Would that prosecution have passed the Public Interest test?
Discussion
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8815791/J...
Would someone doing 100MPH in a 50MPH limit have met the standards expected of a competent driver for Civil claims? So while Civil law covers the standards expected of competent drivers should that have had any bearing on whether a criminal prosecution was in the Public Interest?
I also posted the link as it mentions Dashcam footage secured by the defence solicitor and the Covid lockdown measures meaning an investigator couldn't visit the scene of the accident.
Would someone doing 100MPH in a 50MPH limit have met the standards expected of a competent driver for Civil claims? So while Civil law covers the standards expected of competent drivers should that have had any bearing on whether a criminal prosecution was in the Public Interest?
I also posted the link as it mentions Dashcam footage secured by the defence solicitor and the Covid lockdown measures meaning an investigator couldn't visit the scene of the accident.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 14th October 11:02
Sad to say, there seem to be many fatal accidents involving high powered bikes and men at that sort of age.
The brother of a good friend of mine died at a similar age and for similar reasons - he was a very successful company owner when he died, and left a wife and three kids. He just loved the feeling of speed on his Ducati, and hit a van head on as he came round a blind bend on the wrong side of the road.
The good thing is that, while nothing makes it totally safe, far more bikers of a certain age enjoy their speed on bikes on track days nowadays.
Which doesn't answer your question. I have to say I wonder how much of the information the CPS had to hand when the decided to prosecute.
While I am sorry the biker died, I only hope that Mavis manages to get over the shock without the whole thing shortening her life. It must have been an appalling experience.
The brother of a good friend of mine died at a similar age and for similar reasons - he was a very successful company owner when he died, and left a wife and three kids. He just loved the feeling of speed on his Ducati, and hit a van head on as he came round a blind bend on the wrong side of the road.
The good thing is that, while nothing makes it totally safe, far more bikers of a certain age enjoy their speed on bikes on track days nowadays.
Which doesn't answer your question. I have to say I wonder how much of the information the CPS had to hand when the decided to prosecute.
While I am sorry the biker died, I only hope that Mavis manages to get over the shock without the whole thing shortening her life. It must have been an appalling experience.
QBee said:
Which doesn't answer your question. I have to say I wonder how much of the information the CPS had to hand when the decided to prosecute.
While I am sorry the biker died, I only hope that Mavis manages to get over the shock without the whole thing shortening her life. It must have been an appalling experience.
I partially posted it to see what others would think. I agree with your sentiment, he's dead but Mavis will have the effects of that accident with her for the rest of her life.While I am sorry the biker died, I only hope that Mavis manages to get over the shock without the whole thing shortening her life. It must have been an appalling experience.
carinaman said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8815791/J...
Would someone doing 100MPH in a 50MPH limit have met the standards expected of a competent driver for Civil claims? So while Civil law covers the standards expected of competent drivers should that have had any bearing on whether a criminal prosecution was in the Public Interest?
I believe you're conflating two different things. The civil position is irrelevant.Would someone doing 100MPH in a 50MPH limit have met the standards expected of a competent driver for Civil claims? So while Civil law covers the standards expected of competent drivers should that have had any bearing on whether a criminal prosecution was in the Public Interest?
The dashcam evidence wasn't decisive until the expert could analyse it and report back. He wasn't going to do that until instructed. That couldn't happen until the video was disclosed to the defence post-charge. You could probably argue, assuming the footage was recovered in the initial investigation, that the Police collision investigators should have been able to analyse the video and come to similar conclusions to the appointed expert. Even had they done that, they may have believed the test for Dangerous had been met and it was for the court to decide the merits of her defence/mitigation.
In any case, I'm not sure it engages a public interest question.
If you pull out of a side road across a major highway, I would expect all motorists to display a duty of care to ensure that nothing is coming and a safe gap is maintained, despite the prevailing speed limit. I don't think that the excess speed of the bike alone exonerates the pensioner from this burden of care.
Without reference to the particular road and road conditions, we cannot determine whether the speed was so excessive, that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
I therefore don't believe that it is unreasonable to examine the evidence and for the CPS to investigate further. It's unclear as to why the judge thinks it so clear-cut, that perhaps the case should not have got as far as court.
What if the biker was a police officer or paramedic travelling at that speed? Notwithstanding blues & twos, would they not deserve a competent level of care?
If the biker were going 51mph, then the excess speed would clearly not mitigate the defence. One therefore presumes that the investigation would have determined that this mitigation crystalised at a speed somewhere between 50mph and 100mph.
Without reference to the particular road and road conditions, we cannot determine whether the speed was so excessive, that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
I therefore don't believe that it is unreasonable to examine the evidence and for the CPS to investigate further. It's unclear as to why the judge thinks it so clear-cut, that perhaps the case should not have got as far as court.
What if the biker was a police officer or paramedic travelling at that speed? Notwithstanding blues & twos, would they not deserve a competent level of care?
If the biker were going 51mph, then the excess speed would clearly not mitigate the defence. One therefore presumes that the investigation would have determined that this mitigation crystalised at a speed somewhere between 50mph and 100mph.
Jarcy said:
If you pull out of a side road across a major highway, I would expect all motorists to display a duty of care...this burden of care...
...that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
... It's unclear as to why the judge thinks it so clear-cut...
...What if the biker was a police officer or paramedic travelling at that speed?
...investigation would have determined that this mitigation crystalised at a speed somewhere between 50mph and 100mph.
Duty of care, reasonable person are not relevant tests. The test is did the driving fall below or far below that expected of a careful and competent driver. ...that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
... It's unclear as to why the judge thinks it so clear-cut...
...What if the biker was a police officer or paramedic travelling at that speed?
...investigation would have determined that this mitigation crystalised at a speed somewhere between 50mph and 100mph.
Who the victim is is irrelevant other than if it changes the circumstances known by the defendant say the time (as in flashing lights making the bike more visible).
The investigation ought not impose an arbitrary speed as to when the blame might pass from the emerging vehicle to the established one (as that is a balancing exercise that needs to look at all the circumstances and is not a figure on a stick).
Both the prosecution (when armed with all the evidence) and the court were quick to agree the defendant was free of blame.
Jarcy said:
Without reference to the particular road and road conditions, we cannot determine whether the speed was so excessive, that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
Location - she was crossing the crossroads from one minor road to another.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.306721,-1.238968...
I think that if you choose to drive grossly over the speed limit (he was doing "in excess" of 100, not 100) your hazard perception had better be bloody good.
I think in those situations, had he survived and she died, there would have been a good case for prosecuting him.
There was a similar incident a few years back, a biker doing approx 100 mph hit a car which crossed infront of him.
The family of the biker released the footage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-2...
It was discussed here at length.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The family of the biker released the footage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-2...
It was discussed here at length.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by Terzo123 on Wednesday 14th October 15:32
I got the impression that the old lady in the current case pulled out from a side road to cross into another side road, having not appreciated or expected how fast the biker was going - over 100 mph in a 50 zone.
The video from the A47 crash in 2014 shows that the driver was coming the other way on the A47, and was turning right in broad daylight, straight across the path of the biker. The bike was less than 50 metres from the junction when the car started to cross his path, leaving him nowhere to go. The car driver was facing straight towards the biker and should have seen him - I imagine that the bike headlight was tuned on, they usually are. Yes the biker was doing 97mph, but in a 60 zone on a straight road.
The video from the A47 crash in 2014 shows that the driver was coming the other way on the A47, and was turning right in broad daylight, straight across the path of the biker. The bike was less than 50 metres from the junction when the car started to cross his path, leaving him nowhere to go. The car driver was facing straight towards the biker and should have seen him - I imagine that the bike headlight was tuned on, they usually are. Yes the biker was doing 97mph, but in a 60 zone on a straight road.
If you do those kinds of speed differentials on the public road then you have to expect that people are going to behave erratically, since they aren’t trained to expect or deal with it.
I tend to think if you make the decision to not give a toss about anyone you’re sharing the road with then you should not expect those same people to overcompensate for you.
I tend to think if you make the decision to not give a toss about anyone you’re sharing the road with then you should not expect those same people to overcompensate for you.
Durzel said:
If you do those kinds of speed differentials on the public road then you have to expect that people are going to behave erratically, since they aren’t trained to expect or deal with it.
I tend to think if you make the decision to not give a toss about anyone you’re sharing the road with then you should not expect those same people to overcompensate for you.
100mph+ through a crossroads isn't the best idea.I tend to think if you make the decision to not give a toss about anyone you’re sharing the road with then you should not expect those same people to overcompensate for you.
Jarcy said:
If you pull out of a side road across a major highway, I would expect all motorists to display a duty of care to ensure that nothing is coming and a safe gap is maintained, despite the prevailing speed limit. I don't think that the excess speed of the bike alone exonerates the pensioner from this burden of care.
Without reference to the particular road and road conditions, we cannot determine whether the speed was so excessive, that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
I therefore don't believe that it is unreasonable to examine the evidence and for the CPS to investigate further. It's unclear as to why the judge thinks it so clear-cut, that perhaps the case should not have got as far as court.
What if the biker was a police officer or paramedic travelling at that speed? Notwithstanding blues & twos, would they not deserve a competent level of care?
If the biker were going 51mph, then the excess speed would clearly not mitigate the defence. One therefore presumes that the investigation would have determined that this mitigation crystalised at a speed somewhere between 50mph and 100mph.
You raise some interesting questions. I’ve often thought along these lines when turning out of the road where I live. Due to a bend, and some inconsiderate and illegal parking, vision is restricted. As long as traffic keeps to the (30) limit, pulling out is fine. Anything above 35 and things get a bit tight. Police officers and other trained drivers and riders will assess the situation and slow down to an appropriate speed, but those with poor observational skills and/or the 40 everywhere brigade, could well be completely responsible for a collision. Interesting to know how the law and insurance would view this?Without reference to the particular road and road conditions, we cannot determine whether the speed was so excessive, that a reasonable person, you or I, would have made the same error of judgement, or indeed whether it would have been impossible to detect the bike before pulling out, and the accused is totally blame free.
I therefore don't believe that it is unreasonable to examine the evidence and for the CPS to investigate further. It's unclear as to why the judge thinks it so clear-cut, that perhaps the case should not have got as far as court.
What if the biker was a police officer or paramedic travelling at that speed? Notwithstanding blues & twos, would they not deserve a competent level of care?
If the biker were going 51mph, then the excess speed would clearly not mitigate the defence. One therefore presumes that the investigation would have determined that this mitigation crystalised at a speed somewhere between 50mph and 100mph.
QBee said:
I got the impression that the old lady in the current case pulled out from a side road to cross into another side road, having not appreciated or expected how fast the biker was going - over 100 mph in a 50 zone.
The video from the A47 crash in 2014 shows that the driver was coming the other way on the A47, and was turning right in broad daylight, straight across the path of the biker. The bike was less than 50 metres from the junction when the car started to cross his path, leaving him nowhere to go. The car driver was facing straight towards the biker and should have seen him - I imagine that the bike headlight was tuned on, they usually are. Yes the biker was doing 97mph, but in a 60 zone on a straight road.
IIRC the bike in that instance overtook another car just before colliding with the right turner; the right turner admitted (not sure why) that they hadn't seen either he oncoming car or the bike, so it was obvious that their observation was defective. If he had said he saw the car, had room to safely turn, and was not expecting the bike to overtake at high speed and remove the safety margin he might not have been convicted.The video from the A47 crash in 2014 shows that the driver was coming the other way on the A47, and was turning right in broad daylight, straight across the path of the biker. The bike was less than 50 metres from the junction when the car started to cross his path, leaving him nowhere to go. The car driver was facing straight towards the biker and should have seen him - I imagine that the bike headlight was tuned on, they usually are. Yes the biker was doing 97mph, but in a 60 zone on a straight road.
Therefor the bikes high speed was less of an issue than in the current case- in essence, if the bike hadn't been there at all the right turner could just have hit the unnoticed oncoming car.
Would the 83 year old woman’s eyesight be good enough to see a bike coming at 100mph and be able do acknowledge that it was doing that kind of speed?
Would she have seen it at all?
Should she have been subjected to an eyesight test?
An old lady pulled out from a T junction in front of me. Fortunately I was just plodding home within the speed limit but it still cost me a broken collarbone. It was obvious that she simply hadn’t seen me. Would I have been blamed if I had been speeding when she couldn’t even see me at 50mph?
Aside from her age, what evidence do you have that her eyesight may have been defective? If it were defective, what evidence that it was improperly corrected?
It's a poor show to hunt for reasons why the guy going 100mph across a junction in a 50mph limit must be exonerated in favour of prosecuting the one behaving properly.
It's a poor show to hunt for reasons why the guy going 100mph across a junction in a 50mph limit must be exonerated in favour of prosecuting the one behaving properly.
I have noticed that one major difference between my wife and myself driving-wise is that she has a much greater problem working out the speed of oncoming vehicles than I do. Nothing to do with the car - our cars are identical. And she agreed with me last night, when she sat waiting to turn into our driveway on a 60 mph road with a car coming the other way.
Hence she is far more likely to sit and wait until the road is completely clear before turning, instead of turning across in front of oncoming vehicles.
And hence why the elderly lady in the accident with the biker didn't recognise that he was traveling at more than twice the speed limit.
I believe this is spatial awareness issue and is a gender issue, and is why women can have more difficulty than men packing things into given spaces, loading car boots, navigating, reverse parking etc. Their brains are wired differently to ours.
Hence my favourite response when women say they can do three things at once...."yes, so long as two of them aren't map reading and parking"
My head is still (loosely) attached to my shoulders.
Hence she is far more likely to sit and wait until the road is completely clear before turning, instead of turning across in front of oncoming vehicles.
And hence why the elderly lady in the accident with the biker didn't recognise that he was traveling at more than twice the speed limit.
I believe this is spatial awareness issue and is a gender issue, and is why women can have more difficulty than men packing things into given spaces, loading car boots, navigating, reverse parking etc. Their brains are wired differently to ours.
Hence my favourite response when women say they can do three things at once...."yes, so long as two of them aren't map reading and parking"
My head is still (loosely) attached to my shoulders.
We can't make any assumptions about what the old lady could have seen unless we know the specifics of the accident. For example, perhaps she'd already started pulling out before the biker was in line of sight from the junction. All we do know is that the case somehow got to court before the prosecution seem to have become acquainted with some pretty basic evidence that they then agreed meant there was no case to answer. And the judge felt the driver deserved an apology that the whole thing has got as far as court. That looks like a fairly substantial balls up somewhere between the Police and CPS.
I live about 1 mile away from this junction and honestly hate using it. It has been an accident blackspot for the twenty-odd years we've lived here. The tree to the left of the picture bears testament to the number of vehicles which have hit it over the years.
The main problem - and the Google maps view doesn't do it justice - are the poor sight-lines when pulling out of either side road. There are bushes, signs, buildings & some large trees which make it a hazard, but the council refuse to do anything about it.
For context, the old lady was pulling out exactly as per the Rav4 in the picture to go straight across, and the motorcyclist was approaching us - i.e on the same side of the road as the Rav4.
I have to say, however, that as a lifelong motorcyclist myself, I would never dream of doing anywhere near 100 along there - in addition to these crossroads, there are numerous farm & field entrances, side roads and, for some reason, drivers doing u-turns as it's so wide.
The main problem - and the Google maps view doesn't do it justice - are the poor sight-lines when pulling out of either side road. There are bushes, signs, buildings & some large trees which make it a hazard, but the council refuse to do anything about it.
For context, the old lady was pulling out exactly as per the Rav4 in the picture to go straight across, and the motorcyclist was approaching us - i.e on the same side of the road as the Rav4.
I have to say, however, that as a lifelong motorcyclist myself, I would never dream of doing anywhere near 100 along there - in addition to these crossroads, there are numerous farm & field entrances, side roads and, for some reason, drivers doing u-turns as it's so wide.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff