Motorcyclist pulled wheelie before hitting pensioner

[T.C]

Will be interesting to see what the end result of this court case is....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37763100

[tucola]

Tragic incident, but can't help remarking that it would have to be Potters Bar where Mr Stella hit Mr Abbott, wouldn't it!

[Carbon_ZX6R]

never nice when you read things like this.

[Gilby104]

Very sad - and I'd guess not a situation that many of us could say we couldn't have unfortunately found ourselves in after a quick wind of a throttle.

My guess is that all the evidence points towards him riding like a c*nt but there isn't the proof to assert that it was definitely dangerous driving.

I expect the charge will be dropped to careless driving and the case will fall with the crown or the defendant on the balance of whether the motorcyclist had given himself enough time (care and attention) to have anticipated the gentleman walking out from behind the van. I'm not clear on where the 'bike came from nowhere' comment originated, probably pivotal to the first question!

My guess is that the fact the gent walked out from behind a white van will be seriously contributory to the incident and Mr Stella will get slapped with the Careless Driving charge and face a relatively short jail sentence (or just avoid one) and a hefty ban and fine.

Or the judge will decide he's heard enough to label the guy a reckless twat and give him 7 years all the same!

[Gilby104]

What's you're feeling on it T.C?

[T.C]

What's you're feeling on it T.C?

Being a fatal, a full forensic investigation would have been carried out, and on that basis the prosecution will not be totally reliant on independent evidence, although it will help.  But to go to trial on a section 1 (death by dangerous driving) suggests that the evidence must be quite strong

But.....so far, only selective parts of the trial have been reported and so we only have a small snapshot of the evidence that has been used, but for the reasons I mentioned above, the case should be quite strong I would have thought, but as I have said many times before, without knowing the full facts, it is difficult to pre-empt any decisions..

I am quite looking forward to getting a copy of the transcript of this trial when it is all done and dusted though.  It will I am sure make for interesting reading.

[Gilby104]

What's you're feeling on it T.C?

Being a fatal, a full forensic investigation would have been carried out, and on that basis the prosecution will not be totally reliant on independent evidence, although it will help.  But to go to trial on a section 1 (death by dangerous driving) suggests that the evidence must be quite strong

But.....so far, only selective parts of the trial have been reported and so we only have a small snapshot of the evidence that has been used, but for the reasons I mentioned above, the case should be quite strong I would have thought, but as I have said many times before, without knowing the full facts, it is difficult to pre-empt any decisions..

I am quite looking forward to getting a copy of the transcript of this trial when it is all done and dusted though.  It will I am sure make for interesting reading.

If we're allowed it too I'd be interested to read it. Very interested in the application of law generally and this is obviously relevant to us as bikers. It's a shame the interesting topic involves a death.

I was in the unfortunate position of hitting a pedestrian about 9 months ago who just ran out in traffic right in front of me which luckily we both got away with. I was riding sensibly and he admitted fault. I can only imagine the fall out if I was doing the speed limit, let alone pinching 40 in a 30 or something equally 'trivial' until it all goes wrong.

How long do these things tend to take to get to trial? 

[T.C]

How long do these things tend to take to get to trial?

I remember your crash with the pedestrian.  If I remember correctly, I did afford you some advice on the matter.  Was it really 9 months ago?   

Anyway, what you have to be sure of is that you do not confuse road traffic law/criminal law with civil law. 

In this case, the prosecution in order to secure a prosecution have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of riding fell well below the standard of that expected of a reasonably safe and competent rider or driver.  If they fail that test then it can always be reduced to the lesser offence of death by careless driving, and the Judge will give direction in that matter should the situation arise.

But in civil law, the test is much easier in that it is only required to establish on the balance of probability of 51% or better that someone is liable, which is part of the reason why pedestrians are often able to claim off drivers and riders because the civil courts will often based on the evidence determine that the driver/rider should or could have anticipated the potential for a problem to occur.

So someone could be aquitted of any wrong doing in the criminal courts but still be held liable in the civil courts, and vice versa, someone found guilty of an offence may still be able to make a claim against the third party but will have to take a it for contributory negligence.  For example a rider going out on his bike without wearing his helmet, gets knocked off, is convicted of the offence, but if it was caused by a third party can still make a claim but only take a hit of 25% on contrib.

Time wise, it can take 18 months for a death by dangerous driving to get to court, sometimes longer, in a civil case it can take several years because of the statute of limitation of 3 years in injury cases.  I have known some brain injury cases take 10 years + to get to court.

[Gilby104]

Unfortunately there have been a few cases in the last couple of years where despite the pedestrian being a complete twonk, the driver/rider has been held primarily responsible on the basis (depending on location) that the rider/driver should have anticipated the possibility of a pedestrian doing somethng stupid and so whilst there has been a degree of contrip against such twonk, driver/rider has still been hit pretty hard for causation.

It stinks, but as I have said many times before civil law works differently to road traffic law.

Consistent too! Yep February from memory.

Studied a brief amount of law at collage which is where my interest for it came. Find criminal law much more interesting as a rule (no pun intended.... but I'm leaving it in)

[Gilby104]

Unfortunately there have been a few cases in the last couple of years where despite the pedestrian being a complete twonk, the driver/rider has been held primarily responsible on the basis (depending on location) that the rider/driver should have anticipated the possibility of a pedestrian doing somethng stupid and so whilst there has been a degree of contrip against such twonk, driver/rider has still been hit pretty hard for causation.

It stinks, but as I have said many times before civil law works differently to road traffic law.

Consistent too! Yep February from memory.

Studied a brief amount of law at collage which is where my interest for it came. Find criminal law much more interesting as a rule (no pun intended.... but I'm leaving it in)

Where I also learnt to spell 'collage'.....   

[terry950sm]

Now if that was carbon. He would have been slaughtered for his spelling. 

[Gilby104]

Now if that was carbon. He would have been slaughtered for his spelling. 

Ha, we all make mistakes, I've just not lied and told you my phone had auto-cucumbered it!

Also.... it's 'Carbon' /noun/ - capital 'C'.

Although I can certainly see this forum adopting 'carbon' as a verb 'to carbon a bike' or an adjective 'that bike has had a carbon service'.

[terry950sm]

Now if that was carbon. He would have been slaughtered for his spelling. 

Ha, we all make mistakes, I've just not lied and told you my phone had auto-cucumbered it!

Also.... it's 'Carbon' /noun/ - capital 'C'.

Although I can certainly see this forum adopting 'carbon' as a verb 'to carbon a bike' or an adjective 'that bike has had a carbon service'.

I have just tasted sick in my mouth, after reading the above.

[Gilby104]

Now if that was carbon. He would have been slaughtered for his spelling. 

Ha, we all make mistakes, I've just not lied and told you my phone had auto-cucumbered it!

Also.... it's 'Carbon' /noun/ - capital 'C'.

Although I can certainly see this forum adopting 'carbon' as a verb 'to carbon a bike' or an adjective 'that bike has had a carbon service'.

I have just tasted sick in my mouth, after reading the above.

Sorry Boss.... nobody wants a chewy burp! 

[Carbon_ZX6R]

Assholes the bloody lot of you!