Dashcam - Asking for trouble?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
The actions of the motorcyclist (positioning, speed & where he chose to pass when he did) would undermine the prosecutions ability to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver had failed to fulfil his obligations under Sec 3 RTA (whether he had in fact looked or not), because even if he had looked the rider's actions could have reasonably contributed to the driver not reasonably seeing him or anticipating he would have done what he did, it not being reasonable for him to do what he did, where he did, when he did & how he did.
I'm absolutely certain that the biker doesn't give a damn that the driver wasn't prosecuted.Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
The actions of the motorcyclist (positioning, speed & where he chose to pass when he did) would undermine the prosecutions ability to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver had failed to fulfil his obligations under Sec 3 RTA (whether he had in fact looked or not), because even if he had looked the rider's actions could have reasonably contributed to the driver not reasonably seeing him or anticipating he would have done what he did, it not being reasonable for him to do what he did, where he did, when he did & how he did.
I'm absolutely certain that the biker doesn't give a damn that the driver wasn't prosecuted.vonhosen said:
The biker didn't make a careless mistake, he performed a course of conduct that amounted to dangerous riding. It was no isolated incident. The car driver may have been careless, but the rider's actions make it harder for the prosecution to prove that he was in fact careless.
So the fact that the rider was riding dangerously well before the accident, which the car driver couldn't possibly have known about, somehow mitigates the drivers error?Dr Jekyll said:
vonhosen said:
The biker didn't make a careless mistake, he performed a course of conduct that amounted to dangerous riding. It was no isolated incident. The car driver may have been careless, but the rider's actions make it harder for the prosecution to prove that he was in fact careless.
So the fact that the rider was riding dangerously well before the accident, which the car driver couldn't possibly have known about, somehow mitigates the drivers error?The rider's actions throughout the period on video amount to dangerous riding, that's a separate issue.
The rider's actions in the last few seconds (off the roundabout leading up to the fatal collision) would make it difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was acting carelessly. He may have not looked & therefore been careless, or alternatively he may have looked & therefore not have been acting carelessly, but it's difficult to prove because of the manner of the rider's riding. A defence could claim that the rider's positioning, speed & where he went to overtake when he went to overtake, could contribute to the driver not being able to reasonably see him & anticipate it despite him having adequatley looked. That means the prosecution couldn't reasonably have proved that he didn't adequately look, the burden of proof for that being on the prosecution.
Most people you encounter on the road are going to react unpredictably to anyone bearing down on them at a rate of knots.
People are only indirectly trained (mirror, signal, manoeuvre) to deal with this disparity in speed. Is it reasonable to expect people to be able to cope with events that shouldn't be happening anyway because they are illegal? The biker in this instance was doing 150% of the speed limit.
The driver could've been careless, but that act doesn't exist in a bubble.
People are only indirectly trained (mirror, signal, manoeuvre) to deal with this disparity in speed. Is it reasonable to expect people to be able to cope with events that shouldn't be happening anyway because they are illegal? The biker in this instance was doing 150% of the speed limit.
The driver could've been careless, but that act doesn't exist in a bubble.
In my view we don't know much about how dangerous the 1st rider was riding other than the ridiculous speed. The 2nd rider was heavily protected from his own stupidity by all the drivers along the route who were driving in the gutter to give him as much room as possible. This could be because they were alerted by the 1st rider hurtling through but we don't know because he is out of sight.
Do some people think to accelerate as hard as you can passed and between traffic is not going to go wrong at some point?
Very sad for all involved.
Do some people think to accelerate as hard as you can passed and between traffic is not going to go wrong at some point?
Very sad for all involved.
Edited by herewego on Sunday 30th October 10:41
Durzel said:
Most people you encounter on the road are going to react unpredictably to anyone bearing down on them at a rate of knots.
People are only indirectly trained (mirror, signal, manoeuvre) to deal with this disparity in speed.
Of course. That's why people are continuously crashing into tractors and other slow-moving vehicles on dual carriageways, and also continuously crashing into people pulling out of parking places - they simply can't cope with a 30mph speed differential. People are only indirectly trained (mirror, signal, manoeuvre) to deal with this disparity in speed.
vonhosen said:
No
The rider's actions throughout the period on video amount to dangerous riding, that's a separate issue.
The rider's actions in the last few seconds (off the roundabout leading up to the fatal collision) would make it difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was acting carelessly. He may have not looked & therefore been careless, or alternatively he may have looked & therefore not have been acting carelessly, but it's difficult to prove because of the manner of the rider's riding. A defence could claim that the rider's positioning, speed & where he went to overtake when he went to overtake, could contribute to the driver not being able to reasonably see him & anticipate it despite him having adequatley looked. That means the prosecution couldn't reasonably have proved that he didn't adequately look, the burden of proof for that being on the prosecution.
Had either the driver practised "think bike" or the rider "think car", it may not have happened.The rider's actions throughout the period on video amount to dangerous riding, that's a separate issue.
The rider's actions in the last few seconds (off the roundabout leading up to the fatal collision) would make it difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was acting carelessly. He may have not looked & therefore been careless, or alternatively he may have looked & therefore not have been acting carelessly, but it's difficult to prove because of the manner of the rider's riding. A defence could claim that the rider's positioning, speed & where he went to overtake when he went to overtake, could contribute to the driver not being able to reasonably see him & anticipate it despite him having adequatley looked. That means the prosecution couldn't reasonably have proved that he didn't adequately look, the burden of proof for that being on the prosecution.
The fact is, both made a silly mistake at the wrong time, which unfortunately led to a fatality.
Very often, the only people who really know what really happened are the drivers/riders involved - indeed, they are often the only witnesses.
But said drivers/riders are very often not inclined to tell the truth about what they know, because they have the threat of being banged up hanging over their heads.
And so we end up with both the jails and cemeteries continuing to fill up because we never get to discover the true causes.
But someone died, so someone has to pay.
Pete317 said:
Of course. That's why people are continuously crashing into tractors and other slow-moving vehicles on dual carriageways, and also continuously crashing into people pulling out of parking places - they simply can't cope with a 30mph speed differential.
Lol, is that seriously your riposte? Either you're being willfully obtuse, or you're an idiot, if you can't grasp the (not even sightly subtle) difference between vehicles traveling faster vs vehicles traveling slower.Sten. said:
I just swiftly pull the power cable out of mine any time I.. don't want it to record. Simple but effective.
So you want to catch others, but hide the stuff you do? 
This is what seems to be happening now. Plenty of people with dashcams trying to persecute others, yet their driving is probably just as bad.
Case in point are the morons that try to make a point and make an incident worse. For example, steaming up behind a car that has pulled out, slamming the brakes on and leaning on the horn.
Durzel said:
Pete317 said:
Of course. That's why people are continuously crashing into tractors and other slow-moving vehicles on dual carriageways, and also continuously crashing into people pulling out of parking places - they simply can't cope with a 30mph speed differential.
Lol, is that seriously your riposte? Either you're being willfully obtuse, or you're an idiot, if you can't grasp the (not even sightly subtle) difference between vehicles traveling faster vs vehicles traveling slower.ETA: People doing 80-90mph passing others doing 50-60mph is such a common everyday occurrence on motorways and d/cs that it's hardly worth mentioning.
So to suggest that it's an some kind of alien concept which drivers somehow can't cope with is disingenuous at best
Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 30th October 12:31
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
No
The rider's actions throughout the period on video amount to dangerous riding, that's a separate issue.
The rider's actions in the last few seconds (off the roundabout leading up to the fatal collision) would make it difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was acting carelessly. He may have not looked & therefore been careless, or alternatively he may have looked & therefore not have been acting carelessly, but it's difficult to prove because of the manner of the rider's riding. A defence could claim that the rider's positioning, speed & where he went to overtake when he went to overtake, could contribute to the driver not being able to reasonably see him & anticipate it despite him having adequatley looked. That means the prosecution couldn't reasonably have proved that he didn't adequately look, the burden of proof for that being on the prosecution.
Had either the driver practised "think bike" or the rider "think car", it may not have happened.The rider's actions throughout the period on video amount to dangerous riding, that's a separate issue.
The rider's actions in the last few seconds (off the roundabout leading up to the fatal collision) would make it difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was acting carelessly. He may have not looked & therefore been careless, or alternatively he may have looked & therefore not have been acting carelessly, but it's difficult to prove because of the manner of the rider's riding. A defence could claim that the rider's positioning, speed & where he went to overtake when he went to overtake, could contribute to the driver not being able to reasonably see him & anticipate it despite him having adequatley looked. That means the prosecution couldn't reasonably have proved that he didn't adequately look, the burden of proof for that being on the prosecution.
The fact is, both made a silly mistake at the wrong time, which unfortunately led to a fatality.
Very often, the only people who really know what really happened are the drivers/riders involved - indeed, they are often the only witnesses.
But said drivers/riders are very often not inclined to tell the truth about what they know, because they have the threat of being banged up hanging over their heads.
And so we end up with both the jails and cemeteries continuing to fill up because we never get to discover the true causes.
But someone died, so someone has to pay.
The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances & the rider's actions are no small part in the authorities not being able to prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the burden of proof in our courts.
The driver will have also paid in other ways, because it's something that will affect him the rest of his life.
TooMany2cvs said:
vonhosen said:
The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances
So you say.You appear to be in a minority of one on this.
If not why not if it's as you contest?
Minority of one? No.
Not that that alters the matter any anyway.
A dissenter in the KKK wouldn't have been wrong because they disagreed with the herd.
JM said:
From the video, the car that pulls out to overtake puts its indicator on when the bike is level with the following car. Presuming the driver looked then indicated then the bike was probably obscured by the following car (not helped by the thier own position which appears to be nearer the near side than the folowing cars)
How is the driver 'reasonably' expected to see a bike that isn't visible?
Exactly my thoughts; motorcyclist hammers out from left and the Fiesta guy is committed to his low speed overtake already - surely having seen there was nothing behind him as he made the commitment. Then someone arrives at warp speed as he actions his manoeuvre. No reasonable time to react.How is the driver 'reasonably' expected to see a bike that isn't visible?
As an aside I really dislike these type of wide roads with those cross-hatch markings. The number of people I saw on one yesterday overtaking without any indication but still using a part of the oncoming carriageway was staggering. Why wouldn't you indicate as it also acts as a reminder for oncoming vehicles to keep a bit more left as part of their lane is being used by oncoming vehicles. They are unclear to many and can confuse people - and then when both carriageways action overtakes its a total mess - have seen many a near miss.
Still staggeringly sad for the biker - lost his life in a split second
vonhosen said:
TooMany2cvs said:
vonhosen said:
The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances
So you say.You appear to be in a minority of one on this.
If not why not if it's as you contest?
Don't forget that the biker who survived was explicitly not charged with anything relating to the collision, either. His Dangerous charges related to his riding in the minutes before the collision.
vonhosen said:
Someone did pay, the guy who died & his family/friend.
The driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances & the rider's actions are no small part in the authorities not being able to prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the burden of proof in our courts.
The driver will have also paid in other ways, because it's something that will affect him the rest of his life.
Try taking off your law-coloured spectacles for a momentThe driver can only be held accountable in law for his actions or lack of. There isn't sufficient evidence in law that his actions fell short of what can reasonably be expected of him in those circumstances & the rider's actions are no small part in the authorities not being able to prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the burden of proof in our courts.
The driver will have also paid in other ways, because it's something that will affect him the rest of his life.
TooMany2cvs said:
95 in a 60? 15m/s closing?
Yes - very a inappropriate speed given the vehicles in front appear to have been going far slower than NSL having only just come off roundabout - the speed differential was far higher than 35mph. It was possibly in the order of 50-60 mph? Bike therefore bore down on car extremely quickly giving him no chance to react. IMHOGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff