Howlor
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
It is definitly a terrible mess.
But was the old lady an accident? well, like the speeding Honda, she failed to drive according to the road and prevailing conditions. Just as guilty
in some eyes, just as innocent in others.....
I agree entirely.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Meeerrrk
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Howlor
quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
It is definitly a terrible mess.
But was the old lady an accident? well, like the speeding Honda, she failed to drive according to the road and prevailing conditions. Just as guilty
in some eyes, just as innocent in others.....
I agree entirely.
Steve
agreed, but in that case you wouldnt have all the witness' saying the driving was so bad and all the background information on him. all this
information was gathered and from that they drew up a character of him, that did him no favours!
For Sale : 2008 Aries/Stuart Taylor Motorsport Locoblade (954 Blade)
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
It's worth remembering that he admitted that he was wrong - he didn't try to justify his actions.
The so-called dodgy witnesses would only have affected the sentence, IMHO - and it is likely that his view of their evidence would be biased (or the
judge would have thought him biased, which would have led to the same result).
It was a driving cock-up, with terrible consequences, and he knows it.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
I think accident is probably the wrong word for us to use here. He obviously condoned and drove in a way that endangered others. Finally he got caught
out, and someone else has paid the bigger price for his bad driving.
I find it very hard to agree with that. Do you mean to tell me that you have never, EVER been caught out? Never once, for example, missed a patchy
bit of ice and had the tail step out, or the front slide wide? Accidents do happen, regardless.
One point I'd like to ask, how fast would the biker have to have been going for his bike to bounce 14 metres back down the road?
[Edited on 22/1/09 by DIY Si]
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
mediabloke
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 09:07 PM |
|
|
I don't think there's any doubt that the driver was in the wrong. Whatever the events that lead up to the accident, he lost control of
his vehicle.
As Mr H suggested, as a road user (whether motorcyclist, driver or cyclist), if I collide with a stationary object - even if it's another
vehicle - I have myself to blame. It's my responsibility to ensure that I am able to take any avoiding action.
I'm left with the feeling that it was 50:50, but we don't have all the info: to have the full picture, you need to know how long the
crashed car had been stationary when the bike collided with it.
Another good post on an excellent forum.
[Edited on 22/1/09 by mediabloke]
[Edited on 22/1/09 by mediabloke]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
i would agree that you should never be in the situation where you could not avoid colliding with a stationary obstacle.
Shame he didnt dare say that in court though, but i suspect it would do him no favours.
[Edited on 22/1/09 by JoelP]
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 22/1/09 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
what caused him to lose control ??was it speed ? was it wet ? was it the old codger?
Weve all probably had it when overtaking in the kit cars some little half wit who starts to accelerate as you overtake just so he can tel his mates
that his Sax Max just did a Westy.
Only 3 weeks ago I lost control of My Golf 1.8 turbo blacked out windows you know the kind, had I have hit anything im sure the onlookers would have
said yeah he was going way to fast racing about and all. when in fact I'd pulled onto the roundabout from a standing start and hit a diesel
patch 25 feet or so into the roundabout.
Had the individual been a seventy year old man in a vectra the outcome would have been a lot different I believe, he would have probably misjudged the
bend rather than have been going too fast around it.
Just really unfortunate that some one got hurt, and the law at times can be reliant upon assumptions prejudice and stereotyping.
|
|
|
mediabloke
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 12:01 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
what caused him to lose control ??was it speed ? was it wet ? was it the old codger?
I guess we've all been there, but for the grace & all that... We have a choice, whether to overtake, what speed to drive at, where to
position the car, etc. And I know I sometimes get it wrong. In this chap's case, he misjudged it - unfortunate, but he's still to blame
for his bit of the collision. Had he not overtaken, would it have happened?
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
the law at times can be reliant upon assumptions prejudice and stereotyping.
Couldn't agree more. Less discrimination in all areas of the law could only be a Good Thing. Sex and race are frowned upon, yet age seems to
be fair game.
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 12:42 AM |
|
|
DIY Si
You ask if I'd not ever had the back end step out or the front slide away, ever lost it, EVER.
Well, I've tested the traction and handling of vehicles. I've got to the point where the back is starting to go and, yes, pushed the front
to the point where it's starting to slide. But, I've approached those situations with caution and controled them. That is entirely
different to completely loosing it on a blind bend. I have had the advantage of having lived in remote parts of the world, driven and riden thousands
of miles offroad, and experimented with handling where there was absolutely no risk to anyone but myself.
Have I ever lost it on the public road? No. No spins, no broadsides accross the other lane.
Being an ex firefighter also gives you a healthy respect for the damage that can be done by a moving vehicle.
Regards
Martin
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 07:10 AM |
|
|
Setting the "criminal" part of this case to one side I would be interested to see how the civil insurance side was settled. Quite often
the civil outcome is entirely different to the criminal outcome. In this case the bike hit a stationery object and in most circumstances that would
have him down as 100% at fault as long as the car owner did everything he could to minimise the risk. Interestingly (ish) though there is a caselaw
which states that all road users owe a duty of care to careless drivers, in other words the biker should approach the blind bend with caution as
someone may well have broken down/crashed etc on the other side.
In this case I wouldn't be at all surprised if the biker bore some (if not a significant amount) of the liability. May seem wrong but
that's what tends to happen.
|
|
|
MikeCapon
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 07:24 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I've been aware of the thread referred to for some time.
It's my opinion that the chap who caused the accident was dealt with harshly, because of the severity of the accident, which I think, as
discussd in a thread on here recently, is unfair. Be that as it may, I also think the motor cyclist contributed substantially to the severity of the
accident.
It's all very well to say that he should not have been confronted with a car coming towards him on the wrong side of the road, and indeed he
shouldn't. But, FFS, he was riding a motorcycle! In other words, if anything bad was going to happen it was going to happen to him.
What's the good of being in the right if you are also in hospital, severely injured?
John
Sorry Mr H but I have to say (remaining as polite as I can) that your reasoning is seriously flawed. Since when did your choice of vehicle determine
the level of injury that you should expect to receive due to the error of another road user? If the biker had been on a bicycle should he expect to
have been more or less badly injured? In a 7? Driving a bus?
I may have misunderstood but your logic seems to be that as the guy was on a bike he should expect to be injured as the result of another road
user's mistake.
Perhaps you could explain that to us (and his kids)?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 08:10 AM |
|
|
it occured to me he wasnt prosecuted for the crash, just the dangerous driving that led to him spinning.
It does also imply that he was still wheelspinning when the bike hit him, so not as stationary as people make out.
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 08:36 AM |
|
|
I agree that the motorcyclist would have some degree of culpability if the vehicle were stationary in his path. However, I find it highly unlikely
that that was the case. Firstly because i see no reason to believe the driver was stopped, up untill the crash he was tring to minimise his
responsibility. Secondly, though I was a firefighter and not a crash scene investigator, I never saw an accident where the moving vehicle was bounced
back in the direction from where it had come after hitting a unmoving car.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 09:05 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
It's worth remembering that he admitted that he was wrong - he didn't try to justify his actions.
The so-called dodgy witnesses would only have affected the sentence, IMHO - and it is likely that his view of their evidence would be biased (or the
judge would have thought him biased, which would have led to the same result).
That is the crux of the story which everyone bar yourself seems to have completely overlooked.
The guy fully admits the accident was his fault, he doesn't whinge about his punishment and he fully acknowledges that he seriously hurt, and
nearly killed someone. From reading the (rather well written) diary it's plain to see the guy is pretty well educated, and certainly
doesn't portray the typical scrote mentality that he is blameless and that it was someone elses fault.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can possibly get on their high horse and condemn his actions when he has already done that, very publicly,
himself. He is clearly not trying to gain sympathy, but rather educate others by showing the potential consequences of their actions on the road.
If there is a lesson to be learned here, it's to be very aware of the impression your driving gives to others. If you are involved in an
accident, even one that is not your fault, biased testimonies (and downright lies) from other drivers you may have passed previously will cause you
big problems.
[Edited on 23/1/09 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 23/1/09 at 09:12 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeCapon
Sorry Mr H but I have to say (remaining as polite as I can) that your reasoning is seriously flawed. Since when did your choice of vehicle determine
the level of injury that you should expect to receive due to the error of another road user? If the biker had been on a bicycle should he expect to
have been more or less badly injured? In a 7? Driving a bus?
I may have misunderstood but your logic seems to be that as the guy was on a bike he should expect to be injured as the result of another road
user's mistake.
Perhaps you could explain that to us (and his kids)?
Yes, you very definitely have misundertood me. Never mind, I will see if I can find a different way to say what I believe.
It may be that you think that I think that the driver of the car should have less blame, that the motor cyclist should have more. Not so. The actions
and behaviour of the motor cyclist should have no bearing on the case against the car driver, and I am sorry if you thought that was what I was
implying.
However, being in the right is not such a marvellous place to be if you are also in hospital fighting for your life, is it?
In my own personal opinion there are only three reasons for riding a motorbike on public roads, and sharing those roads with car and lorry drivers of
a wide range of abilities and attitudes-
1) In order to save money (bikes use less petrol etc)
2) In order to save time (bikes can get through traffic more easily)
3) For fun
Now, IMHO, those reasons don't outweigh the clearly observable fact that if there should be a coming together of motorbike and larger vehicle,
for whatever reason, the motorcyclist is going to come off worse, and will probably end up in hospital or dead.
The only way to reduce the chance of those unpleasant outcomes, if the rider is going to go ahead and take his bike onto the road, is to ride in a way
and at a speed where he can see that he will be safe. Was this chap doing that? Neither you nor were there, so we can't say, but there would
seem to be a prima facie case that he was not.
Whatever we think of the motorcyclist, though, should have no bearing on the car driver's punishment, because I believe that the severity of the
injuries should have no bearing on the punishment either.
To assess a criminal's punishment on the basis of the severity of injuries to others is, in my opinion, very wrong, and turns our legal system
into a lottery.
Supposing the car driver had lost control, and no motorbike had been coming around the bend? It's still the same crime, he lost control where he
should not have. The crime took place, and was complete, before the consequences.
John
|
|
|
.jpg)
