Motorcyclists charged over crash deaths of couple

[Deleted account Cooperman]

That is crazy, It's not the lead riders hand on the throttle of the guy following.

Does that mean as I was following the car in front it was his fault I was speeding....

Report from 19 November 2009

Motorcyclists at the head of a group of riders will face stiffer penalties for speeding under a crown court ruling.

Being the lead rider in a group is an aggravating factor making you partly responsible for speeding offences of those behind you according to the decision.

The ruling can be applied in any future cases where two or more motorcyclists riding together are accused of speeding. The head rider might be only a few mph over the limit but could be given the same penalty as the worst offender behind.

Road traffic solicitor Robert Dobson said: “Any crown court decision can be stated in future cases. This is potentially a very dangerous judgement for motorcyclists.

"Riders in a group change position frequently.

“If you are riding at the front any group at excess speed, then the very fact you’re at the front is an aggravating factor.”

Ken Clark, 49, reached 85mph on his Yamaha R1 while leading a group of three riders on the 60mph A272 near Rogate, Sussex, last June.

The speed is within the usual threshold for a fixed penalty of three points and a £60 fine.

But Chichester Crown Court ruled he should receive the same penalty as a following rider accused of going 103mph.

Barrister notes on the ruling given to Clark after the hearing state: ‘Although his was the lesser speed, [the bench] found it an aggravating feature that he was the lead motorcyclist, was setting the pace and he knew that the other two motorcyclists would want to catch him up and would be speeding to do so.’

The court rejected Clark’s appeal against six points, a £100 fine and £250 court costs.

Clark said: “This should have been three points and a £60 fine but so far it’s cost me £2,500 including solicitors’ bills and I have six points on a licence which has been clean for the last 24 years.”

Clark’s solicitor, Philip Somarakis, said 103mph was the speed reached by a police officer on an unmarked bike while tailing Clark's two friends, but the prosecution accepted it was not possible to prove from video evidence that Clark himself had exceeded 85mph.

“The gist of the ruling is that to be a lead motorcyclist makes you somehow responsible for the actions of those behind you,” he added.

Gary Baldwin, former police motorcyclist and co-director of advanced riding school Rapid Training, said: “It's a dangerous precedent to suggest you are now responsible for someone who's in control of another vehicle.

"How do I control what they do? If someone is following me and I get in an overtake that they don't, they may go faster to catch up but that is their choice.”

 

[stolzy]

There is no reason why anyone on a ride-out should worry, as long as their behaviour stays within the law, or at least doesn't stray into the definition of Dangerous Driving.

As long as you're not the lead rider - who (apparently) can be charged with speeding bu members of the group following him/her

Originally Posted by Cooperman

Legislation is already in place for a lead rider to be charged for speeding offences comitted by others in a group.​

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

A press report from the original arrests in November:

Assistant Chief Constable Sue Cross said North Yorkshire Police had taken the unusual step of carrying out the dawn raid as part of the “serious” investigation into the double fatal crash.

ACC Cross, who was at yesterday’s swoop in Cullingworth, said: “These arrests demonstrate how seriously we are taking the issue of motorcyclists losing their lives. This is not about demonising the motorcycling community because I know there are those who use the roads properly, but there are a small minority who do not and drive recklessly.”

She said many of the collisions in North Yorkshire involved riders from across the country, including from West Yorkshire, taking to rural roads on high-powered sports bikes.

ACC Cross said: “The message is very clear. We welcome all drivers and riders onto the roads but we will not tolerate them using excessive speed or breaking the law and putting themselves, other road users and pedestrians at risk.”

 

[MikeP]

As long as you're not the lead rider - who (apparently) can be charged with speeding bu members of the group following him/her

I was referring to possible liability should a collision occur (which is after-all the topic) but to address the speeding liability, if the lead rider does not exceed the given limit, there is no penalty for him/her.

It seems to me that there are two simple bits of guidance for ride-out "captains":

1) Don't exceed the limit and you will be okay.

2) If you wish to set-off together, travel together and arrive together, hire a charabanc!

 

[sven]

Some interesting reading here including comments from someone who knows a couple of those charged http://www.northukbikers-videos.co.uk/discuss/forum/Blah.pl?m-1300095022/s-new/

 

[MikeP]

Some interesting reading here including comments from someone who knows a couple of those charged http://www.northukbikers-videos.co.uk/discuss/forum/Blah.pl?m-1300095022/s-new/

Seems to be limited to registered members.

 

[wilbjr21]

This whole thing is just total hogwank.

Unfortunately Lord Denning is no longer around to keep these buffoons in check.

 

[C-J]

Seems to be limited to registered members.

Sign up.. come for a ride !!

Promise we won't make you sign anything !!



Though if precedents are set we'll have to have everyone signing bits of paper before we have rides !

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

Sign up.. come for a ride

Signed up

Looks as though somebody's trying to make a point with the case being delayed a few times to coincide with the start of the biking season

Police pushing out a serious charge on the tactic that it will be easier to relax and still get a conviction

No hard evidence presented supporting the case. Appears to have been a 'normal' ride with the group actually split up.

All arrested riders had bikes, gear and PC's confiscated (still not returned).

No info on what happened to the driver/occupants of the car involved.

 

[MikeP]

Looks as though somebody's trying to make a point with the case being delayed a few times to coincide with the start of the biking season

It's more likely that any delay is down to the complexity of dealing with five defendants. The collision occurred in August 2010, they were arrested in early November 2010 (possibly delayed for forensic results and the seizure of computers suggests that video evidence and or chat-room discussions may be part of the evidence) and were not charged until early this month. The rules preclude delaying charging unless it's unavoidable.

Police pushing out a serious charge on the tactic that it will be easier to relax and still get a conviction

Police won't scratch their collective backsides in a case like this without the CPS providing guidance. It will be the CPS that decides upon the charges. The burden of proof and the standard of driving in Section 1 and Section 2 is the same. The fact to be decided between the two charges is, in the case of Section 1, whether the (dangerous) actions caused the deaths.

No hard evidence presented supporting the case.

From where? The defence will have to be supplied with all the Crown's evidence under the rules of disclosure. The Crown obviously have all their evidence. Are you expecting either side to be publishing it somewhere before the case is heard?

All arrested riders had bikes, gear and PC's confiscated (still not returned).

If these items have been seized as evidence, they will not be returned until the case is completed (if then). Even if no relevant evidence is discovered the items will be retained until after the case is heard, disclosure rules mean that even 'nil returns' have to be disclosed and continuity of that 'no evidence found' needs to be maintained.

No info on what happened to the driver/occupants of the car involved.

It will all come out in court. Which seems to me to be the best place for it rather than an internet forum (or three). There's no point second-guessing before the hearing unless it's to build-up a head of steam for a 'free the Bradford five' or a 'police are picking on us' campaign.

Up to now I've restricted my comments to giving what explanations as are within my limited competency on the legal questions but here's my tuppence-worth:

Two people died. Their families have a right to expect to hear how and why they died. Whether they died because of the actions of one of them alone or whether the actions of others contributed and if so to what degree. If in the course of the investigation into the deaths any evidence emerges that suggests a criminal offence committed by others was wholly or partly contributory, then the investigating authorities must do whatever it takes within the law to investigate, fully.

If as a result some suspected people are arrested, have their property seized and appear in court, then so be it. If they are all (or some) acquitted, then it was still worth it. They will have suffered certainly, however they will be alive and their families won't be left with unanswered questions.

If that makes some motorcyclists think a little further regarding their individual actions when riding in a group, so much the better.

 

[david a hall]

An excellent post Mike.

 

[JohnnyBoxer]

Group rides are potentially dangerous, nothing new......................full stop

 

[Taff]

You are riding safely, another rider goes for an ill advised overtake, realises it's not on and tries to pull in alongside or immediately in front of you. You brake violently to avoid a collision with the aborting overtake machine, loose control, easier with a passenger on the back sliding into you as they loose their grip on the grab bars, the bike fish-tails and veers directly, head on into the oncoming 44 tonner. Will that scenario do as starters?

But in that example the "other rider" caused the accident. I've got no problem with that.

... This case was debated at length on this very forum: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...road-death-camera-race-motorbikes-170mph.html.

But that was another biker; how many cases like this are there where cars are involved? Again links would be appreciated.

 

[MikeP]

But that was another biker; how many cases like this are there where cars are involved? Again links would be appreciated.

What difference does the means of transport make, especially if it's the principal of shared responsibility that so concerns you?

Here's one where two car drivers were charged with Section 1, even though only one of the cars collided with the vehicle in which the fatality occurred:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...d-taxi-man-s-death-court-told-91466-25857839/

Another where two car drivers drove dangerously, the deaths occurred in one vehicle, both drivers were charged with causing the deaths by dangerous driving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/4873508.stm

If you are feeling as though there's an anti-bike prejudice, then consider the lack of physical opportunities for car drivers to do what bikes do. Even those who do go on "drive-outs" rarely have the chance to behave in the same way.

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

Mike P

All good and reasoned views IF the group have been racing together. The examples given are clear examples of cars doing this.

The dawn raids and confiscation of computers is interesting - is this a warning about the potential for the use of bike cams as evidence against you

Using the car analogy - can police (sorry CPS) use car sat navs/car computers as evidence for speeding/dangerous driving

PS are you an unemployed script-writer from The Bill

 

[MikeP]

All good and reasoned views IF the group have been racing together.

"Racing" is a bit emotive. Better to say that there seems to be a suggestion that their manner of riding fell below that expected. So there's a possible case of Careless or Dangerous. It is the duty of the police to investigate. Then in the case of the CPS (acting for the Crown) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge (and that means prosecute in any other words).

As said already, the causational link between the manner of the riding of one or more of the five and the deaths, is yet to be established, nor is it established that they rode Dangerously or Carelessly: That's what the court hearing is for. An impression I've gained from some here is that the court is only there to hand-down punishment, that being charged is the same as a finding of guilt.

The dawn raids and confiscation of computers is interesting - is this a warning about the potential for the use of bike cams as evidence against you

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.

Using the car analogy - can police (sorry CPS) use car sat navs/car computers as evidence for speeding/dangerous driving

You need to look at Tachograph's for an answer: Tacho's are calibrated and within a fairly high standard of accuracy. In the UK we do not allow the use Tachograph evidence alone. It can be and is regularly used to corroborate though. E.g. If a driver is stopped for speeding, the Tacho speed trace will be used as corroboration.

Unless the accuracy of a SatNav in terms of when and where the speed is recorded can be vouched-for in the same way that a Tachograph can be, then no, very unlikely and certainly not as evidence alone. It may be used in an inquest if applicable. Coroners do not require the same level of admissibility as criminal courts.

PS are you an unemployed script-writer from The Bill

No. I'm a retired Appeal Court judge and you should address me as M'lud in future.

 

[biggles12]

I can't wait for the may day run. If someone speeds, people who have already reached hastings could be nicked, as its a large group. Even if they have got off their bikes!

Total Bollocks this law. You have the throttle in your hand, nobody else.

 

[Steptoe]

[. Legislation is already in place for a lead rider to be charged for speeding offences comitted by others in a group.[/I][/COLOR][/LEFT]

That only applies if the "leader" and the rest of the group are all charged with speeding. Not one individual.

Mike P

All good and reasoned views IF the group have been racing together. .

Perhaps the CPS have evidence from other road users at the time of the accident. i.e. a group of bikes overtaking a few cars.
How does that look from the car drivers perspective and in a witness statement. .......

 

[MikeP]

I can't wait for the may day run. If someone speeds, people who have already reached hastings could be nicked, as its a large group. Even if they have got off their bikes!

Total Bollocks this law. You have the throttle in your hand, nobody else.

The bollocks is the first part of your post, your lack of comprehension turns the post into total bollocks.

 

[biggles12]

Re read it and still think it bollocks as I said its the person that holds the throttle that should be responsible nobody else.