What's the worst that could happen....uninsured biker..

[dave_s13]

the_lone_wolf said:

LoonR1 said:

D vs S is completely different.

Filtering on the outside of one lane of traffic, not between two moving in the same direction
No U turn, just a move between lanes
D vs S summation also highlighted the individuality of crashes and that the circumstances of this crash were very specific.

FFS Loon - Read THIS post by the OP later in the thread:

dave_s13 said:

Turns out is was a single carriageway of slow moving traffic at a rush hour bottleneck, not a dual carriageway.Car driver decided not to wait and pulled and abrupt "U" turn right in front of the biker. 100% driver at fault I would have thought.

Flowers or chocolate with the apology, and pay more attention next time please

Ha... I should really edit my original post.

Re being flipped over the car, I'd have thought 15-20mph would do it? Just guessing. Bike was a cg125 so not a lot in the way to stop you.

Anyway, all good info. Main thing is our man's not dead and didn't hurt anyone else either. Remains to be seen how it pans out but we do know for sure that the orthopaedic surgeons will be busy tomorrow!

[AnimalMkIV]

dave_s13 said:

Ha... I should really edit my original post.

Re being flipped over the car, I'd have thought 15-20mph would do it? Just guessing. Bike was a cg125 so not a lot in the way to stop you.

Anyway, all good info. Main thing is our man's not dead and didn't hurt anyone else either. Remains to be seen how it pans out but we do know for sure that the orthopaedic surgeons will be busy tomorrow!

Somewhat dependent of the type of car and the angle of impact, but I would reckon more like 35mph + to vault a car.

I had a very similar accident - MkII Fiesta U-turned in stationary traffic as I was filtering at 20-25mph. I went through the driver's side window and my shoulder bent the B-pillar 8". Bike was a 400cc Superdream.

Fully licensed & insured, driver admitted liability at scene, insurance went 50/50.

[dave_s13]

Just to update this thread.

The biker involved died last week following complications related to recovering from his injuries. 35yo, 2 kids...poor bugger.

[LoonR1]

Very sad, but you said the injuries were serious but not life threatening. I hate to say this, but there must've been some speed involved to make the injuries and outcome so severe.

[dave_s13]

LoonR1 said:

Very sad, but you said the injuries were serious but not life threatening. I hate to say this, but there must've been some speed involved to make the injuries and outcome so severe.

That's what I thought when I wrote it, I was wrong.

Any lower limb surgery, regardless of cause, carries a post operative risk of deep vein thrombosis. That's what killed him, DVT -> pulmonary embolism -> RIP.

Nobody saw it coming, not in a million years.

To add..I was wrong about the injury not being life threatening, I still uphold that he wasn't carrying excessive speed.

[LoonR1]

I'm not having a pop. Quite the opposite, sad news for everyone involved.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LoonR1 said:

Very sad, but you said the injuries were serious but not life threatening. I hate to say this, but there must've been some speed involved to make the injuries and outcome so severe.

I don't see why. You can badly break a leg in a low speed accident, and die from complications following an op to reset it.

The dynamics of an accident are quite specific to each event. You can walk away from an horrendous smash quite unscathed, or be seriously hurt or killed in a pretty mundane accident.

[dave_s13]

LoonR1 said:

I'm not having a pop. Quite the opposite, sad news for everyone involved.

Yeah I know, cheers man, try not to fall off your bike too much!

[CaptainMorgan]

Brite spark said:

Cbt doesn't expire if a car test is passed whilst it is still valid, or atleast didn't under the old rules, dl196? Cert needs to be kept though

You retain a full MOPED licence, so if the OP's mate was on a 50 he was all good, 125 then no.

[tenpenceshort]

LoonR1 said:

speedyguy said:

I would say the Biker is 100% at fault as he shouldn't have been on the rd, If he was insured my view would probably be 100% opposite.

Ok and when you're the Judge in a court that sets precedents then people will pay attention, until then you're 100% wrong.

In some circumstances, from a criminal law POV, an uninsured party can be held liable for a death without their driving being poor ( to a criminal standard), if they were driving uninsured and/or unlicensed. The purpose of this legislation is to make responsible those who should not be on the road in the first place and whose presence on the road contributed to a road death.

That's not going to apply here, of course.

Sorry to hear the biker here died. No winners in this case, just losers.

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

LoonR1 said:

speedyguy said:

I would say the Biker is 100% at fault as he shouldn't have been on the rd, If he was insured my view would probably be 100% opposite.

Ok and when you're the Judge in a court that sets precedents then people will pay attention, until then you're 100% wrong.

In some circumstances, from a criminal law POV, an uninsured party can be held liable for a death without their driving being poor ( to a criminal standard), if they were driving uninsured and/or unlicensed. The purpose of this legislation is to make responsible those who should not be on the road in the first place and whose presence on the road contributed to a road death.

That's not going to apply here, of course.

Sorry to hear the biker here died. No winners in this case, just losers.

So why raise it? Seriously if the bike rider wasn't at fault, then any driving offence is dealt with separately to the civil matter. I really don't understand the need to go off on an irrelevant tangent, especially on a thread like this.

[rocketdogbert]

LoonR1 said:

Very sad, but you said the injuries were serious but not life threatening. I hate to say this, but there must've been some speed involved to make the injuries and outcome so severe.

That's far to general mate. I had an accident at 20mph and suffered life changing injuries, including compound fractures to both femurs, broken left ankle, left hand, right wrist, right thumb and plenty of nerve damage

[LoonR1]

rocketdogbert said:

That's far to general mate. I had an accident at 20mph and suffered life changing injuries, including compound fractures to both femurs, broken left ankle, left hand, right wrist, right thumb and plenty of nerve damage

Ok I'll leave it, it was just a passing comment.

[tenpenceshort]

LoonR1 said:

So why raise it? Seriously if the bike rider wasn't at fault, then any driving offence is dealt with separately to the civil matter. I really don't understand the need to go off on an irrelevant tangent, especially on a thread like this.

I raised it because people look in here to learn things. Your comments over the civil liability raised a point regards the criminal one that could be relevant (where uninsured people are liable by virtue of being uninsured).

For someone who moans and moans and moans about people here trying to be helpful and getting things wrong (despite doing so yourself fairly regularly recently), you really could do with chilling out a bit. And yes, that's coming from me, of all people.

[SV8Predator]

10 penceshort said:

I raised it because people look in here to learn things.

So where is your authority in this sort of matter to "educate" us then?

[tenpenceshort]

SV8Predator said:

10 penceshort said:

I raised it because people look in here to learn things.

So where is your authority in this sort of matter to "educate" us then?

What authority do I need?

Edited to add, on criminal responsibility for death caused by unlicensed or uninsured drivers, the supreme court;

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/56.html

Edited by tenpenceshort on Sunday 27th July 21:16

[E24man]

Very interesting 3am read that.

So although being present on the road whilst contravening the licence/tax/insurance laws doesn't necessarily place you as guilty should there be a fatal accident, some significant shortfall in acceptable driving standards would.

Could it be argued by the car driver that the motorcycle rider in this case, by riding sufficiently fast as to cause him to be unable to stop in time to prevent all but the most minor of injuries has contributed 'in some than minimal way' to his own death but without his actions being 'the principle cause of death'?

If so, would that absolve the car driver of 'causing....death....by driving'?

[tenpenceshort]

It's possible both drivers were committing offences that contributed to the death. Rather than looking at the incident in civil terms, where responsibility for the damage is decided as a percentage, the criminal court looks at the conduct of each in their own right to decide if the individual committed an offence. For example, a driver might not be prosecuted at all, but in civil court might find themselves liable for a significant percentage of liability.

If prosecuted for death by careless, the driver here might try to argue the conduct of the rider meant a careful and competent driver wouldn't have been expected to see him. Not sure that would wash. If the rider was riding questionably then this would be mitigation in trying to reduce the sentence rather than a defence.

[E24man]

So should there be (hypothetically) in this case no criminal proceedings against the car driver due to any kind of evidence of poor or reduced driving/riding standards by the uninsured motorcyclist would this mitigate any civil proceedings that might poseibly be bought against the car driver and his insurance company?

[tenpenceshort]

If the car driver's driving is suspected to have fallen below that expected of a careful and competent driver he can and should be reported for the relevant offence. He shouldn't and doesn't get off purely on the principle that another person involved is also suspected of driving badly.