Bad crash at my local boy racer meet

[Dynamic Space Wizard]

CooperS said:

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

TorqueVR said:

If it happen outside a court the same sentencing rules would apply.

valiant said:

If this happened outside a court and the same parameters applied, the outcome would be the same.

That's not even slightly true though, is it? The fact is that this sort of thing just does not happen outside a court. See if you can guess why not.

It would actually be illegal, and it would be dealt with appropriately, which is exactly the way it should be wherever it happens.

WTF are you on about?

its as illegal 10 miles down the road as it is just outside a Court House or Police Station

Exactly. They don't do anything to stop it or to punish the individuals who do it though, do they? They definitely would if it happened outside a police station.

See if you can guess whether the following police statement is real or made up:

"Today seventeen police officers were injured when a maniac drove onto the pavement at 70 mph, but we don't really mind, this kind of thing could happen anywhere."

My guess is that if that happened the driver would get more than a tiny little fine, so why don't they do anything to deter people doing that to others?

[ukaskew]

Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as saying those spectating deserved it, hopefully this is at least an eye opener for anyone who chooses to stand in such a place baiting drivers to perform for likes and shares. I’ve been to 500+ motorsport events over the years and even with generally excellent standards of driving, scrutineered cars, Armco, run-off, trained marshals, banked spectator areas etc I’ve still had a few close calls, narrowly avoiding a Formula Ford that somehow vaulted Armco in the most random place (on a straight!), as a particularly memorable example. I accept the risk printed on my ticket but it’s a calculated one as I also know that a properly run event has done everything practical to reduce that risk.

Remove the barriers and replace them with nothing but a kerb, significantly reduce the driving ability of some/many of the drivers and have no idea of the safety/legality of the cars and you’ve just increased that risk dramatically. There is a reason that young males have by far the highest insurance premiums.

[markyb_lcy]

Durzel said:

Also lol @ people suggesting the Police should commit resources to babysitting this. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been said plenty of times that the tttery starts as soon as the Police leave, these people shouldn't be racing up and down the street anyway. What mental gymnastics do you have to do to blame the Police for not supervising behaviour that is illegal and shouldn't be happening anyway.

Suggesting that police commit resources to "police" these events (as they do with many, many other types of events - some of which they are directly paid to do), and suggesting that the police are to blame for the accident, are two entirely different things. You mention mental gymnastics while employing mental gymnastics.

If the perps of this type of stuff know that police won't show up to do their jobs, they will continue to perp. It is the job of the police to create an environment where people don't think they can get away with this stuff (proactive policing) and coming down with the arm of the law when they do.

There's an argument for saying the police could do more to police these events and help to prevent dangerous driving ... that is not the same as directly blaming them when one of these events results in one of these accidents.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 22 July 13:58

[FIREBIRDC9]

Why the need for these late night unofficial car park meets?
I tried a couple of these meets a few years back. The first one involved some tit putting his VW Polo into a Hedge after attempting to do Donuts.
The Second was stopped by police due to excessive noise from a car with speakers in the back.

After these i decided i wasn't interested.

We are extremely well catered for in this country when it comes to proper organised events at sociable hours.
You will find tons of events all throughout show season for not very much at all, covering pretty much every sub-scene in the car world.

For example. This weekend i am going to Simply Japanese at Beaulieu.
It costs a tenner to get in and show my car , its in a much nicer environment that a Tesco Car park.
Its daytime so its better for looking at the cars anyway. And its on a weekend so the vast majority are able to go.
A nice day , in a nice controlled environment.
Once the event is over i then get a nice drive home across the new forest.
(Who the hell complains about driving to an event that is far away? If you didn't buy your car to drive, then what did you buy it for?)

I still believe that the attraction of these car park meets is that they are unofficial and "Off the grid" so to speak.
Meaning that the Knuckle Draggers are less likely to get collared when they inevitably start driving like twits!


I'm only 26 by the way.
Sounds like i'm well on my way to my Grumpy old man slippers!

[designforlife]

I'm doing simply Jap again this year as well... 2 years ago cars were doing burnouts/powerslides leaving the show, I've seen the same at Japfest, PH sunday services etc etc.

Just because it's during the day and a sanctioned event, doesn't mean people don't f**k about when leaving the venue.

[Drumroll]

Lentilist said:

Genuine legal question - if you are organising an event with marshalls and someone does something stupid despite your best efforts, would that put you at greater risk of legal problems than if you didn't employ marhshalls and stated how people exit your static event is entirely their own decision? Had this event had marshalls yet this incident still happened, would there be grounds for a claim of negligence, on the basis said marshalls had failed to do their job?

This is where the can of worms start. If you organise a static display for some car enthusiasts on private ground and you take out public Liability insurance and somebody left the event and went for a "hoon" and injured someone then it is unlikely (but not impossible) you would be found liable. But and it's a big but, there is now (there was even before this event) evidence that these events do have a tendency for people leaving to attract other people to watch whilst some have a "hoon" So we are now in a different situation.

So you being a good organiser decide to have marshals as people leave. That's fine but what powers do they have? (There was a video posted earlier where people where basically ignoring the Police, so what chance a marshal?) You only have to see the thread about marshals for bicycle racing to see what peoples attitude is. Legally There is actually very little that can be done to stop people from being on a public footpath, (without prior notification) but you could still find yourself liable.

Added to this different authorities have different ideas of what they will allow.

There are still idiots that walk on the TT course when it is closed, despite it being a specific offence to do so.

[finishing touch]

Lentilist said:

Genuine legal question - if you are organising an event with marshalls and someone does something stupid despite your best efforts, would that put you at greater risk of legal problems than if you didn't employ marhshalls and stated how people exit your static event is entirely their own decision? Had this event had marshalls yet this incident still happened, would there be grounds for a claim of negligence, on the basis said marshalls had failed to do their job?

AFAIK the only marshals that get payed (staff) are at motor circuit track days. Usually there are fewer of them.

The rest of us do it as volunteers, as its a good way to get into an event free and watch from a vantage point not available to spectators.
There's several airfields that are used for AutoTests, AutoSolo's & Targa's where we give our name and reg number well in advance as
spectators are not allowed in.

[Alex_225]

Durzel said:

Alex_225 said:

Personally I don't see how the spectators who were injured are at blame by simply being there.

A lot of meets are organised be it the likes of a breakfast meet at Goodwood or a locally organised gathering or 'cruise' and a lot of attendees come along to look at the cars. Regardless there is an element of drivers attending who can't resist the urge to show off and that's what's happened in this incident. Someone is speeding, someone pulls out and this happens.

It's up to the drivers to reel it in and not be idiots even more so when it's crowded. Not the first time this kind of thing has happened and I suspect not the last.

Because they were stood around on the exit hoping to see people tearing it up down the street. They weren't standing there hoping to see people exiting the event quietly and considerately. None of them expected what happened to happen, but there is a very high risk of it happening when you are standing around by the exit, and your presence is the very thing that encourages reckless driving (an audience).

I'd probably argue that maybe people just wanted to see some nice or interesting cars whether they were tearing about or not.

I have been to meets over the years and regardless of the audience whether it's a cruise in the Max Power sense or a meet with high end cars, there will no matter what be someone who feels the need to drive like a d!ck. Often the sentiment within the crowd will be 'what a d*ck' because those few are the ones who will potentially spoil it for the other people there.

You get the odd knuckle dragger who wants to see people drive like morons but most enthusiasts whether it be someone in a modified car or someone in a super car don't feel the need. So I still wouldn't entirely agree that it's the fault of the crowd as to why people drive stupidly at these events. That's just my experiences at least.

[akirk]

Alex_225 said:

I'd probably argue that maybe people just wanted to see some nice or interesting cars whether they were tearing about or not.

I have been to meets over the years and regardless of the audience whether it's a cruise in the Max Power sense or a meet with high end cars, there will no matter what be someone who feels the need to drive like a d!ck. Often the sentiment within the crowd will be 'what a d*ck' because those few are the ones who will potentially spoil it for the other people there.

You get the odd knuckle dragger who wants to see people drive like morons but most enthusiasts whether it be someone in a modified car or someone in a super car don't feel the need. So I still wouldn't entirely agree that it's the fault of the crowd as to why people drive stupidly at these events. That's just my experiences at least.

I think that the video evidence is pretty clear - the crowds in the main are encouraging this bad driving - just look at the Ace Cafe video linked above - the crowd is cheering the stupid drivers - and boo the police car and commercial vehicle that pass - they are videoing it / encouraging it / etc. if the crowd in their majority disapproved of this behaviour then they wouldn't be standing there watching it - so they do have an element of responsibility as drivers with zero skill play to those crowds and issues happen!

[Bubbs999]

Hungrymc said:

While I 100% agree that it isn't the police's fault in any way, shape or form. I can't think of many examples of the police being needed to, erm, 'police' situations where illegal stuff doesn't happen?
It does surprise me that they don't stick a camera van at these events.

Where people have been injured or killed, sentences need to be severe and swift.

In any event, anyone caught driving at these speeds on these sort of public roads needs a 1 year driving ban and having their car seized and crushed. It's the only way to focus the minds of Morons by imposing severe penalties. a £60 fine and a few penalty points is no deterent to a selfish muppet.

[Hungrymc]

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

CooperS said:

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

TorqueVR said:

If it happen outside a court the same sentencing rules would apply.

valiant said:

If this happened outside a court and the same parameters applied, the outcome would be the same.

That's not even slightly true though, is it? The fact is that this sort of thing just does not happen outside a court. See if you can guess why not.

It would actually be illegal, and it would be dealt with appropriately, which is exactly the way it should be wherever it happens.

WTF are you on about?

its as illegal 10 miles down the road as it is just outside a Court House or Police Station

Exactly. They don't do anything to stop it or to punish the individuals who do it though, do they? They definitely would if it happened outside a police station.

See if you can guess whether the following police statement is real or made up:

"Today seventeen police officers were injured when a maniac drove onto the pavement at 70 mph, but we don't really mind, this kind of thing could happen anywhere."

My guess is that if that happened the driver would get more than a tiny little fine, so why don't they do anything to deter people doing that to others?

Although it sounds a bit far fetched / tin foil hat. It does puzzle me why assaulting a police officer (or any other emergency service worker) should be a different offence and have a different sentencing guideline to assaulting anyone else. I get that the services put themselves in harms way more than most people and need protection so just raise the sentence for all ? It starts the thought process that the law views the police as having a higher worth than "normal" people.

[aka_kerrly]

Bubbs999 said:

Where people have been injured or killed, sentences need to be severe and swift.

In any event, anyone caught driving at these speeds on these sort of public roads needs a 1 year driving ban and having their car seized and crushed. It's the only way to focus the minds of Morons by imposing severe penalties. a £60 fine and a few penalty points is no deterent to a selfish muppet.

I'm all for penalty points, fines, bans and seizing vehicles but crushing cars is a ffing pointless waste. perhaps if the seized cars are auctioned the money raised could be used to fund more traffic officers...

[Shakermaker]

aka_kerrly said:

I'm all for penalty points, fines, bans and seizing vehicles but crushing cars is a ffing pointless waste. perhaps if the seized cars are auctioned the money raised could be used to fund more traffic officers...

"I was done for no insurance, had my car seized and bought it back for a fraction of the cost of the fine/insurance/what its really worth and now i'm out again using it with no insurance..."

[GetCarter]

aka_kerrly said:

Bubbs999 said:

Where people have been injured or killed, sentences need to be severe and swift.

In any event, anyone caught driving at these speeds on these sort of public roads needs a 1 year driving ban and having their car seized and crushed. It's the only way to focus the minds of Morons by imposing severe penalties. a £60 fine and a few penalty points is no deterent to a selfish muppet.

I'm all for penalty points, fines, bans and seizing vehicles but crushing cars is a ffing pointless waste. perhaps if the seized cars are auctioned the money raised could be used to fund more traffic officers...

They always go to auction (if they have value) before being crushed.

[Jagmanv12]

Re: the question of the organiser being liable.

Is Goodwood responsible for those leaving the Sunday breakfast meet "enthusiastically"?
Or PH for those leaving Sunday Services?

[akirk]

Jagmanv12 said:

Re: the question of the organiser being liable.

Is Goodwood responsible for those leaving the Sunday breakfast meet "enthusiastically"?
Or PH for those leaving Sunday Services?

If they have the ability to influence it then arguably yes - otherwise no.
So, can they influence people racing on the M27 to get there - no...
Can they influence how people leave their gates - yes - as DA suggests above, they can put in temporary traffic lights / traffic management etc.
When an event is the catalyst for people showing that behaviour, then I believe they share culpability...

[matjk]

I would say it might be if those leaving have a minority of lunatics who’s driving falls well below usual standards. If they continually use a minor disclaimer like “please leave sensibly , we’ve had load of complaints you lot hoan it out of the exit” this continues for years and years. The police occasionally attend to stop this know behaviour but nothing is really done .
IF the organiser WAS responsible there is no way he would have organised because the Stevenage case was bound to happen .
With the Sunday service they could argue they didn’t know this was going on and that people where at risk .
If you organised a recovering pedo day out at Legoland over Facebook but put “no touching this time please” disclaimer you would be hard pressed to say it’s not partly your fault if something happens

[Durzel]

Jagmanv12 said:

Re: the question of the organiser being liable.

Is Goodwood responsible for those leaving the Sunday breakfast meet "enthusiastically"?
Or PH for those leaving Sunday Services?

Apples and oranges somewhat I think.

Goodwood has a legitimate purpose. The fact some people that go there might leave enthusiastically after they've been excited watching racing cars going around isn't really their fault. Some people do push it when they leave (which shows that money doesn't really change behaviour, just the repair bill).

It's tough to argue that a car cruise, which could be anywhere but invariably are situated right in the middle of busy public thoroughfares, have the same level of plausible deniability. The above linked video is also an isolated incident whereas it's tough to argue that anyone in one of the many videos floating around of the crash are obeying any speed limits for starters. It's like the tttish driving Olympics.

[loskie]

GetCarter said:

They always go to auction (if they have value) before being crushed.

That's a much better option than crushing them and then sending them to auction.

[GetCarter]

loskie said:

GetCarter said:

They always go to auction (if they have value) before being crushed.

That's a much better than crushing them and then sending them to auction.

Which is why they do it in that order.