that would have avoided this. They are saying it was an accident to which no blame could be levelled, which I guess although unlikely could be true. You will always get this sort of perverse judgement unless there is forensic evidence. The women judges have basically accepted that a no doubt well dressed and polite young women who's lawyer will have stressed that she really isn't a bad person didn't mean any harm. If that's all they'd said we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'd wonder if the magistrates actually drive? In the UK a magistrate who's only ever been on the train can sit in judgement on traffic offences and the same applies to juries.

UK magistrates and Juries come up with this sort of rubbish all the time. Look at the number of nasty street thugs who turn up to court with a suit, a shave, a puppy dog expression and a crucifix instead of their usual gang signs and hoodies and get off because all the old dears on the jury think he's a nice young man and the young girls fancy him. The good news is that the badly worded comments will probably be grounds to dispute the judgement in a higher court.

Andy