Motorcyclists charged over crash deaths of couple
- Thread starter Deleted account Cooperman
- Start date
Has re-reading enlightened you enough to realise that this:
is the total bollocks to which I referred?biggles12 said:
Not as much bollocks as this law. Who is to say who is in front or leading on a big run like the May day run. Its the law being an arse and people not taking responsibility for their actions.
Culpability is the word
Someone will try to blame someone.....................if all goes tits up
No such thing as an accident anymore
I'm very wary of group riding nowadays, unless I know the people & trust their riding ability, seen too many accidents........................too many tossers on bikes nowadays
Someone will try to blame someone.....................if all goes tits up
No such thing as an accident anymore
I'm very wary of group riding nowadays, unless I know the people & trust their riding ability, seen too many accidents........................too many tossers on bikes nowadays
Deleted account Cooperman
Registered user
M'Lud
Although you have provided sound reasoning throughout this post don't you get the feel of a 'sea-change' of approach towards bike riders i.e. someone's getting fed up with bike accident statistics?
You have quoted some car related cases - is this the first for bikes?
The police themselves admitted they had taken unusual steps in this case (dawn raids).
Although you have provided sound reasoning throughout this post don't you get the feel of a 'sea-change' of approach towards bike riders i.e. someone's getting fed up with bike accident statistics?
You have quoted some car related cases - is this the first for bikes?
The police themselves admitted they had taken unusual steps in this case (dawn raids).
So you may have re-read it but you still haven't managed to join-up reading with comprehension.
I'll try and make it clear for you.
If a group of riders are caught speeding and the lead rider is speeding, then the lead rider will be dealt with for the same (higher if applicable) speed as those behind him.
If the lead rider is not speeding (or not caught speeding), then he or she will not be held liable in any way.
It is the same principal as the "use, cause or permit" clauses that take the view that if you allow an uninsured person to borrow your vehicle, you commit the same offence of 'no insurance' as the person to whom you have lent your vehicle.
The basis of this is responsibility. The legislators have decided that someone who leads a group of road-users has a responsibility for their behaviour as far as the lead rider's speed may cause others to exceed speed limits.
Your suggestion that the first rider to turn-up at a venue that is the destination for an organised gathering/ride-out will be liable for those who are still en-route is bollocks. Hysterical bollocks at that.
The reality is that there has been a massive sea-change in attitudes towards motorcyclists.
The days when "bikers" were seen as smelly filthy-heads into all manner of criminal activity has long gone. Motorcycling is largely seen as a leisure pursuit, albeit one with consequences for themselves and other members of the general public (not least the expense incurred by collision).
Not so very long ago, the only response was to "pencil-licking" and Summons to court. Nowadays Highways Authorities take a completely different approach, one that is led by education and awareness (seen those 'Think Bike' or 'Biker Beware' signs on certain roads favoured by the week-end riders?). Police Bike-Safe days were a fantasy only a few years ago, believed by some in policing to be an utter waste of resources. Police motorcyclists are positively encouraged to get involved in rider-training organisations to try and improve skills.
The fact that even after these changes there are still a percentage that ride like idiots and believe that they are somehow entitled to visit two-wheeled anarchy upon the rest of the motoring public (sometimes abetted by the daft notion that they belong to a special and distinct 'brotherhood') has led the authorities to look at ways to make such people see that they have a collective responsibility when acting in a collective manner.
May I refer you to post #18 and the link. That was one that I remember due to the locality and discussing the case with one of the investigators. There are probably more but to be frank, I cannot be arsed to search.
It's only unusual in that these tactics were used in relation to a road collision. It's certainly not unique though and will have been adopted for purely practical reasons:
Five people to be interviewed means that to avoid any possibility of one contacting the other and possible loss of evidence, arresting them at the same time makes sense. Dawn is believed to be the best time to net all at once.
Just one tiny quibble - can bollocks be hysterical? Oxymoronic surely
What difference does it make? It makes every difference if the proportion of bikers getting prosecuted was way out of proportion to deaths caused by car drivers. To be blunt it does smack of bike discrimination to me. I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, but this is stretching the principle to breaking point in my book.
I assume that the Police / CPS must be pretty sure in their own mind that a prosecution would be succesful, otherwise I assume they wouldn't waste their time and money persuing it.
Sorry but I don't subscribe to the view that there's any discrimination. Show something tangible other than the persecution complex manifested by some riders and I'll give it greater consideration.
TBH, I suspect that there's an element of the aforementioned "umbrella raising" to some degree.
I'll give you a first-hand example of why such a thing may happen.
Many years ago, I was called to attend a serious, potentially fatal collision between a motorcycle and an eight-wheel tipper truck.
The truck was leaving a site. For the truck driver it was a 'give-way' junction. For the motorcyclist, it was a 30mph urban road with a new by-pass being built on his left and the site access being a minor road junction to his nearside.
The rider was coming from the truck driver's right and had a quarter of a mile of uninterrupted view of the junction.
The truck stopped at the give-way (confirmed from forensic examination of the Tachograph chart) and the driver said that he looked both ways before pulling-out.
There was a crane parked to his right that partially obscured his view. He'd looked right and not seen the bike, to the left nothing in view and began to pull out.
The bike collided with the rear set of wheels of the truck which was laden with excavated soil.
The bike's speed was (from marks left on the surface) around 50mph at the time of the impact. That means that he was travelling faster when he began to brake. The rider died within hours of reaching hospital.
The truck being heavily laden and starting from a standstill cannot have 'suddenly' emerged into the rider's path. The point of impact on the rear set of wheels suggested that it must have been in sight to the rider prior to his first braking point.
The contributory factors were:
The rider was travelling too fast both for the limit and the conditions. He was on his regular commute homeward and probably not as attentive as he may have been earlier or on a road he was unfamiliar with.
The truck driver by his own admission only looked each way once and did not appreciate that a motorcycle travelling at speed could have covered the distance between the time he looked right, then left before pulling-out.
His view to the right was partially obscured by the jib of the mobile-crane.
He should have crept out of the junction looking both ways and been prepared to stop. At worst he was careless. He was summoned for Careless Driving. His actions in no way amounted to the higher offence. He entered a guilty plea, was fined and points awarded.
The family of the rider were incensed. To them the truck driver had killed their family member. They questioned why the driver was not summoned for a more serious offence. They wrote to their MP (at that time Dr David Owen) and all sorts of questions were raised.
The family, understandably, could not come to terms with the fact that in such cases the death is almost incidental.
I know that this experience taught me to always go for the higher offences and leave it to CPS to reduce the charge, or the court to find appropriately. That is an semi-official policy these days as far as I can see.
Why is it up to us to prove that we're being persecuted; why can't it be up the the authorities to prove that we're not and that I have just got a "complex"?
Given that I'm just 1 self-employed bloke, it would probably be better if someone in the Home Office (there must be a few hundred around who have access to the figures and who could work this out)
could get the figures and compare the deaths from bike accidents and the deaths caused by car accidents; work out the relative number of riders and car drivers; count how many prosecutions there have been for each type and therefore work out if you're more likely to be charged under this law if you're a biker. I suspect we are - please prove me wrong.
Why is it up to us to prove that we're being persecuted; why can't it be up the the authorities to prove that we're not and that I have just got a "persecution complex"?
And if I say that you are paranoid, is it for you to prove that you are not, or for me to prove that you are?
From another forum, but are we heading this way?
A guy at work was on business in China and was sat in the back of a taxi on the way to a site. A truck pulled out in front of the taxi and a collision was unavoidable. The Chinese police take the view that it is the taxi passenger who is at fault on the basis that if he had not asked the driver to travel from A to B then the taxi would not have been there and the crash would not have happened. Intervention by the local government officials meant that he was not arrested and charged.
A guy at work was on business in China and was sat in the back of a taxi on the way to a site. A truck pulled out in front of the taxi and a collision was unavoidable. The Chinese police take the view that it is the taxi passenger who is at fault on the basis that if he had not asked the driver to travel from A to B then the taxi would not have been there and the crash would not have happened. Intervention by the local government officials meant that he was not arrested and charged.
I do feel paranoid. What I'd like to know is whether this paranoia is justified. And the only way we'll know this is when someone in authority does some number crunching to see whether bikers are far more likely to be prosecuted under this law than car drivers. Obviously it has to be a Government Dept because they're the only ones who have the figures.And if I say that you are paranoid, is it for you to prove that you are not, or for me to prove that you are?
If we are .... thats persecution / discrimination call it what you like ie I was justified. If there's no statistical difference, I was wrong.
Which one is it? If nobody's worked it out - perhaps they should!
Clearly made up, or apocryphal if I was being polite
I don't know the exact numbers but motorcycles cause more than 20 times the number of deaths or serious injuries per mile compared with cars.Given that I'm just 1 self-employed bloke, it would probably be better if someone in the Home Office (there must be a few hundred around who have access to the figures and who could work this out)
So if motorcyclists are prosecuted 20 times more often on average than a car driver, would that be fair?
How many motorcyclists do you know of that have been dealt with for using a mobile phone while riding?
Does the fact that it's negligible mean that car/van/truck drivers are being discriminated against, or is it just that the physical likelihood of motorcyclists making phone calls is lower?
Kaister said:
(That was your intention, right?)
The problem is like with most laws in this country they get applied to the easy targets.
You only have to look at "Joy riders" or "Twocers" on the TV shows, a complete disregard for anyone elses safety, they get away with driving cars they have stolen at ridiculous speeds, can deliberately crasdh into objects and vehicles and zap across kids play areas, if they drive really dangerously they are rearded by the plod giving up, and if caught will get some piffling fine (they won't pay) at worst, but more likely sent on a bloody holiday at our expense.
At the other end a group of decent motorcyclists riding a shade above the speed limit risk a lot more, if one of his mates decides to give a quick blast up a straight section (Could be a straight bit of road with no other traffic / junctions and a safe although illegal speed), his mate upfront who may only be 3-4 mph over the limit can suddenly face a ban leading to loss of job / house etc.
This is all a load of f***** BS, it is this sort of BS that has turned this once world leading superpower into a complete joke of a country with all the rewards going to the lazy and criminally inclined and hard working decent people getting shafted left, right and centre.
I operate my own throttle...
If I go faster than the guy in front it is not his fault,
If I follow a speeding bike and get done it is my fault
If I fall off trying to follow a better / faster rider it is my fault
If some twats falls of following me it is not my fault
Why does no one want to take responsibility for ther own actions any more, and why should I be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others.
Perhaps I should just rob a bank, surely it is the fault of whoever filled the vault with cash and they should do the time if I get caught.
Perhaps I could shoot my way out, should be OK to blow away a few coppers as surely it would be their own fault for attending the call, and their family could sue whoever installed the bank alarm system, they could in turn sue the company who distributes the alarms, who could sue the person who invented the alarms
The problem is like with most laws in this country they get applied to the easy targets.
You only have to look at "Joy riders" or "Twocers" on the TV shows, a complete disregard for anyone elses safety, they get away with driving cars they have stolen at ridiculous speeds, can deliberately crasdh into objects and vehicles and zap across kids play areas, if they drive really dangerously they are rearded by the plod giving up, and if caught will get some piffling fine (they won't pay) at worst, but more likely sent on a bloody holiday at our expense.
At the other end a group of decent motorcyclists riding a shade above the speed limit risk a lot more, if one of his mates decides to give a quick blast up a straight section (Could be a straight bit of road with no other traffic / junctions and a safe although illegal speed), his mate upfront who may only be 3-4 mph over the limit can suddenly face a ban leading to loss of job / house etc.
This is all a load of f***** BS, it is this sort of BS that has turned this once world leading superpower into a complete joke of a country with all the rewards going to the lazy and criminally inclined and hard working decent people getting shafted left, right and centre.
I operate my own throttle...
If I go faster than the guy in front it is not his fault,
If I follow a speeding bike and get done it is my fault
If I fall off trying to follow a better / faster rider it is my fault
If some twats falls of following me it is not my fault
Why does no one want to take responsibility for ther own actions any more, and why should I be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others.
Perhaps I should just rob a bank, surely it is the fault of whoever filled the vault with cash and they should do the time if I get caught.
Perhaps I could shoot my way out, should be OK to blow away a few coppers as surely it would be their own fault for attending the call, and their family could sue whoever installed the bank alarm system, they could in turn sue the company who distributes the alarms, who could sue the person who invented the alarms
Good luck with your crusade
