jgevers
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 324
- Location
- Scotland
- Car
- ML270CDi again, Golf TDi, Legacy Turbo 280PS, RS6 Avant
Section 3 can encompass a lot of things. From driving with one hand on the steering wheel to quite severe crashes. That means that you should not rely on the prosecution to get the correct punsihment for the crime.
Driving ban are common under section 3.
Get a specialist on the case.......................
Driving ban are common under section 3.
Get a specialist on the case.......................
prprandall51
MB Enthusiast
Hi Michele, I think you have been wisely advised already to get a very clear description of the event onto paper. It is of paramount importance.
From what I have read, I get the impression that the motorcyclist was trying to overtake you within the confines of the junction area in the assumption that you were performing a right turn manoevre. As it turned out - to the biker's extreme surprise - you were doing a U turn instead.
If there was only a single right turn filter lane and it led into a single carriagway side road then I would think the biker hasn't got much of a case since a magistrate would take a dim view of a biker pulling an overtake in such dangerous circumstances. If there were two lanes to turn right and you were in the left hand one of those lanes, or if the right turn was into a two lane carriageway, then the case would be less clear cut since the bike would legitimately be in a position to commence a passing manoevre on you within the confines of the junction.
Speed will also probably be important. Was the biker riding at a suitable speed through the junction? What was the speed limit? Was he adhering to the speed limit - did he leave any skid marks ( on the road
) to indicate excessive speed? His description of events may lead him to inciminiate himself on this point and this is precisely why legal representation will be vital for you. If you had already accelerated briskly up to 30 mph (and that was the speed limit) the magistrate would be interested to know how the biker was able to get himself into the postion he did.
I am not anti-biker. I was knocked off my bike a few years ago and had to fight hard before getting full compensation from the car driver so I am not automatically backing you against the biker. However, if the road geometry precluded a safe overtake by the biker (as mentioned above) then this guy was driving like an idiot and I cannot see why that would not become evident in court.
By the way, did he have a tinted visor?
Finally, I am not sure of the legality of U-turns at junctions that indicate a right turn with a specific arrow emblem on the traffic lights. I would certainly scour the Highway Code for absolute clarity on your rights to perform such a manoevre.
Best of luck
Philip
From what I have read, I get the impression that the motorcyclist was trying to overtake you within the confines of the junction area in the assumption that you were performing a right turn manoevre. As it turned out - to the biker's extreme surprise - you were doing a U turn instead.
If there was only a single right turn filter lane and it led into a single carriagway side road then I would think the biker hasn't got much of a case since a magistrate would take a dim view of a biker pulling an overtake in such dangerous circumstances. If there were two lanes to turn right and you were in the left hand one of those lanes, or if the right turn was into a two lane carriageway, then the case would be less clear cut since the bike would legitimately be in a position to commence a passing manoevre on you within the confines of the junction.
Speed will also probably be important. Was the biker riding at a suitable speed through the junction? What was the speed limit? Was he adhering to the speed limit - did he leave any skid marks ( on the road
) to indicate excessive speed? His description of events may lead him to inciminiate himself on this point and this is precisely why legal representation will be vital for you. If you had already accelerated briskly up to 30 mph (and that was the speed limit) the magistrate would be interested to know how the biker was able to get himself into the postion he did.I am not anti-biker. I was knocked off my bike a few years ago and had to fight hard before getting full compensation from the car driver so I am not automatically backing you against the biker. However, if the road geometry precluded a safe overtake by the biker (as mentioned above) then this guy was driving like an idiot and I cannot see why that would not become evident in court.
By the way, did he have a tinted visor?
Finally, I am not sure of the legality of U-turns at junctions that indicate a right turn with a specific arrow emblem on the traffic lights. I would certainly scour the Highway Code for absolute clarity on your rights to perform such a manoevre.
Best of luck
Philip
prprandall51
MB Enthusiast
I've just thought of another thing that helped in my case enormously.
I recommend you get yourself down to an Ordnance Survey reseller and get them to give you a plot diagram of the junction at 1:1250 scale. This will be detailed enough to accurately indicate the road widths and the exact geometry of the junction. All the pavements and any central reservation kerbs should also be clearly shown.
I did this in my case. The car driver claimed I pulled onto a "small" roundabout" in front of her (I entered the roundabout at the previous entry point to her). The OS plot showed the roundabout centre to have a diameter of 25 metres and the distance from my entry point to hers of approximately 55 metres. As soon as we submitted this data and the plot to the other party's insurer, she admitted complete liability.
In your case - hopefully - the plot will show that there was only sufficient room within the junction area for a single car to pass through safely. I made up a little cut-out car and cut-out bike to show how big the roundabout was. You are going to try to prove the exact opposite.
Of course, if you do all this and the plot shows that the bike had loads of room to overtake safely, you should then stuff the whole lot in the bin.
It will cost you about £30.
Philip
I recommend you get yourself down to an Ordnance Survey reseller and get them to give you a plot diagram of the junction at 1:1250 scale. This will be detailed enough to accurately indicate the road widths and the exact geometry of the junction. All the pavements and any central reservation kerbs should also be clearly shown.
I did this in my case. The car driver claimed I pulled onto a "small" roundabout" in front of her (I entered the roundabout at the previous entry point to her). The OS plot showed the roundabout centre to have a diameter of 25 metres and the distance from my entry point to hers of approximately 55 metres. As soon as we submitted this data and the plot to the other party's insurer, she admitted complete liability.
In your case - hopefully - the plot will show that there was only sufficient room within the junction area for a single car to pass through safely. I made up a little cut-out car and cut-out bike to show how big the roundabout was. You are going to try to prove the exact opposite.
Of course, if you do all this and the plot shows that the bike had loads of room to overtake safely, you should then stuff the whole lot in the bin.
It will cost you about £30.
Philip
prprandall51 said:
Forgive my curiosity, but why..?
If you're just angling for something with which our friend here can place doubt in the mind of the magistrates, then of course I can see why you'd mention it - certain tinted visors are illegal and this would be an ideal way to try and apportion some of the blame. However, Spinal (and any witnesses testifying to that effect) would only be in a position to speculate as to whether this particular visor would be illegal, and even then the biker could deny that his visor was tinted at all.
A vast number of regular bikers use tinted visors (of varying tints and levels of legality, admittedly...) and I include myself in that group. Insofar as they prevent us from temporary blindness in direct sunlight (and particularly the early morning and late afternoon sun), they are often invaluable. Indeed, many bikers will confirm that they've been saved on more than one occasion by a tinted visor, and I can certainly recall several occasions when I've been wearing a regular visor and the sun has suddenly flashed from above a rooftop or a group of trees, rendering me totally incapable of seeing anything other than a huge white spot for anything up to a few minutes. Naturally, I've always pulled over as quickly as possible, but the potential for serious accidents is nevertheless an obvious threat. Dangerous stuff.
It sounds like this guy simply wasn't concentrating, but I'm unsure how the existence of a tinted visor could be seen as a contributing factor, any more than if a car driver had run into the back of Spinal wearing shades. Interestingly, bikers are allowed to wear shades underneath their clear visors in any case - they're just forbidden from wearing dark visors (which are often less tinted that the shades they're allowed to use...), regardless of their safety features and construction. Not only that, but one can legally don a pair of £2 Primark shades* and ride a 180MPH sports bike with their visor raised....
It's a mad world.
(*For the record, I did not buy my own shades from Primark for £2...)
prprandall51
MB Enthusiast
Yes, to a certain extent I am only seeking for points of law in Michele's favour and against the biker (note that I didn't ask if he had an illegal exhaust, though), but you can take sunglasses off when weather conditions deteriorate - a visor cannot be removed until the journey's end.
I haven't asked the question of Michele but it may be important to know the prevailing weather conditions and the levels of light at the time of the accident.
So, if it was anything other than a bright clear day, then a tinted visor would not only be a point of legality but will have been severly detrimental to the biker's ability to assess the hazards before him. Also, whilst some tinted visors have only a light tint, some carry an extremely dark tint and that could be a contributory factor in an accident.
After all, there is a good reason why tinted visors are illegal.
Philip
I haven't asked the question of Michele but it may be important to know the prevailing weather conditions and the levels of light at the time of the accident.
So, if it was anything other than a bright clear day, then a tinted visor would not only be a point of legality but will have been severly detrimental to the biker's ability to assess the hazards before him. Also, whilst some tinted visors have only a light tint, some carry an extremely dark tint and that could be a contributory factor in an accident.
After all, there is a good reason why tinted visors are illegal.
Philip
anarchy-inc
Active Member
Spinal said:
Firstly, very sorry to hear of your troubles.
I'm a little confused as to the circumstances of the accident. If as you said the impact damage is on the left, it does not seem to make any difference whether you were turning right or doing a u-turn.
People keep talking about how the bike was passing you but I just can't see it myself. Seems to me like the biker broad sided you . . . so how then could you be to blame?
Why would a biker want to overtake in a junction during a turn? Surely that contravenes the highway code?
There is more to this scene than we all are aware of . . .
GrahamC230K
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2002
- Messages
- 9,755
- Car
- Audi A3 & S4 quattro
Forget putting doubt in the mind of the magistrates. They are unqualified do gooders. Wait until you are in a real court of law before playing dirty tricks, there legal loop holes count because the Judge actually knows the law.
Spinal - lots of good advice but in summary:
get your version of events before, during and after VERY VERY clear such that you can repeat it over again without getting it wrong
I suspect your 'defence' and your own query/accusation is "where the hell did the biker come from, where was he headed and why did he run into you" as opposed to why were you in his way - perhaps?
You might also want to check the traffic light sequences so that in your own mind you know you were doing the right procedure.
oh - and best of luck mate . . .
get your version of events before, during and after VERY VERY clear such that you can repeat it over again without getting it wrong
I suspect your 'defence' and your own query/accusation is "where the hell did the biker come from, where was he headed and why did he run into you" as opposed to why were you in his way - perhaps?
You might also want to check the traffic light sequences so that in your own mind you know you were doing the right procedure.
oh - and best of luck mate . . .
"Damage to left hand side of rear bumper........" If that is looking at the car from the rear, then the biker could not have been overtaking, he was passing on the inside. A bike overtaking would surely cause damage to the right hand side. As others have said, you must get the details correct. Good luck.
Plodd
Active Member
I must admit to being a little puzzled from the explanation given as to exactly how this happened.
Were you not interviewed after the collision and told you would be reported? If so, did the Officer not explain to you where the motorcyclist had come from and why he thought you were at fault?
If the offence is only a 'due care' and you have a previously clean licence then I would be amazed if you received a ban.
The insurance company 'should' have a copy of the Police report. I say 'should' as they have to pay and don't like to do this. Have you asked if they in fact do have a copy as this should answer any questions you may have.
As glojo correctly said very few people are prosecuted for 'due care' these days so I would think your case must be fairly clear cut to be going to court at all. The Police report would clear all this up and I feel your insurer is giving you a poor service if they don't have a copy.
If you get any more info and want to PM me feel free and I will do all I can to help.
(And for what it's worth I wear a tinted visor when I ride the firms bike. I do however always have a clear one in the pannier if the need arises.)
Were you not interviewed after the collision and told you would be reported? If so, did the Officer not explain to you where the motorcyclist had come from and why he thought you were at fault?
If the offence is only a 'due care' and you have a previously clean licence then I would be amazed if you received a ban.
The insurance company 'should' have a copy of the Police report. I say 'should' as they have to pay and don't like to do this. Have you asked if they in fact do have a copy as this should answer any questions you may have.
As glojo correctly said very few people are prosecuted for 'due care' these days so I would think your case must be fairly clear cut to be going to court at all. The Police report would clear all this up and I feel your insurer is giving you a poor service if they don't have a copy.
If you get any more info and want to PM me feel free and I will do all I can to help.
(And for what it's worth I wear a tinted visor when I ride the firms bike. I do however always have a clear one in the pannier if the need arises.)
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,198
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
As others have said the events are unclear but it appears to me that as Spinal was performing a U-turn and that the bike hit his car on the near side rear that the bike came from the near side.
We don't yet know how far in the U-turn procedure Spinal had got but if the turn was fairly complete I would have thought the bike must have come from the road that the filter lane leads into. If this was the case then I would have thought that that road may also be on a filter light but MAY be subject to a Give Way line. If this was the case then Spinal is perfectly within his rights to perform a U-turn and expect traffic entering the road from his now left to stop.
A couple of points to note:
Were the Police actually called to the scene of the accident? If so what are their findings and what grade of officer dealt with the incident, is that officer qualified to make such judgement of culpability and did they accurately record the detail?
Are there any independent witnesses?
It is not unknown for the Police to persue a prossecution with no independent witnesses or any hard evidence. I intimately know of a case where the driver of a 40 tonne lorry was summonsed after a traffic accident. The charge was lack of due care after sideswiping a girl in a Fiesta.
The driver defended themselves in court and the charge was dropped and he was told he could leave the court. As the court was about to clear the magistrate stopped the "victim" and Police officer. The end result was the "victim" was suspended from driving for a period and ordered to retake her test and the Police officer recieved a formal warning due to poor policing and evidence gathering.
It just shows how sloppy the Police and CPS can be if they think there is an easy nick.
Spinal, get your evidence together and think about realistic possibilities. read the "evidence" and try to think if it could actually be possible or fits the events. Ask yourself lots of questions like "could this scenario actually happen."
Get proper representation if unsure of your position. Even the duty solicitor is better than nothing if your case is a slam dunk.
I think you are VERY unlikely to get a ban, accidents happen all the time and are always someones fault.
When I was young I recieved a CD10 because of an accident that could have been a very bad head on. I recieved 5 points and £150 fine and oddly enough haven't had any points since.
We don't yet know how far in the U-turn procedure Spinal had got but if the turn was fairly complete I would have thought the bike must have come from the road that the filter lane leads into. If this was the case then I would have thought that that road may also be on a filter light but MAY be subject to a Give Way line. If this was the case then Spinal is perfectly within his rights to perform a U-turn and expect traffic entering the road from his now left to stop.
A couple of points to note:
Were the Police actually called to the scene of the accident? If so what are their findings and what grade of officer dealt with the incident, is that officer qualified to make such judgement of culpability and did they accurately record the detail?
Are there any independent witnesses?
It is not unknown for the Police to persue a prossecution with no independent witnesses or any hard evidence. I intimately know of a case where the driver of a 40 tonne lorry was summonsed after a traffic accident. The charge was lack of due care after sideswiping a girl in a Fiesta.
The driver defended themselves in court and the charge was dropped and he was told he could leave the court. As the court was about to clear the magistrate stopped the "victim" and Police officer. The end result was the "victim" was suspended from driving for a period and ordered to retake her test and the Police officer recieved a formal warning due to poor policing and evidence gathering.
It just shows how sloppy the Police and CPS can be if they think there is an easy nick.
Spinal, get your evidence together and think about realistic possibilities. read the "evidence" and try to think if it could actually be possible or fits the events. Ask yourself lots of questions like "could this scenario actually happen."
Get proper representation if unsure of your position. Even the duty solicitor is better than nothing if your case is a slam dunk.
I think you are VERY unlikely to get a ban, accidents happen all the time and are always someones fault.
When I was young I recieved a CD10 because of an accident that could have been a very bad head on. I recieved 5 points and £150 fine and oddly enough haven't had any points since.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Spinal
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 4,806
- Location
- between Uxbridge and the Alps
- Car
- x254, G350, Duster, S320, Mach1, 900ss and a few more
First and foremost, thanks to everyone! ITs really given me some good ideas.
- The Police were called as the bike fell on the biker's ankle (I lifted the bike off him...) and I suspected he might have broken something (didn't remove his boot following my first aid training)
- What are their findings; well, to be frank, NO IDEA! I've been trying to get a report since the accident, but to no avail (I was not given any papers, forms or leaflets at the scene, and it seems like I was supposed to) As for their ranks, again I draw a blank, but on the court summons has one witness statement by a "PC xxx" "police officer"... which is odd as he was the one that collected the statements (I'm assuming) and not actually a witness of the accident.... hmm
- There was an independent witness, a pharmacist but only the police have her contact details (and I am STILL trying to get them, its not an easy task, tomorrow I'm calling my local station)
5 points... scary...
Thanks for all you comments again, I'm calling a solicitor tomorrow and discussing my options with him; I got the lawyer from my father, the company is "berwin leighton paisner" (blp), as I know NOTHING of lawyers et al, I guess its as good as any...
What surprised me most is that the "proposed statements to be read" is just the PC's one - which includes mine and the biker's but not the witness... very odd...
I guess what drives me bonkers is that its so hard to get information on this... Oh well, I guess the cops are just doing their job...
Michele
Thanks again (I better go and try to get some sleep now, tomorrow I am also meeting my tutor for my thesis... ugh...)
p.p.s. the court summons also calls me a MISS... bah!
p.p.p.s. I know I said I would goto sleep, but its hard... I just rechecked... the "statements" to be read in court are included, and are just one, the constables. This does NOT include mine, the bikers, NOR the witnesses! Just a list of our details! What the???
PreciselyDieselman said:
Dieselman said:
- The Police were called as the bike fell on the biker's ankle (I lifted the bike off him...) and I suspected he might have broken something (didn't remove his boot following my first aid training)
- What are their findings; well, to be frank, NO IDEA! I've been trying to get a report since the accident, but to no avail (I was not given any papers, forms or leaflets at the scene, and it seems like I was supposed to) As for their ranks, again I draw a blank, but on the court summons has one witness statement by a "PC xxx" "police officer"... which is odd as he was the one that collected the statements (I'm assuming) and not actually a witness of the accident.... hmm
- There was an independent witness, a pharmacist but only the police have her contact details (and I am STILL trying to get them, its not an easy task, tomorrow I'm calling my local station)
Dieselman said:
5 points... scary...
Thanks for all you comments again, I'm calling a solicitor tomorrow and discussing my options with him; I got the lawyer from my father, the company is "berwin leighton paisner" (blp), as I know NOTHING of lawyers et al, I guess its as good as any...
What surprised me most is that the "proposed statements to be read" is just the PC's one - which includes mine and the biker's but not the witness... very odd...
I guess what drives me bonkers is that its so hard to get information on this... Oh well, I guess the cops are just doing their job...
Michele
Thanks again (I better go and try to get some sleep now, tomorrow I am also meeting my tutor for my thesis... ugh...)
p.p.s. the court summons also calls me a MISS... bah!
p.p.p.s. I know I said I would goto sleep, but its hard... I just rechecked... the "statements" to be read in court are included, and are just one, the constables. This does NOT include mine, the bikers, NOR the witnesses! Just a list of our details! What the???
Last edited:
GrahamC230K
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2002
- Messages
- 9,755
- Car
- Audi A3 & S4 quattro
Magistrates court, CD10 and 5 points seems to ring a bell - must be the standard issue. I was innocent by the way. The A-Team sorted me out. I pity the fool who wrongly books GrahamC230K.
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I would guess the Police Officer is listed as a witness because he might be the 'officer in the case'. What concerns me is the fact you continually talk about a 'U' turn???
I do not want to put words into your mouth or make any suggestions, but a 'U' turn is a big no, no. Many members may disagree, but the stated case on this is I believe a taxi driver who simply carried out a 'U' turn and caused a vehicle to either stop or slow down (can't remember which)
Just like others on this forum the taxi driver screamed his innocence, accused the Police of incompetance\vicimization etc and the case went all the way to the courts of appeal, where the conviction stood. No accident, no injuries, just a simple 'U' turn which caused another vehicle inconvienance.
Plodd has offered his help\advice.. He is someone you should consider contacting. If you are going down the solicitor route I would suggest you get one that specialises in this sort of thing.
Make sure you emphasis it was you that rendered first aid to the biker, and was it you that called the Police? 5 points sounds excessive, but get hold of the witness statement\s and compare them to the drawing that you have now prepared
Good luck, and please try not to worry. Down here a conviction is usually 3 penalty points plus a fine (you are an unemployed student barely existing on a grant )
Good luck,
John the optimist
I do not want to put words into your mouth or make any suggestions, but a 'U' turn is a big no, no. Many members may disagree, but the stated case on this is I believe a taxi driver who simply carried out a 'U' turn and caused a vehicle to either stop or slow down (can't remember which)
Just like others on this forum the taxi driver screamed his innocence, accused the Police of incompetance\vicimization etc and the case went all the way to the courts of appeal, where the conviction stood. No accident, no injuries, just a simple 'U' turn which caused another vehicle inconvienance.
Plodd has offered his help\advice.. He is someone you should consider contacting. If you are going down the solicitor route I would suggest you get one that specialises in this sort of thing.
Make sure you emphasis it was you that rendered first aid to the biker, and was it you that called the Police? 5 points sounds excessive, but get hold of the witness statement\s and compare them to the drawing that you have now prepared
Good luck, and please try not to worry. Down here a conviction is usually 3 penalty points plus a fine (you are an unemployed student barely existing on a grant
)Good luck,
John the optimist
I am not a fan of u-turns and generally avoid.glojo said:
How far into the u-turn were you when the collision occured? If it were me and I'd not actually completed the u-turn I might be tempted to claim I was simply turning right, if I'd not turned any more degrees than 90 at that point then strictly speaking it'd be true.
Sp!ke
Administrator
I would agree with Glojo on this one in that if the accident happened whilst doing a U turn then you will have a major battle on your hands to win an insurance any claim.
As for the court case, I think you will need to show that you did everything possible under the circumstances to make sure it was safe to make your manoeuvre before you went for it - and of course such a move was legal.
I suspect the only way of proving your innocence is by showing that the motorcycle was travelling at speed and/or was hidden from view at the time you initiated the turn. You have to show that you did a text book U-turn and there was nothing you could have done to alter the turn of events. The problem is, you aren't sure of the facts , you don't even seem to know which direction he was coming from. I'd try and work out exactly how the collision occurred before the court date.
FWIW, you could ask the court for an adjournment prior to the case if it conflicts with the date of your thesis.
As for the court case, I think you will need to show that you did everything possible under the circumstances to make sure it was safe to make your manoeuvre before you went for it - and of course such a move was legal.
I suspect the only way of proving your innocence is by showing that the motorcycle was travelling at speed and/or was hidden from view at the time you initiated the turn. You have to show that you did a text book U-turn and there was nothing you could have done to alter the turn of events. The problem is, you aren't sure of the facts , you don't even seem to know which direction he was coming from. I'd try and work out exactly how the collision occurred before the court date.
FWIW, you could ask the court for an adjournment prior to the case if it conflicts with the date of your thesis.
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Shude said:
And there's me saying I did not want to put words into your mouth Make sure you do not contradict any statement that you made at the time, or if you do, then perhaps you were in shock and now have a better recollection of the incident?
I suppose we must not forget the biker in this incident, I'm sure he will have a different story to tell and hopefully he is getting suitable advise?
I'm still with Spinal though because he's a decent bloke.
John
Spinal said:
Michele,
You say that the biker was definitely not coming from your direction. Not trying to be awkward but as you were making a U turn your direction was changing all the time.
A thought that hasn't been mentioned so far. If you were in a right turn filter, it's quite likely that the lights were also green to go straight ahead. Is it possible that the biker intended to go straight ahead, saw the right filter go green and thought he had an overtaking possibility. Because you were making a U turn you moved much slower than he expected and didn't clear his path. Of course, that would make the collision his fault.
You said you checked that U turns were allowed. Once again sorry to be awkward but, to my knowledge, there is no road sign that says U turns allowed. All you can say is there was no road sign saying U turns were prohibited at that junction. That difference might be why there is a prosecution pending.
Anyhow, good luck
. Take on board some of what has been said on this thread but don't forget none of us were there with you when the accident happened and everything we say is based on your posts.Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
