Is this the right call from the Appeal Court?

[urbanswine]

When I first got on a bike (moped!) at 16, my dad said it was my responsibility to look after myself. "it's no good saying 'I had right of way' when your 6foot under". so my response is if he saw a lorry on his side of the road, aim to miss it. He says he had 3 seconds. I do feel for him and I think he should have a degree of compensation even if he failed to avoid. But, again we all have a responsibility for ourselves as well.

[Hodge]

What's more important here, the fact a rider lost his leg in an avoidable accident and is now disabled for the rest of his life, through no fault of his own, or pandering to a foriegn lorry driver/company who did not follow our highway lwas?

Eh?  "through no fault of his own..." ???
He admits he could have positioned himself out of harm's way and didn't! Whether this was because he was actually travelling faster than appropriate, whether he was riding in a belligerent manner to claim the entire half of the road or simply panicked and ran wide doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided the accident.
I think reading this sorry tale as an example of prejudice against bikers (or indeed, as reason to be prejudiced against foreigners) is plain wrong.
We should be taking it as a lesson in the value of defensive riding.

You can't ignore the fact the lorry was on his side of the road. If the lorry was too wide for the road it is unsafe and should have either taken a different route or arranged an escort. By your rules the Highway Code is insignificant and irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it was a bike, car or another lorry the other driver failed to take appropriate precautions to ensure other road users were not put at risk.

I hope and pray you are never put in that position whereby you are riding/driving along and some other driver maims you for life. If it did happen I'm confident you wouldn't take the blame when there is no evidence you were outside of your lane.