Motorcyclists charged over crash deaths of couple

[luckylucian]

Its a bit tongue in cheek but there is a valid point in there somewhere. you are responsible for your actions, others can judge for themsleves and should be responsible for their actions.

5 mates in a car, the driver is known to be a lunatic driver, but the other 4 chose to travel with him, accepting the thrill of the stupid driving. If he crashes and one is killed, only the driver will be prosecuted.

5 bikes go for a ride, the front rider is known to be a stupidly fast rider, they all follow him accepting the thrill of the fast ride, in a 60mph area he enters a bend at 50mph, he doesn't crash but one of the other riders does and is killed, why should the other riders be subject to a prosecution.

Apologies if I've missed the point, its a long thread and I've tried to keep up.

 

[Mutley]

How about this scenario

Im happily riding towards or from a known bike meeting place. I'm exceeding the speed limit but not massively so. I collect a couple of other bikes, as is often the case, and we ride together as that's what the traffic conditions dictate.

I make an overtake and the other bikes decide to try and make it too. Typically that's when you get nicked. Plod clocks the last bike at 100 mph + and does us all yet I don't know the other two and have never met them

So, can I now be prosecuted for random bikers? Alternatively, if I'm out with a friend, I can deny knowing him and escape prosecution? Are the Dibble now so incensed by our presence they'll swoop at dawn and confiscate phones / computers to prove I know the other bloke?

 

[Giles]

Some of us on here are recreational leisure riders and some are serious petrol heads, but I'm confident that nearly all of us, and the most serious petrol heads amongst us are still pretty sensible and know when and where to turn it on, and when not to.

But there are a minority in our biking comuntiy that don't. And to be honest, some of them I really despise.

I could play you videos from our unmarked bikes following R1's doing 140+ in a 60mph limit, riding on busy dual-carriageways doing 100+ on their back wheel. These w4nkers ride with a complete and utter disregard for any thing and anyone but themselves. And it's riders like this that have led us to where we are now. I'm not talking the odd bit of quick riding that you and I might do, we're talking serious serious bad behaviour!!

I understand why some peepes are paranoid, thin end of the wedge and all that, but generally speaking, I'd put my neck on the block and say that laws and rulings like this are very very unlikely to affect you.

 

[MikeP]

Dearie me. For a bunch of ruff-tuff 'bikers' there really are a surprisingly large number capable of near paranoia.

A few years ago when it was declared that the new chipped number plates would be trialled for motorcycles before going national, it was seriously argued here that it was a government conspiracy to monitor the speed of riders through surveillance jiggery-pokery.

Then because some muppets didn't send off their bike pass certificates believing that as they had a full car licence the group would magically appear on their driver-record only to find on renewal that there was no bike entitlement, it was a government/DVLA conspiracy to get people to re-take their tests.

Now a police force uses existing powers to investigate a fatal collision (not the first time either) and people are suggesting that if when riding together one of you falls over you'll all be up before the beak and lose your livelihoods and homes.

FFS, whatever you do, don't pass another bike on the open road, don't follow one and if one comes-up behind you, pull-in immediately to avoid any suspicion that you may have been riding together.

If anything has contributed to this countries decline (and that's a questionable assertion anyway), it's the bunch of Urban-Worriers who think that they are important enough to attract the attention of the dark forces of the State simply because they are rebellious enough to like motorcycles.

 

[Mutley]

If anything has contributed to this countries decline (and that's a questionable assertion anyway), it's the bunch of Urban-Worriers who think that they are important enough to attract the attention of the dark forces of the State simply because they are rebellious enough to like motorcycles.

Feck me Mike, why do you ride a motorcycle?

 

[MikeP]

Feck me Mike, why do you ride a motorcycle?

I have no idea.

I'm a rebel without a clue.

 

[Big Nick]

Can't really get my head around this without more detail on what actually happened

The court case should be very interesting...........

 

[Rasher]

If anything has contributed to this countries decline (and that's a questionable assertion anyway), it's the bunch of Urban-Worriers who think that they are important enough to attract the attention of the dark forces of the State simply because they are rebellious enough to like motorcycles.

Well we have had incidents such as the Waterman where a huge effort was put into stopping bikes getting to a pub, not hunting down the small minority Giles so rightly despises, people were even stopped from getting home if they happened to live near said pub.

I got busted for "riding on the pavement" at Stratford, this "riding" was edging up the pavement to where all the bikes park, it was legal to park there and I think the town liked the business, the local plod however did not like the bikers (probably due to Giles' best enemies) but instead of tackling the twats wheelying up and down the town it was easier to monitor a camera that picked up bikes parking and send summons to about a dozen a week, I was in a group of 4-5 bikes, mine was the only one with a legal sized number plate which is probably why I was done and not my mates.

Plus why do they dream up these new laws, they could easily proesecute the real trouble makers with existing laws as excessive speeding and wheelies can be handled by speeding, due care, dangerous and reckless driving offences already in place.

The efforts the police regularly employ that harrass the 99.9% of decent bikers at various meets (justified due to the actions of the 0.1% they rarely catch) far outweigh what they put into catching some of these one man (boy) crime sprees that ruin the lives of hundreds of people unlucky enough to live in the same neigbourhood.

I am not sticking up for the morons out there, but you can see why so often the words "don't you have anything better to do" are mentioned with regard to the Police, and I know a few coppers / ex coppers so appreciatte most of them would rather be doing something better, why aren't they allowed to

 

[MikeP]

Well we have had incidents such as.....(snip)..... why aren't they allowed to

See above, I don't have a clue but I do hope that you feel better for having got it off your chest.

 

[biggles12]

Dearie me. For a bunch of ruff-tuff 'bikers' there really are a surprisingly large number capable of near paranoia.

A few years ago when it was declared that the new chipped number plates would be trialled for motorcycles before going national, it was seriously argued here that it was a government conspiracy to monitor the speed of riders through surveillance jiggery-pokery.

Then because some muppets didn't send off their bike pass certificates believing that as they had a full car licence the group would magically appear on their driver-record only to find on renewal that there was no bike entitlement, it was a government/DVLA conspiracy to get people to re-take their tests.

Now a police force uses existing powers to investigate a fatal collision (not the first time either) and people are suggesting that if when riding together one of you falls over you'll all be up before the beak and lose your livelihoods and homes.

FFS, whatever you do, don't pass another bike on the open road, don't follow one and if one comes-up behind you, pull-in immediately to avoid any suspicion that you may have been riding together.

If anything has contributed to this countries decline (and that's a questionable assertion anyway), it's the bunch of Urban-Worriers who think that they are important enough to attract the attention of the dark forces of the State simply because they are rebellious enough to like motorcycles.

Maybe we see it from a different point of view, not being coppers. Ever thought we might have been picked on for so long, its made us think like this.

 

[MikeP]

Maybe we see it from a different point of view, not being coppers. Ever thought we might have been picked on for so long, its made us think like this.

Many years ago, in my callow youth, I used to drive a sports car. Whenever I got stopped (a few times and once resulting in an old-fashioned endorsement), I used to console myself that they were picking on me because I had a nice car at my age.

Eventually I matured enough to realise that the reason was quite simply that I drove that nice car like a complete cock.

 

[Giles]

I am not sticking up for the morons out there, but you can see why so often the words "don't you have anything better to do" are mentioned with regard to the Police, and I know a few coppers / ex coppers so appreciatte most of them would rather be doing something better, why aren't they allowed to

But you may not know what goes on behind the scenes. There are plenty of residents who live in and around popular bike meets and they eventually get seriously fecked off with yet another litre sports bike, with an illegal exhaust doing 12,000 revs up their road on a sunday afternoon. These people then write in to their local Police station, address it to the chief bigwig and tell him 'I pay a huge chunk of my council tax to you, what are you doing about..?' So more often than not, people like me are called into the office and asked 'What are you doing about it..?'!!!

Result? Police move in and start ticketing everybody with a dodgy exhaust, dodgy number plate, speed guns appear etc etc.

Sadly, it's always a minority of bikers that feck it up for the majority.

we're sliding off topic a tad here!

A couple of years ago there was a fatal accident here involving four bikes riding in a group. All on Jap sports bikes, three very experienced, one fairly new to the whole game. There had been a planned route, but the lead rider decided to turn right off the main road at the last minute. The two behind him were quick to react, the third new rider at the back stood no chance and in his efforts to avoid going into the back of them, swerved to the nearside, hit a tree and died. Witnesses came forward to say they had been overtaken by the group riding like a bunch of nutters. The new boy at the back was probably hanging on for grim death. Literally.

The investigation considered sticking on the other three for death by dangerous, but eventually it didn't happen.

Was matey boy dragged out of his comfort zone by the other three? Should he have recognised that the pace was not for him and that he should have backed off and met them at their destination? Did the other three show a complete disregard for their new friend and his ability? Ultimately are their actions contributing factors to the accident, or is the new guy solely responsibile for his own death?

It's cases like this, that laws and rulings like these are applied to ..

 

[Taff]

.... Did the other three show a complete disregard for their new friend and his ability?

How are the 3 at the front supposed to know whether the man at the back is riding within his ability? All they know is that he's still there. Hell, they may be so engrossed in their own ride, that may not even know that.

The only person that knows if the man at the back is within his "comfort zone" is the man at the back.

 

[MikeP]

How are the 3 at the front supposed to know whether the man at the back is riding within his ability? All they know is that he's still there. Hell, they may be so engrossed in their own ride, that may not even know that.

The only person that knows if the man at the back is within his "comfort zone" is the man at the back.

Perhaps the point that you raise was the reason why no action was taken against the other riders in that case.

Honestly Taff, you seem to have wound-up a head of steam as though there was now a law stating that every rider will be prosecuted no matter the circumstances.

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

Yes. It has been used before and it will be in the future. If there's a question in my mind, it's whether old footage, not connected to the incident in question, is admitted as evidence of previous bad behaviour. It hasn't to my knowledge but that would be a dangerous precedent.

This quote was in relation to the use of video cam footage and I think this could be behind the approach of the police/CPS.

'If' the Group have a riding 'reputation' then the seizure of video evidence confirming this 'reputation', together with bikes and gear conclusively identifying the individuals, would inform the court and justify the serious charges

Dangerous precedent indeed

 

[MikeP]

This quote was in relation to the use of video cam footage and I think this could be behind the approach of the police/CPS.

'If' the Group have a riding 'reputation' then the seizure of video evidence confirming this 'reputation', together with bikes and gear conclusively identifying the individuals, would inform the court and justify the serious charges

Dangerous precedent indeed

The context of that quote is that I cannot see it happening in a criminal court. It may be admissible in an Inquest however (but if this goes to Crown Court, there will be no Inquest).

 

[Roadsweeper]

2 points i would like to make in relation to this thread.

The interesting word in the charge of Section 1 RTA, causing death by dangerous riding/Driving Is Causing. The person charged does not have to be the only cause he does not even have to be the main cause. The charge can be upheld if he has been shown to have made some cause.

Previously drivers have been found guilty when they have been proved to be racing or entering into a joint enterprise. there was a case not so long ago about two cars the drivers did not have any prior knowledge of each other. after a challenging overtake the other driver responded. Independant witness evidence suggested thay both drove dangerously. it ended with a collision one driver killed and occupants of another car killed. The surviving competing driver was charged section 1. He was found guilty by a jury at crown court.

2nd point. a lot of comment about the rider taking his own responsibilty and his hand on the throttle etc. What about the pillion?

 

[L]

The context of that quote is that I cannot see it happening in a criminal court. It may be admissible in an Inquest however (but if this goes to Crown Court, there will be no Inquest).

So a few questions:
1) Can this sort of "evidence" be used at the time of sentencing??? i.e. they are found guilty and then the judge is shown hours of footage taken from their PCs, of the same group driving on public roads like loonies, thereby making the judge pass a higher sentence? (surely that is reasonable if the footage is incriminating enough?)

2) I find it amazing that so many people don't seem to be able to see a scenario where a group of bikers could cause an accident. I've certainly been in the position of driving along, minding my own business when suddenly distracted by a group of bikers with load exhausts overtaking at speed at silly places. I actually thought this was a fairly common occurance...? I'm also aware that it can be pretty difficult to identify a specific bike, especially in a pack, so the question is, if the police have a bucket load of witness statements against "a group", is this sufficient to prosecute the group as a whole?

3) This lead rider being prosecuted thing had me worried for a minute, thinking back to my advanced riding training and struggling to keep up with the instructor, I thought this may be an example of him getting prosected for my riding (as suggested by some posters). But looking at the detail, its quite clear in fact, that in the case mentioned, the police couldn't PROVE the lead rider was going more than 85mph. If they could prove he was doing 85mph, then he must have, in reality, been going a hell of a lot quicker! , so he probably got what he deserved!

 

[Timolgra]

If they could prove he was doing 85mph, then he must have, in reality, been going a hell of a lot quicker! , so he probably got what he deserved!

Can someone recommend a forum for real motorcyclists please

 

[MikeP]

So a few questions:
1) Can this sort of "evidence" be used at the time of sentencing??? i.e. they are found guilty and then the judge is shown hours of footage taken from their PCs, of the same group driving on public roads like loonies, thereby making the judge pass a higher sentence? (surely that is reasonable if the footage is incriminating enough?)

Unless it has been entered into evidence and has been accepted by the court (if it was offered by the CPS, objected to by the defence and ruled inadmissible by the judge/magistrates), then no.

2) I'm also aware that it can be pretty difficult to identify a specific bike, especially in a pack, so the question is, if the police have a bucket load of witness statements against "a group", is this sufficient to prosecute the group as a whole?

Rules governing the identification of suspects is very specific and restrictive (rightly so). The burden of proof is still "beyond reasonable doubt" so it would be simple for a defence to raise a doubt about the identity. The answer is no, not without specific evidence identifying the individuals.

3) But looking at the detail, its quite clear in fact, that in the case mentioned, the police couldn't PROVE the lead rider was going more than 85mph. If they could prove he was doing 85mph, then he must have, in reality, been going a hell of a lot quicker! , so he probably got what he deserved!

The amount that the limit is exceeded is not relevant except in certain circumstances where sentences include a discretion to disqualify i.e where a given limit is exceeded by 30 mph or more. To exceed a limit by One mph is an offence, the recorded speed is only mentioned (apart from the above instances) to show that the limit was exceeded (and to show that it met the prosecution criteria: 10% over the limit + whatever it is these days).

The idea behind this "lead rider who exceeds the limit shall be sentenced the same as the highest recorded speed of the following group" is simply one of shared or group responsibility. There's little doubt in my mind that it is intended to make people think a bit more about their actions (in circumstances where those actions may have wider consequences).

Anyone who has been at the tail of a group will know that to keep in contact you have to be doing a higher speed than the leader. If the worst happens on such a ride, even if no prosecution was to follow, an inquest might find that the responsibility is wider than simply the rider who lost his life not having the skill to ride safely in the conditions that were applicable. The responsibility may be shared by the whole group, especially whoever set the pace.

Of course the ultimate responsibility will be with the person who rides beyond his/her comfort zone but we know that in reality peer pressure also has some influence on people's actions.

Common sense suggests that any group should ride at or just below the capabilities of the least able. Prosecuting in cases where the absence of such common sense is a bit heavy-handed but as long as it's restricted to the worst cases and the circumstances are heard in a court (that this never becomes a Fixed Penalty offence) I don't really have a problem with it.