Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Driver avoids jail sentence after death of motorcyclist

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:30 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Driver avoids jail sentence after death of motorcyclist Reply with quote

Thoughts on this?

Driver admitted responsibility and bike was in view for up to ten seconds.

BUT
Biker was disqualified and MOT expired.

Thumbs Up Thumbs Down

https://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/news/crime/driver-spared-jail-sentence-after-admitting-responsibility-for-the-death-of-a-young-motorcyclist-after-crash-near-stoneleigh-1-9206356?fbclid=IwAR2wX3zOyzha41LAa9Ejpf6lUUXTx4HN6n2n8ZvU-GsS-H3GgOMd2-W9SEc
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

UncleFester
World Chat Champion



Joined: 30 Jun 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:46 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

If hadnt been flouting the law would not have been out on bike and not deaded. So sad.

Driver needs a really proper slap either way because that could have easily been a fully legal bike and rider.

I see no note of the speed the bike was doing.
____________________
Module 1 and 2 passed - October 2014. Happy owner of a 2017 Z1000SX, ex owner of a YBR125 / CB500 / VFR800.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

G
The Voice of Reason



Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:49 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Re: Driver avoids jail sentence after death of motorcyclist Reply with quote

bhinso wrote:

BUT
Biker was disqualified and MOT expired.

This and other aspects paints a picture of someone that doesn't make an effort to put their own safety (or that of their passengers) as a high priority.

Alas "It wasn't my fault" may be true, but on a headstone it doesn't make you any less dead.

If it was a dark coloured bike with a rider wearing dark clothing it could easily blend in. And we don't know what speed the rider was doing - if it was 120mph, say - visible for 5 five seconds before a collision isn't long for the driver to take action.

If the rider was doing 60mph and had ten seconds, with the driver indicating in plenty of time as we are told they did - they also had time to mitigate the situation.

Thoughts; not enough evidence presented here to draw a conclusion.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:52 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, if what is said is correct he should have seen him but without knowing the conditions and the circumstances it's difficult.

Did the bike have it's lights on? Did it blend into the back ground? The drive behind didn't see it either.

Also he was banned and the bike wasn't road worthy (tyres) and had no MOT. He was also trying to evade the law as he had messed with the numberplate.

I hate illegal drivers. Bikers as well as car drivers. If he had been on a stolen bike I would say tough sh1t, another cvnt off the road. As it is I'll be kind and just say ces't la vie.

It won't be the last time someone says 'I didn't see him'.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

MarJay
But it's British!



Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:52 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Re: Driver avoids jail sentence after death of motorcyclist Reply with quote

G wrote:

This and other aspects paints a picture of someone that doesn't make an effort to put their own safety (or that of their passengers) as a high priority.

Alas "It wasn't my fault" may be true, but on a headstone it doesn't make you any less dead.

If it was a dark coloured bike with a rider wearing dark clothing it could easily blend in. And we don't know what speed the rider was doing - if it was 120mph, say - visible for 5 five seconds before a collision isn't long for the driver to take action.

If the rider was doing 60mph and had ten seconds, with the driver indicating in plenty of time as we are told they did - they also had time to mitigate the situation.

Thoughts; not enough evidence presented here to draw a conclusion.

https://media.giphy.com/media/IoQBWXhpwsd0c/giphy.gif
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:04 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disqualified for what?
Maybe driving without due care.

Car driver should have seen the motorcycle.
But many make the same error and in those cases the other road users reaction saves the day.
The bike rider possible wasn't focused.

Shame.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:10 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the gateway the driver was turning right into: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3561105,-1.5267945,3a,81.5y,1.84h,74.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srgzNolLFXSC48u03v1Vg8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

UncleFester
World Chat Champion



Joined: 30 Jun 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:21 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

10 seconds at 60mph would put you well around the corner out of view of that driver.
____________________
Module 1 and 2 passed - October 2014. Happy owner of a 2017 Z1000SX, ex owner of a YBR125 / CB500 / VFR800.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Bhud
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Oct 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:26 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

He is guilty of causing death by careless driving, so the judge could have sentenced him to up to 5 years' imprisonment.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/

However, he was treated very leniently:
probably classist judge wrote:

Your culpability is very low. You made the sort of mistake many drivers do on a daily basis and it’s your misfortune, as well and Mr Brownhill’s, that he was injured and died.


It was just "unlucky", then.
The judge found that it was enough punishment to just be a little inconvenienced on his way to work for a year. I suppose having to take the bus will surely induce remorse and penitence, in someone who, from his familiarity with tractors and ownership of a Jaguar car, is so obviously genteel.

The remarks made about interfering with the number plate are interesting. The question of whether the bike was stolen or simply had a smaller number plate for aesthetic reasons (as is common) seems to be left hanging in the air.

The rider shouldn't have been riding while disqualified and uninsured. I am not convinced by the underinflated tyre point, because, especially after a crash, and in colder weather, a slow puncture or rim leak is a possibility. The tests do not show the pressure of the tyre while the bike was being ridden. They only show the pressure after it had probably been left sitting in a compound, outdoors, for a few weeks. What sort of bike was it? Was it a dodgy sports bike being ridden by a criminal ("bought yesterday from someone at the pub") or a legit trails bike being ridden by a villager taking someone to work from one field across the road to another?

The news report raises more questions than answers. I hope more light can be thrown on the circumstances so that a balanced picture emerges. It's far from obvious why the culprit should have been treated with such extreme leniency, and it's clear that irrelevant matters were raised (and addressed) at the trial. Nothing new about Jaguars, horses and farms having their attractions for yuppy lawyers and tipping the balance in every situation in life in the UK, but the speed at which the bike was travelling, the type of bike, who the passenger was, the history of the victim, etc. are surely of direct relevance. The rag doesn't answer these questions.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:49 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bhud wrote:
Nothing new about Jaguars, horses and farms having their attractions for yuppy lawyers and tipping the balance in every situation in life in the UK, but the speed at which the bike was travelling, the type of bike, who the passenger was, the history of the victim, etc. are surely of direct relevance. The rag doesn't answer these questions.


I have 2 out of 3 and don't have a yuppie lawyer. Laughing
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Jmoan
Brolly Dolly



Joined: 18 Nov 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:07 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bhud wrote:

The rider shouldn't have been riding while disqualified and uninsured.


Did the report mention insurance?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Bhud
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Oct 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:45 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jmoan wrote:
Bhud wrote:

The rider shouldn't have been riding while disqualified and uninsured.


Did the report mention insurance?


No, I mentioned that to highlight the double irresponsibility of the rider. Not only did he choose to ride while disqualified, but the terms of any insurance policy he might have had would have invalidated his insurance the moment he rides the bike on the road. It just raises questions about his mindset and the circumstances of this incident. It's not unheard of for newspapers to gloss over even little facts such as a fatality victim having been on a stolen bike. Riding while disqualified paints a certain picture about the guy's attitude towards road laws.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Bhud
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Oct 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:48 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:


I have 2 out of 3 and don't have a yuppie lawyer. Laughing


Maybe you are a yuppy lawyer. Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:52 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jmoan wrote:
Did the report mention insurance?

How many insurance companies do you know of who will insure someone who's banned?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

UncleFester
World Chat Champion



Joined: 30 Jun 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:58 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

They will insure anyone at the correct premium for profit. What do you do for theft insurance if you own vehicles and then get banned?
____________________
Module 1 and 2 passed - October 2014. Happy owner of a 2017 Z1000SX, ex owner of a YBR125 / CB500 / VFR800.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:02 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
Jmoan wrote:
Did the report mention insurance?

How many insurance companies do you know of who will insure someone who's banned?

They can end your insurance from the date they find out that you didn't declare the fact that you are banned and can sue you for loses caused due to you not declaring your ban, but if you get insurance it's valid up until that point.

3rd party insurance works like that.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:29 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pretty sure that if you tell them you've got a license when you're actually banned then the policy is invalid from day one.

They still have to pay out to third parties but if a policy isn't valid then you're uninsured.

Meh, we need another Rogerborg who knows chapter and verse of the relevant legislation as well as being able to quote relevant case law. Sad
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:31 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:

They still have to pay out to third parties


Which is the legal requirement

Interestingly, when I drive a hire car provided by work, it's not insured because 1) my employer self insures and 2) the crown is exempt....
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:45 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

some website wrote:
As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving. With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases.

I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says,

[i] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.”

Looks like an open and shut case, right? But here’s the problem, the police officer has just set out a full defence!

You see, it’s not for an insurer to decide they would not honour a policy of insurance retrospectively, i.e. they can’t say “oh well you’ve had a crash, but today we’ve decided your policy was void”. The reason for that isn’t surprising, Parliament requires insurance to ease the strain on the health and social services when people are killed or seriously injured in crashes. Allowing insurers to avoid liability retrospectively would undermine that aim. Is it unfair on the insurer? Maybe but they knew the law when they entered the market, so they’ve taken a decision to accept the risk.

Because the insurer hasn’t voided the policy and thus avoided liability they must still pay out in the event of a crash and thus the driver is still insured despite having been disqualified from driving and lied by omission to the insurance company. They therefore have a complete defence to the no insurance allegation.

I get it, you don’t believe me so let’s look at some law. Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 sets out the requirements for insurance and section 151(5) tells us that where a court judgment has been obtained the insurer must pay up, “notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy”. For what its worth, the Act is saying here that the insurer must still pay up if they have subsequently cancelled the policy not if they did so before the incident that led to them/the driver being sued.

The case of Adams v Dunne [1978] R.T.R. 281 involved a defendant who lied to an insurance company by telling them he was not disqualified from driving to obtain insurance. The magistrates held that his policy remained in force because it had not been cancelled at the time he drove, and the charge was dismissed. The case went to the Divisional Court where it was heard by three High Court judges who all agreed with the magistrates. Croom-Johnson, J. said,

“What the facts, as the justices found in the present case, reveal is that here there was an avoidable contract of insurance, and, unless and until the insurance company had taken steps to avoid it, it remained a contract of insurance for the purposes of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 [now s. 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988].”

So, there you have it, if somebody obtains insurance by fraud or deception or if they fail to notify the insurer of a change in circumstances the insurance policy remains in force and protects the driver from a criminal charge until the policy is cancelled.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:48 - 23 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:

So, there you have it, if somebody obtains insurance by fraud or deception or if they fail to notify the insurer of a change in circumstances the insurance policy remains in force and protects the driver from a criminal charge until the policy is cancelled.


You coould have just put this bit
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:35 - 24 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
Pretty sure that if you tell them you've got a license when you're actually banned then the policy is invalid from day one.

They still have to pay out to third parties but if a policy isn't valid then you're uninsured.

Meh, we need another Rogerborg who knows chapter and verse of the relevant legislation as well as being able to quote relevant case law. Sad


Forum is dying for reasons other than being borgless.

He's busying himself borging the fuck out of paintball enthusiasts anyway. He won't be back.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:16 - 24 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobby the Bastard wrote:
You coould have just put this bit

I could have but the reasons and references are important.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

BTTD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:52 - 24 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

MCN wrote:
Forum is dying for reasons other than being borgless.


It is becoming somewhat monotone and less well informed though.
A few years ago it was a fairly edgy and lively forum. I guess that isn't allowed on the internet anymore......
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

T.C
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:43 - 24 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

The moment a person is disqualified from driving or riding, any insurance policy in force at the time becomes null and void.

It is one of the few situations where it matters not what it states in the small print, you cannot be insured whilst disqualified.

However............

In the case of the driver who was convicted, his insurance is still valid and will still be required to pay out.

It matters not if the rider was disqualified or not, in civil law it is deemed that but for the negligence of the driver, and regardless of the licence status of the rider, the crash would not have occured, and so the driver of the car remains liable.

It is no different to riding without a crash helmet. Although illegal, if the crash is caused by anothers negligence, then the insurance still pays out, but there may be a deduction of up to 25% of the valuation for the injuries sustained but only if it is proven that head injuries were sustained and those injuries were as a direct result of not wearig a helmet.

If the injuries had no bearing on whether a helmet was worn or not, or even securely fstened then there is no deduction.

In this case, despite the rider being disqualified, there will be no deduction unless it is proven that (apart from riding whilst disqualified) the rider took soe action or did something in the physical riding of the bile that directly contributed to the cause of the crash. Otherwise it will be a straightforward claim by the family of the deceased against the car driver.

Unless the deceased had dependants, then under the fatal accidents act, this claim will only be worth a little over £10K pluss reasonable funeral costs anyway.

Civil law (which covers insurance) works very differently to road traffic law with only a minimal cross over in crash cases.
____________________
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:03 - 24 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

T.C wrote:
The moment a person is disqualified from driving or riding, any insurance policy in force at the time becomes null and void.



How does this square off with this caselaw?

Ste wrote:
The case of Adams v Dunne [1978] R.T.R. 281 involved a defendant who lied to an insurance company by telling them he was not disqualified from driving to obtain insurance. The magistrates held that his policy remained in force because it had not been cancelled at the time he drove, and the charge was dismissed. The case went to the Divisional Court where it was heard by three High Court judges who all agreed with the magistrates. Croom-Johnson, J. said,

“What the facts, as the justices found in the present case, reveal is that here there was an avoidable contract of insurance, and, unless and until the insurance company had taken steps to avoid it, it remained a contract of insurance for the purposes of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 [now s. 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988].”


____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 4 years, 65 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.34 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 144.46 Kb