Discussion
Monday I was at Guildford Magistrates court as a witness for the CPS. I was the victim of a car driver who pulled out of a side junction and knocked me off my Yamaha R1.
My pelvis was broken in four, I had a broken femur, fractured spine, sternum, collapsed lung and had to be resuscitated.
The guy that caused this was prosecuted for driving without due care recieved 5 points and a £350 fine.
I think this sucks, you can almost kill a motorcyclist and get a slap on the wrist. But ride a bike or car on a safe road over the speed limit and you can be banned.
The legal system seems to be unaware that being caught speeding is less important than screwing up someones life.
My pelvis was broken in four, I had a broken femur, fractured spine, sternum, collapsed lung and had to be resuscitated.
The guy that caused this was prosecuted for driving without due care recieved 5 points and a £350 fine.
I think this sucks, you can almost kill a motorcyclist and get a slap on the wrist. But ride a bike or car on a safe road over the speed limit and you can be banned.
The legal system seems to be unaware that being caught speeding is less important than screwing up someones life.
The legal system is well aware of the fact that someones life can be ruined, but it places rather limited cash values on such a situation..
However, the Govt knows that almost everyone speeds at some point (especially when they reduce half the speed limits on the roads to 40mph) and as such can generate a much higher return as it is a Quantity not Quality industry.
And in siting sniping cameras everywhere that leaves plod free to prosecute two old biddies for filming the thugs who were terrorizing them for years.
This Govt Sucks the Big one, and the country is to blame, after all, they were elected (not by my vote mind)
All IMHO opinion of course
However, the Govt knows that almost everyone speeds at some point (especially when they reduce half the speed limits on the roads to 40mph) and as such can generate a much higher return as it is a Quantity not Quality industry.
And in siting sniping cameras everywhere that leaves plod free to prosecute two old biddies for filming the thugs who were terrorizing them for years.
This Govt Sucks the Big one, and the country is to blame, after all, they were elected (not by my vote mind)
All IMHO opinion of course
Unfortunately the government fails to realise that the kind of plonker that pulls out on a motorcyclist is probably one of the few that sticks to the speed limit. In fact the green civil service that occupy the DOT consider this kind of accident speed related. This means that Marlbro you are now part of the speed related statistics that are used to support the speed kills madness. I think its brilliant that having suffered all those injuries you can still see it the way you do. I hope you make a full recovery.
quote:
"In fact the green civil service that occupy the DOT consider this kind of accident speed related."
How come?
Difficult question, the answer I got from DOT was a bit muddled. However it seems that if you drive down the road and a driver joining that road looks but does not register your presence, it is due to the speed you are travelling. The obvious question is how fast do you have to go before this concept kicks in? Again the answer I got was vague, It may or may not be more than the posted limit.
I guess the reality is that if this happens and a collision occurs insurance companies go to court and the driver on the main road wins. The civil servants put it down as a speed related accident and then publish lots of false statistics.
You did ask!!!
Controversial reply but I occasionally like to play Devils Advocate. No disrespect intended.
Was he speeding, was he drink driving, was he driving without insurance, was the car unroadworthy? No - then I disagree and think 5 points and £350 is fare punishment, unless there are other circumstances that you have not mentioned.
Who can say that they have not experienced a situation through their own negligence that might have resulted in an accident? Should you get away with it because the accident didn’t materialise? I think so, unless you are being totally irresponsible.
You seem to advocate speeding but this could result in an accident with the same consequences that you have experienced, or worse... The action of speeding would be considered much more reckless than pulling out of a junction.
Could it have been a momentary lapse of concentration or obscured vision? Don’t get me wrong, he’s not blameless but it was not premeditated. He was bloody unlucky and you even more so.
I think his insurance company should pay out every penny due to you; loss of earnings, distress, on going problems, etc. They are the people that you should sue if you are left out of pocket in way what so ever. That’s what insurance is for.
What punishment are you thinking of?
By the way, I hope you’re better and, if not, that you will be soon.
Edited by macca on Monday 17th December 20:34
Was he speeding, was he drink driving, was he driving without insurance, was the car unroadworthy? No - then I disagree and think 5 points and £350 is fare punishment, unless there are other circumstances that you have not mentioned.
Who can say that they have not experienced a situation through their own negligence that might have resulted in an accident? Should you get away with it because the accident didn’t materialise? I think so, unless you are being totally irresponsible.
You seem to advocate speeding but this could result in an accident with the same consequences that you have experienced, or worse... The action of speeding would be considered much more reckless than pulling out of a junction.
Could it have been a momentary lapse of concentration or obscured vision? Don’t get me wrong, he’s not blameless but it was not premeditated. He was bloody unlucky and you even more so.
I think his insurance company should pay out every penny due to you; loss of earnings, distress, on going problems, etc. They are the people that you should sue if you are left out of pocket in way what so ever. That’s what insurance is for.
What punishment are you thinking of?
By the way, I hope you’re better and, if not, that you will be soon.
Edited by macca on Monday 17th December 20:34
Interesting set of ideas Macca. I would just like to pick up on couple of points though. If as you say most of us have nearly made mistakes. Is it not a result of an ever so slightly better standard of driving than those who actually make the identical mistake?
I think most of the threads are not so much advocationg speeding but declaring a healthy cynicism for the implementation of speed limits. I am curious as to why speeding is far more reckless than pulling out of a junction without looking. I would certainly rather drive on roads occupied by good drivers driving at never less than twice the posted speed limit than roads occupied by people who are away with the fairies.
Finally I suggest that in a civil court when compensation is the issue and not crime and punishment, the court will hopefully award our friend very substantial damages.
I think most of the threads are not so much advocationg speeding but declaring a healthy cynicism for the implementation of speed limits. I am curious as to why speeding is far more reckless than pulling out of a junction without looking. I would certainly rather drive on roads occupied by good drivers driving at never less than twice the posted speed limit than roads occupied by people who are away with the fairies.
Finally I suggest that in a civil court when compensation is the issue and not crime and punishment, the court will hopefully award our friend very substantial damages.
All I will say is that if someone attacked you in the street and did that (collapsed lung, broken bones etc) then you would be up on a ABH (actual bodily harm) charge. Taking into account the severity of the injuries - the perp would be looking at a prison sentence..... WITHOUT A DOUBT...
Seems that there is a small disparity here...
Sentences should be related to the injuries caused - see Mr Gary Hart and his 10 deaths.... (before anyone says anything I know that this is a different case and sleep deprivation was the cause, but appropriate sentences are what I am referring to). And yes, he certainly should get a custodial sentence - what a loonie...
Cheers,
Paul
Seems that there is a small disparity here...
Sentences should be related to the injuries caused - see Mr Gary Hart and his 10 deaths.... (before anyone says anything I know that this is a different case and sleep deprivation was the cause, but appropriate sentences are what I am referring to). And yes, he certainly should get a custodial sentence - what a loonie...
Cheers,
Paul
Was it pre-meditated ?? Did he get up that morning and think "I'm going to do some bugger with my car?" If the answer to both is no then he made a mistake.
A horrible one granted and the consequences of that mistake will be with you (both) no doubt for a very long time. But if there was no malice intended it breaks down to his mistake for which he has been punished and your bad luck. Sorry if that sounds harsh but its life, you rode an R1 (and I assume were competent and skilled) if you where unaware of the risks that involves and the dangers posed to you by others you were blinkered.
Would you suggest that if your accident and injurys had been caused by a diesel spill say, maybe someone "made a mistake" and didn't put their cap on properly they should be punished severley (or maybe even a horse rider who's nag dumps in the road) ?? Punished yes so that they learn by their mistake and hopefully don't repeat it but what I detect is a desire for revenge, yes your life has been badly effected but would it be better to financially cripple someone else or maybe a criminal record, loss of job and liberty for a horrible mistake and lapse of concentration!
It is a hard fact of life that if you ride bikes on the road you should be aware and prepared for the risks that involves, they go hand in glove and are proportional to the pleasures derived. If I was in your position and I have been in similar ones a few times I'd put it down to another lesson from the school of hard knocks and get on with your life. You've been dealt a shit hand but it will not serve any further purpose to dwell on it. If the bloke laughed at you in court or showed no signs of remorse yes get pissed off but if it is just your desire to make him pay get over it or the hate will tear you apart.
A horrible one granted and the consequences of that mistake will be with you (both) no doubt for a very long time. But if there was no malice intended it breaks down to his mistake for which he has been punished and your bad luck. Sorry if that sounds harsh but its life, you rode an R1 (and I assume were competent and skilled) if you where unaware of the risks that involves and the dangers posed to you by others you were blinkered.
Would you suggest that if your accident and injurys had been caused by a diesel spill say, maybe someone "made a mistake" and didn't put their cap on properly they should be punished severley (or maybe even a horse rider who's nag dumps in the road) ?? Punished yes so that they learn by their mistake and hopefully don't repeat it but what I detect is a desire for revenge, yes your life has been badly effected but would it be better to financially cripple someone else or maybe a criminal record, loss of job and liberty for a horrible mistake and lapse of concentration!
It is a hard fact of life that if you ride bikes on the road you should be aware and prepared for the risks that involves, they go hand in glove and are proportional to the pleasures derived. If I was in your position and I have been in similar ones a few times I'd put it down to another lesson from the school of hard knocks and get on with your life. You've been dealt a shit hand but it will not serve any further purpose to dwell on it. If the bloke laughed at you in court or showed no signs of remorse yes get pissed off but if it is just your desire to make him pay get over it or the hate will tear you apart.
Oh yes sorry I forgot to add I do actually agree with your points about bans for "safe" speeding etc but the point again comes down to "intent" if you speed to a degree where a ban is likely (and yes I do) you know your doing it and do it with intent for your own thrill or pleasure, you "hopefully" know the risks and are prepared to take them and deal with the consequences. We're big boys with big toys and play by big boys rules if you don't understand those rules or choose to break them you must be prepared to either get hurt or get caught.
quote:
All I will say is that if someone attacked you in the street and did that (collapsed lung, broken bones etc) then you would be up on a ABH (actual bodily harm) charge. Taking into account the severity of the injuries - the perp would be looking at a prison sentence..... WITHOUT A DOUBT...
Unless you play football for Leeds Utd
Matt
OK so my example wasnt a very good one. But the point is still semi-valid. There is a major disparity between some sentences. This should be addressed and communicated with the motoring public.
Unacceptable behaviour should be punished - but also a mistake is a mistake. However, the CPS wouldnt have prosecuted if they didnt feel that there was blame and fault. The sheer fact that the person was convicted showed that there was a crime and therefore blame and fault..... Ok, we all make mistakes - some more than others. We shouldnt necessarily have to pay for these for ever...
But, consider "socially unacceptable" things like drink driving. Most people convicted of this are punished hard these days (ducks to avoid the flames). Maybe we need to change the injury punishments - just a discussion....
Dont mean to offend anyone...
Cheers,
Paul
Unacceptable behaviour should be punished - but also a mistake is a mistake. However, the CPS wouldnt have prosecuted if they didnt feel that there was blame and fault. The sheer fact that the person was convicted showed that there was a crime and therefore blame and fault..... Ok, we all make mistakes - some more than others. We shouldnt necessarily have to pay for these for ever...
But, consider "socially unacceptable" things like drink driving. Most people convicted of this are punished hard these days (ducks to avoid the flames). Maybe we need to change the injury punishments - just a discussion....
Dont mean to offend anyone...
Cheers,
Paul
Taking the case of Gary Hart. If his Landrover was cleared from the track before the trains approached would he receive the same sentence that he is likely to get? I suspect not! However, his crime is still the same, it's just the outcome that is different and that was out of his control.
I believe that Gary Hart should get a custodial sentence but only 1 or 2 years not the 10 that he may well get. I also believe that anybody else found falling asleep at the wheel should also get a custodial sentence of 1 or 2 years
Nonegreen. I don't believe that people deliberately pull out of junctions without looking, it would be pure madness. This guy missed seeing Marlboro, for whatever reason. With speeding it’s more a case of how fast and the conditions – where do you draw the line?
I believe that Gary Hart should get a custodial sentence but only 1 or 2 years not the 10 that he may well get. I also believe that anybody else found falling asleep at the wheel should also get a custodial sentence of 1 or 2 years
Nonegreen. I don't believe that people deliberately pull out of junctions without looking, it would be pure madness. This guy missed seeing Marlboro, for whatever reason. With speeding it’s more a case of how fast and the conditions – where do you draw the line?
Guys,
Many thanks for your concern. Please read my original post. I was comparing causing injury via driving without due care with a normal speeding offence, both not premeditated.
My concern is that I had everything on my side, four witnesses, skid marks suggested 40 in a 60 limit and it was said that by laying the bike down I reduced injuries to others.
I have a civil case pending to sue the guy but this will take some years.
If anyone wants help in such a situation please ask.
Comming to terms with the incident is easy just try to sort it out in your head.
Many thanks for your concern. Please read my original post. I was comparing causing injury via driving without due care with a normal speeding offence, both not premeditated.
My concern is that I had everything on my side, four witnesses, skid marks suggested 40 in a 60 limit and it was said that by laying the bike down I reduced injuries to others.
I have a civil case pending to sue the guy but this will take some years.
If anyone wants help in such a situation please ask.
Comming to terms with the incident is easy just try to sort it out in your head.
Marlboro,
Your original post appears to suggest that speeding deserves less of a punishment than that dished out to the guy that hit you, alternatively you think he should have got a greater punishment.
If somebody speeds a little then they get points. If they speed a lot then they get banned. If a person gets banned then maybe they are being reckless. Accidents that occur at higher speeds generally result in greater injury, so the system is fare. The guy that pulled out on you was not being reckless but he was careless for a moment.
Your original post appears to suggest that speeding deserves less of a punishment than that dished out to the guy that hit you, alternatively you think he should have got a greater punishment.
If somebody speeds a little then they get points. If they speed a lot then they get banned. If a person gets banned then maybe they are being reckless. Accidents that occur at higher speeds generally result in greater injury, so the system is fare. The guy that pulled out on you was not being reckless but he was careless for a moment.
Macca. How can the system be fair if the speeding offense results in no harm done and a ban, but the offense of due care results in injury and a few points / fine. It simply does not make sense.
I agree that the speeding issue depends on the time and place conditions etc. That is precisely my point. The notion that the greater the speed the worse the consequenses is false. Once you get collisions at more than 40 mph you start getting nasty injuries due to the forces involved. There is no evidence that speed makes this significatly worse.
I think that the whole issue needs some serious thought because in the case of Gary Hart we have the opportunity to take a hitherto law abiding citizen and make him a criminal, all we really need to do is ban him and force him to undertake extensive driver training if he wants to reapply for his license. I actually think that the Guy who pulled out on Marlbo is guilty of a more serious offense than Hart. The reason is because Hart made a series of minor mistakes that resulted in a tragedy. Pulling out without registering a bike in your path is totally unnaceptable driving. By comparison a blatant breach of safety legislation such as removing machine guards is far more serious than an unforseeable error. It is pretty easy to see that pulling out of a junction without looking properly (OR AT ALL) is going to result in collision. Driving at 120 down a straight road in the dry with no traffic is not. I dont necessarily think what I ahve just said is all the answer but come back at me and maybe we'll get somewhere.
I agree that the speeding issue depends on the time and place conditions etc. That is precisely my point. The notion that the greater the speed the worse the consequenses is false. Once you get collisions at more than 40 mph you start getting nasty injuries due to the forces involved. There is no evidence that speed makes this significatly worse.
I think that the whole issue needs some serious thought because in the case of Gary Hart we have the opportunity to take a hitherto law abiding citizen and make him a criminal, all we really need to do is ban him and force him to undertake extensive driver training if he wants to reapply for his license. I actually think that the Guy who pulled out on Marlbo is guilty of a more serious offense than Hart. The reason is because Hart made a series of minor mistakes that resulted in a tragedy. Pulling out without registering a bike in your path is totally unnaceptable driving. By comparison a blatant breach of safety legislation such as removing machine guards is far more serious than an unforseeable error. It is pretty easy to see that pulling out of a junction without looking properly (OR AT ALL) is going to result in collision. Driving at 120 down a straight road in the dry with no traffic is not. I dont necessarily think what I ahve just said is all the answer but come back at me and maybe we'll get somewhere.
’The notion that the greater the speed the worse the consequences is false’. I Disagree! If I dropped a hammer on your foot it would hurt, if I swung the same hammer with force against your foot it would smash it to a pulp. The difference is that the hammer is moving quicker. There is a point when the damage to your foot could not be made worse, no matter how hard I hit it but if you had a well padded shoe then I would have to increase the force to do the same damage. Think of the padded shoe as Volvo or Motorbike. If you have an accident you don’t know who you are going to hit, Volvo or bike, so speed is significant.
You assume that speeding will not result in an accident. Accidents are usually a split second error of judgment, the faster you are going the more likely that the error cannot be recovered. For example: If Marlboro had been going slower he might have been able to react and avoid the situation. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Marlboro was doing anything wrong he was probably very close to the car when it pulled out. Increase the distance and the speed and you will probably get the same result, increase the distance and decrease the speed and the outcome may not be the same.
Paul Hart was an accident waiting to happen. He went without sleep for a long period and his driver awareness was affected – similar circumstances to a drink driver or person driving on drugs. It simply does not compare with a split second error of judgement. The reason he should go to prison is partly to make other drivers aware of the consequences, so that they don’t make the same mistake. However, he should get a sentence in line with his stupidity not the outcome of the event.
120mph on an empty straight road. I’ve done this before and I felt in control and not at risk. I think variable speed limits would be a great idea on motorways – 25 in fog and 120 on clear dry Sunday mornings (whatever).
You assume that speeding will not result in an accident. Accidents are usually a split second error of judgment, the faster you are going the more likely that the error cannot be recovered. For example: If Marlboro had been going slower he might have been able to react and avoid the situation. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Marlboro was doing anything wrong he was probably very close to the car when it pulled out. Increase the distance and the speed and you will probably get the same result, increase the distance and decrease the speed and the outcome may not be the same.
Paul Hart was an accident waiting to happen. He went without sleep for a long period and his driver awareness was affected – similar circumstances to a drink driver or person driving on drugs. It simply does not compare with a split second error of judgement. The reason he should go to prison is partly to make other drivers aware of the consequences, so that they don’t make the same mistake. However, he should get a sentence in line with his stupidity not the outcome of the event.
120mph on an empty straight road. I’ve done this before and I felt in control and not at risk. I think variable speed limits would be a great idea on motorways – 25 in fog and 120 on clear dry Sunday mornings (whatever).
Much of what you said makes a lot of sense Macca but I have to come back at you on 2 points.
Firstly the analogy of the hammer is all very well but bear this in mind. Statistically you have more chance of surviving impact speed greater than 50 mph on a motorcycle than in a car. Most impacts in cars at 60 or more result in death. This is due to the forces approaching infinity. So the statement I made about the greater the speed etc is based on what I have discovered from the accident stats. (the interpretation is mine though).
Secondly Gary Hart. You have a fair point and in different circumstances I would agree with your evaluation. If for example you train a bunch aircraft pilots over say 150 hours of input plus updates every time they swap planes. When one of them gets drunk or flies into another plane because he joins the circuit at the wrong height then assuming he survives the crash he would probably just never fly again. The average motorist including Gary Hart has had about 15 hours of tuition if they are lucky. (This may have even been a parent teaching bad habits). Most of this tuition is not relavent to motorway driving and the end result is a crummy little test that focuses on basic car control. To send such an ill equipped person out onto the road to use it as a method of transport is a total abdication of responsibilty on the part of government and if anyone should go to jail it should be Byers and possibly every other transport secretary for the last 30 years. What do you think?
Firstly the analogy of the hammer is all very well but bear this in mind. Statistically you have more chance of surviving impact speed greater than 50 mph on a motorcycle than in a car. Most impacts in cars at 60 or more result in death. This is due to the forces approaching infinity. So the statement I made about the greater the speed etc is based on what I have discovered from the accident stats. (the interpretation is mine though).
Secondly Gary Hart. You have a fair point and in different circumstances I would agree with your evaluation. If for example you train a bunch aircraft pilots over say 150 hours of input plus updates every time they swap planes. When one of them gets drunk or flies into another plane because he joins the circuit at the wrong height then assuming he survives the crash he would probably just never fly again. The average motorist including Gary Hart has had about 15 hours of tuition if they are lucky. (This may have even been a parent teaching bad habits). Most of this tuition is not relavent to motorway driving and the end result is a crummy little test that focuses on basic car control. To send such an ill equipped person out onto the road to use it as a method of transport is a total abdication of responsibilty on the part of government and if anyone should go to jail it should be Byers and possibly every other transport secretary for the last 30 years. What do you think?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff