Motorcyclists charged over crash deaths of couple

LiquidLAN said:
So if I jump off a cliff its my fault if you follow?

I'm sorry, its a very tragic accident but its hard to see many ways in which the whole group could be responsible for the actions of an individual...
Click to expand...

the police have looked at cctv from tadcaster at the way the riders was rideing
 
terrible

Was talking to my mate last night he is very close to one of the charged riders. It seems the couple that were killed tried to overtake a bike that was already overtaking a car. doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I still cannot see how they can charge the other riders with anything. If some one in their car has a crash is it now ok to charge all the drivers of nearby cars with something? I don't know just wondering. Maybe it is something to do with the blame culture that seems to have arrived on these shores from the merikens.
 
Cooperman said:
Local newspaper report:

A MOTORCYCLIST who caused the death of a friend in an accident on a country road is facing a possible jail sentence.

Carl Buckingham today admitted responsibility for the crash in which fellow rider Mark Chadfield was killed last year.

The accident happened on the A684 Temple Bank, between Aysgarth and Swinithwaite, North Yorkshire, on September 3.

Buckingham, 34, of Thompson Street East, Darlington, will be sentenced at Teesside Crown Court in three weeks' time.

He was given bail until his next appearance, and a pre-sentence background report was ordered by Judge Peter Fox, QC.

The judge told Buckingham: "You must not think that my giving you bail is any indication of your sentence."

Married Mr Chadfield, from Darlington, was riding a Kawasaki motorbike in a convoy when the accident happened.

Buckingham was at the front of the line and is said to have panicked and braked heavily when something startled him.

His bike skidded out of control and onto the other side of the road where an Isuzu Rodeo was forced to take evasive action.

Mr Chadfield, 34, who was riding close behind Buckingham, was hit by the Isuzu, and died as a result of his injuries.

In a written basis of plea, Buckingham accepts his actions contributed to the collision as they would have distracted his friend.

The document - accepted by prosecutors - also says his riding before the accident was "at all times" careful and safe.

Defence lawyer, Dan Cordey, told the court that the momentary lapse of concentration was not a major cause of the accident.

Judge Fox adjourned the case until May 11 and ordered Buckingham to co-operate with the Probation Service for his report.

Buckingham admitted a charge of causing death by careless driving.
Click to expand...

That reads as though Buckingham lost control and veered into the path of the oncoming Isuzu driver who then swerved to miss Buckingham and ploughed(sp?) into Chadfield who may still have been on the correct side of the road :blast
 
Courts “prejudiced” against bikers

Lifted from MCN:

A leading motorcycle group is demanding a Government investigation into “prejudice” of courts after a drink-driver got three years’ jail for killing a biker.

The Motor Cycle Action Group (MAG) says the sentence is too lenient and at odds with a string of high-profile cases in which riders have been jailed despite injuring no one.

The group is calling for the Government to investigate court records to see whether there is an imbalance between sentences handed to motorcyclists and car drivers.

Driver Richard Borrett, 65, had drunk a bottle of beer and three glasses of wine at a golf club lunch before he pulled out of a country lane into the path of Jason Mickelburgh, killing the 37-year-old motorcyclist instantly.

Borrett admitted causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink and was handed a three-year driving ban on top of the jail sentence. The maximum jail term for the offence is 14 years, while three is at the lower limit of the scale.

MAG President Ian Mutch said: “The case contrasts starkly with a growing catalogue of cases where riders have received harsh sentences for offences that most people would consider far less serious.”

The group’s General Secretary, Nich Brown, added: “We have long suspected that such prejudice exists. The only practical way of establishing if our concerns are justified is to have a thorough investigation of the facts conducted by a Government agency.”

Borrett made no attempt to attend to Mickelburgh following the crash in April last year and told a witness at the scene, in Betchworth, Surrey: “I don’t mind the fact that he’s dead. I don’t know him.”

The retired company director from Betchworth initially pleaded not guilty to causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink. He was sentenced at Guildford Crown Court in March after switching pleas and admitting the charge.
 
Cooperman said:
Lifted from MCN:
A leading motorcycle group is demanding a Government investigation into “prejudice” of courts after a drink-driver got three years’ jail for killing a biker.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Good. I think there is something in this (pls refer to post 51) even though by the sound of it the circumstances in the OP aren't what I first thought.

Call it "prejudice" or "descrimination" or "intolerance" or whatever you like, but lets see if the figures back it up.
 
The judge said ... “There is no evidence from which a jury properly directed could safely conclude that the way in which any of these defendants rode in some way caused Mr Slater to ride dangerously or caused him to continue to ride dangerously. “Mr Slater, on the evidence, made a voluntary and informed decision to ride in the way that he did rather than in another way. The cause of death was the free, deliberate and informed decision of Mr Slater and no one else.” .... “Each rider made his own decision to ride in the way he did”
Click to expand...
Exactly. :thumb2

And how much did it cost us to figure that out? :blast
 
Cooperman said:
All riders cleared.
Click to expand...
Good for them.

Judge Marson said:
“Mr Slater, on the evidence, made a voluntary and informed decision to ride in the way that he did rather than in another way. The cause of death was the free, deliberate and informed decision of Mr Slater and no one else.”
Click to expand...
 
Taff said:
And how much did it cost us to figure that out? :blast
Click to expand...

How much do you think should be spent in order to remove all suspicion from you if you were one of the riders?

If you were the parent, sibling or child of the deceased, how much should be spent to remove the suspicion that someone other than your relative caused their own death?

This sort of trial comes about because these days it's more likely that a Crown Court result will be accepted more readily than a Coroner's Inquest. That's the way that things have turned. It's all about "closure" these days. Not liking it won't change things.
 
MikeP said:
How much do you think should be spent in order to remove all suspicion from you if you were one of the riders?
Click to expand...
That's my point; there shouldn't have been any suspicion in the first place.

At the end of this trial, the judge has said what I said as far back as Post 15.
 
Taff said:
That's my point; there shouldn't have been any suspicion in the first place.
Click to expand...
:blast

The bloke shouldn't have ridden in such a manner that he killed himself and his missus but he did. That's what happens in the real world and in that same world it has been deemed correct to examine all the circumstances that surround un-natural deaths. Like it or not, that often means that the finger of suspicion gets pointed at people who may have had some influence on the circumstances of the death.

The alternative is that whenever someone dies, other than being old and shagged-out, we just shrug and ignore it.

At the end of this trial, the judge has said what I said as far back as Post 15.
Click to expand...
Well done. Given that you, me and no-one who has contributed to this thread so far had any access to the evidence, such as it was: In a fifty-fifty chance, you picked the winner.
 
MikeP said:
How much do you think should be spent in order to remove all suspicion from you if you were one of the riders?

If you were the parent, sibling or child of the deceased, how much should be spent to remove the suspicion that someone other than your relative caused their own death?

This sort of trial comes about because these days it's more likely that a Crown Court result will be accepted more readily than a Coroner's Inquest. That's the way that things have turned. It's all about "closure" these days. Not liking it won't change things.
Click to expand...

This didn't go to Crown Court for the group riders to have suspicion removed or closure to be obtained.

It will have been a harrowing time for the group having lost 2 close friends followed then with arrest and a subsequent severe threat hanging over them for a long period of time.

Surely this was someone in authority getting pissed with another motorcycle death, but this time having evidence of the motorcycle riding group all riding 'irresponsibly'. This gave the opportunity to push a 'group responsibility' case - hence why it created headlines at the time and has gone through all the Courts.

Just my opinion :augie
 
Cooperman said:
This didn't go to Crown Court for the group riders to have suspicion removed or closure to be obtained.
Click to expand...
No it didn't but that's the end result (see bellow).

It will have been a harrowing time for the group having lost 2 close friends followed then with arrest and a subsequent severe threat hanging over them for a long period of time.
Click to expand...
Arguably better than always having to live with any question in their own minds that they did in some way contribute to the deaths of their friends let alone the possible questions in the minds of the families of the deceased.

Surely this was someone in authority getting pissed with another motorcycle death, but this time having evidence of the motorcycle riding group all riding 'irresponsibly'. This gave the opportunity to push a 'group responsibility' case - hence why it created headlines at the time and has gone through all the Courts.

Just my opinion :augie
Click to expand...
It looks very much as though you suspect the authorities of bias (in your opinion of course).

Unfortunately for the authorities, they will have to live without any public test of your suspicions and we are back full-circle to the paranoid claims that bikers are being picked-on.
 
What a clusterfuck and waste of money.

Some people died, tragic

Some mate made to go thru hell waiting, fortune spent on legal stuff when it's clear from day 1 that common sense said that it falls under "shit happens" still I suppose the vermin lawyers made a bit.

A sad sad event compounded by a ridiculous witch hunt
 
MikeP said:
It looks very much as though you suspect the authorities of bias (in your opinion of course).

Unfortunately for the authorities, they will have to live without any public test of your suspicions and we are back full-circle to the paranoid claims that bikers are being picked-on.
Click to expand...

Why is it unfortunate for the authorities :confused:
 
JKW said:
I would surmise... because those who work in authority a) are people too! b) rarely get a right of reply to accusations of bias and prejudice!
Click to expand...

:thumb2
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom