Select Page

Claiming after a motorcycle accident in Scotland

Home › Claim after a road traffic accident › Motorcycle accidents
Personal injury

Claiming after a motorcycle accident in Scotland

Motorcyclists are injured more severely than other road users and are blamed more readily. Insurers reach for the same three arguments every time — the helmet, the clothing, the speed — and each of them has a legal answer that turns on evidence rather than assumption.

RFPublished by Rooney Family Law Limited, solicitors, regulated by the Law Society of Scotland · Last reviewed 14th August 2026

The short version

A motorcyclist injured by another road user’s fault claims in the ordinary way, against that road user, met by their compulsory insurance under section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. What is different is not the legal test but the shape of the case: the injuries tend to be orthopaedic and lasting, the loss of earnings is often the largest single head, and liability is contested far more often than it is in a rear-end collision between two cars.

Because the injuries are severe, these claims frequently exceed the £25,000 compulsory-scope threshold of the pre-action protocol and the £100,000 exclusive competence of the sheriff court, which changes both the procedure and the court. That is set out on the main road traffic accident page. The £25,000 figure marks the point at which the protocol stops being compulsory rather than an absolute ceiling: under paragraph 4 the claimant must tell the defender once the estimate passes it, and the parties may agree to carry on following the protocol voluntarily. The protocol also does not apply where the accident happened before 28th November 2016, or where the claimant is not represented by a solicitor.

Helmets: compulsory, and what that means for the claim

A helmet is a legal requirement, not a recommendation. Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 empowers regulations requiring protective headgear, and the Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998 provide that every person driving or riding, otherwise than in a sidecar, on a motor bicycle when on a road shall wear protective headgear. Section 16(2) exempts a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban. Rule 83 of the Highway Code states the same requirement in mandatory terms.

Riding without one is an offence, but it does not defeat a claim. It supports an argument for contributory negligence under section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, applied to Scotland by section 5, and the deduction is a percentage of the whole award fixed by the court.

The argument has to be proved, not asserted

A deduction only follows if the absence of the helmet, or the way it was worn, actually made the injury worse. Where the injuries were to the legs and pelvis, a helmet point goes nowhere. Where a strap was not fastened, the question is what difference fastening it would have made on the medical evidence. This is a job for an expert report, and it is why insurers often raise the point early and quietly drop it later.

Protective clothing is not compulsory anywhere in the United Kingdom

Nothing requires a rider to wear boots, gloves, armoured trousers or a back protector. Rule 84 of the Highway Code recommends them in advisory terms only. That distinction matters, because section 38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes a failure to observe the Code evidence that may be relied on as tending to establish or negative liability — evidence, and no more.

An insurer will still argue that jeans instead of leathers aggravated the injury. The argument is available to them, but it starts from a much weaker position than the helmet point, because there is no legal duty being breached, only advice not taken.

Filtering and the right of way argument

Filtering between lanes of slow or stationary traffic is not an offence in itself, and the Highway Code does not prohibit it. Whether it amounts to contributory negligence in a particular collision depends on the speed of the filtering motorcycle relative to the traffic, the visibility, and what the other driver did — most commonly turning right across the queue, or pulling out of a side road, without looking.

The single most common motorcycle collision in Scotland as elsewhere is the driver who emerges from a junction or turns across the rider’s path and says afterwards that they did not see the motorcycle. Failing to see what should have been seen is not a defence. The hierarchy of road users at rules H1 to H3 reinforces the point that those who can do the greater harm bear the greater responsibility, and insurers argue these cases differently since it was introduced.

Where liability is genuinely shared, it is apportioned. A finding that the rider was partly at fault reduces the award by a percentage; it does not end the claim.

What a motorcycle claim is worth in Scotland

Not by tariff. Part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 and the whiplash tariff made under it extend to England and Wales only, by section 13(1) of that Act. In Scotland the award is solatium for pain and suffering, past and future, assessed on the medical evidence, together with patrimonial loss.

In serious motorcycle cases patrimonial loss is usually the larger figure and the harder one to prove. It covers loss of earnings to date and into the future, loss of employability where the injury restricts what work is possible, the cost of care and assistance including care provided unpaid by family, aids and equipment, adaptations, treatment and travel. Where a rider cannot return to a physical trade, the future loss claim is the case. How much compensation could I get sets out how the parts are built.

Head injury is common in motorcycle collisions even where a helmet was worn, and it changes the handling of a claim considerably. Brain injury claims deals with that separately.

Time limits, court and expenses

Three years, under section 17 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, from the accident or the later date of knowledge in section 17(2)(b). A rider injured under sixteen ordinarily has until age 19, because the disregard for nonage in section 17(3) ends when nonage ends at sixteen under section 1(1)(b) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. That is the ordinary case. The three-year period can start later where the relevant facts were not known, under section 17(2)(b), and section 19A is a contested application to the court rather than a safety net to plan around.

A claim valued at not more than £100,000 must be raised in the sheriff court under section 39 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, and may be raised in the National Personal Injury Court sitting at Edinburgh with jurisdiction throughout Scotland. Above that figure the Court of Session becomes an option, and in the most serious motorcycle cases it is often the right one.

If the action fails, section 8 of the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018 means the court must not award expenses against the pursuer, provided the proceedings were conducted in an appropriate manner. The exceptions in section 8(4) and in the 2021 Act of Sederunt, particularly the failure to beat a tender, are the ones to understand before rejecting an offer.

If the driver who caused it had no insurance or was never traced, see claiming against an uninsured or untraced driver.

Sources

This page is general information about the law of Scotland and is not advice on your circumstances. Time limits are strict and the consequences of missing one cannot be undone. Take advice on your own case.