Court Summons?

[BearFace]

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.

Sorry, but the removal and safe relocation (to a pocket or cubbyhole) of a pair of shades requires a stop, as does the changing of a visor. Both take very little time to do, and believe me when I tell you that many of us regularly change our visors while we're out. It's as simple as removing your helmet and flipping a catch.

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.

But you'd still have to prove the tint-level of the visor and as one could only speculate as to it's legality, it'd be a futile exercise.

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.

How do you conclude that a tinted visor (what level of tint are you referring to in any case?) would (or could) be severely detrimental to a biker's ability to assess road hazards on "anything other than a bright day"? There's absolutely no objective basis for that statement, I'm afraid.

After all, there is a good reason why tinted visors are illegal.

Really? To the best of my knowledge, there is no credible evidence available to support your statement - the reasons cited to justify their illegality are ludicrous at best and many respected organisations have supported campaigns to have the law changed in ths respect. Most of the tinted visors you see out on the road are no less severe in their tint than a regular pair of shades (which are regularly worn by car drivers, regardless of whether it's a "bright, clear day" or not!). Many police riders use them too - even Plodd admits to it in this very thread. Tinted visors are definitely a safety feature if used appropriately during daylight hours.

I'm sorry, but I find some of your statements regarding tinted visors to be both unreasonable and highly questionable.

 

[prprandall51]

Hi Bearface,

You carry a clear spare and Plodd carries one and that's fine by me but I would put a large amount of money on most people who are using tinted visors not carrying a clear equivalent. Plodd's got those lovely big panniers, of course, and I don't know about the ZX-12R, but I cannot imagine where most riders are keeping their spare,clear visors. They don't have backpacks and they certainly are not carrying a visor under the seat of any modern motorbike - you can hardly find room for a toothbrush. My guess is they aren't carrying one.

On a Saturday evening, at the end of a long sunny day, as the light falls, there are no shortage of bikers still hooning around in deeply tinted visors - dark enough for the Stig to feel comfortable behind.

I once rode using a friend's tinted visor as a necessity when a minor crisis arose. It was dusk and the 40 mile ride was as frightening as anything I have ever experienced on two wheels. Maybe his was one of the illegally/overly tinted ones? It certainly gave me an experience that was sufficient for me to form a very strong opinion about the safety issues of tinted visors in poor light conditions.

I have ridden thousands of miles in bright sunshine with a clear visor (and sunglasses - ah, a fair weather biker) and I cannot believe that anyone could argue that a tinted visor's benefits outweigh their potential hazards (if they are not carrying a clear visor as well). Sure, if one were nipping out for a quick blast and could be sure of being back without a change in light levels or weather, then fine. But if you were delayed and ended up riding in failing light or under a thundery sky? - just not worth the risk in my opinion.

If I were hit by a biker and I believed myself to be the innocent party I would look very carefully at the biker's capacity to assess hazards. Wearing a tinted visor is a reasonable part of that analysis.

Best regards

Philip

 

[glojo]

Going way off topic here, but a friend came to visit me last week, he had a helmet with a built in tinted visor

I have been totally out of touch with the bike scene for many years and had never seen anything like it. The helmet had a clear visor with a small lever on the side, so that for those occasions where it was needed the rider simply flipped down the lever, then when not required, flip it up.

Back on topic
I dread to think about how many times a car driver has said

'The motor bike appeared out of nowhere!'

We all know that is impossible and if a rider\driver or pedestrian intends to alter course, change lanes etc then surely the onus is on them to make 100% sure it would be safe to carry out the manouvre. Riding or driving in inner cities is fraught with potential hazards, most of which are either avoided, or not reported.

I am NOT taking anyone's side simply because I have no idea about the circumstances.

John

 

[jeremytaylor]

I think the reason tinted visors are banned is for CCTV identification purposes.

 

[Swiss Toni]

I think the reason tinted visors are banned is for CCTV identification purposes.

?!

 

[Satch]

Think you need to be absolutely clear on the light sequence: i,e

Was the biker himself on a (left turn) green filter at the same time as you were on a (right turn) green filter?

Was there a give way sign/marking he had to obey even if on a green filter?

Suggest you read through doc. below which is about civil litigation. Perhaps that may be one reason why the prosecution is being pushed with what sound like SFA in terms of evidence, especially so if your biker has signed up with one of the no cure-no pay civil injury claim ambulance chaser vermin.

Yes, nothing like a Traffic conviction to help shake some more dosh out of your insurance company on a personal injury claim. Ask your insurance company for copies what has passed between them and his insurers and if any lawyers are involved in a personal injury claim copies of what has been exchanged.

Sadly, the U turn (even when legal) is not the best of places to start a defence of any kind. There is general presumption that if you are undertaking something that of itself is known to be potentially more hazardous than normal (like a U turn) that means extra care is required. See Jenkins v Holt as an example.

So what all that means is that you will have to show that you were driving with all reasonable care and attention in the circumstances of making a legal U turn. But to make that sound credible (or at least not just some shabby excuse) means you will also have to show or at least strongly suggest that the biker was not riding with due care and attention.

Best of all would being able to show that he must have run a red light owing to the lights sequence or less solidly that he had ignored a Give Way sign even if on a green filter.

http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-927571-8.pdf

 

[Dieselman]

I think the reason tinted visors are banned is for CCTV identification purposes.

That must be the same reason as to why tinted windows on cars are now banned, nothing to do with impaired vision then!??

 

[Dieselman]

Guess what happened on the way home tonight?
A car performed a U-turn at a set of lights as I was travelling through the other side. We were both on filters and she turned around into my and the car in fronts path. We had to come to a sharp stop but I noticed the single giveway line on the road I was on. Her manouver was totally legal and she had right of way.
This sounds to me just like the situation Spinal was in. He can perform a U-turn at any junction where there is no notice of prohibition. If the road the bike was joining from is subject to a give way line (which it almost certainly will be) then the bike should have given way to Spinal.
Remember the bike hit the rear corner of Spinals car as opposed to being run over by Spinals car. This means that Spinal had completed the turn and was on the main carriageway.
It sounds like the biker just didn't look right as he didn't expect a car to be coming as he had the filter light.

Maybe the Police think Spinal ran a red light so was coming through the lights from the other side?

 

[Spinal]

Guess what happened on the way home tonight?
A car performed a U-turn at a set of lights as I was travelling through the other side. We were both on filters and she turned around into my and the car in fronts path. We had to come to a sharp stop but I noticed the single giveway line on the road I was on. Her manouver was totally legal and she had right of way.
This sounds to me just like the situation Spinal was in. He can perform a U-turn at any junction where there is no notice of prohibition. If the road the bike was joining from is subject to a give way line (which it almost certainly will be) then the bike should have given way to Spinal.
Remember the bike hit the rear corner of Spinals car as opposed to being run over by Spinals car. This means that Spinal had completed the turn and was on the main carriageway.
It sounds like the biker just didn't look right as he didn't expect a car to be coming as he had the filter light.

Maybe the Police think Spinal ran a red light so was coming through the lights from the other side?

Not sure if there is a give way sign/marking... will DEFINETLY check on that
tomrorow; my best friend lives just down the road (I had just dropped him home). As for the red lights, unless 2 cars in front of me, and 2 behind me ran the lights... bah, I'm losing alot of faith in the police...

The lawyer I contacted today was very "professional" and said that he hadn't done motoring accident cases in years, but that he will see if he can get somone specialised in that by tomorrow. I actually liked that instead of the "of course we will help you, sign here and enter you credit card number here" approach.

I really must thank you guys, today was another depressing day in J2ME land, and after the nth excpetion and "out of memory" issue, I was ready to sign any document... I nearly sent off the summons with the guilty box ticked out of the "must get it over with" feeling... But there is good news, my thesis presentation has been bumped to the 19th, so thats positive. Also, dieselman gave me hope... hope is always nice, nomatter how short it is (I might actually sleep tonight!)

Thanks,
Michele

 

[Doodle]

Ah, J2ME...that made me scream and climb the walls at university. Fear not, you have not suffered alone with that one!

 

[petef]

Lots n lots of advice..no wonder you cant sleep !. Plead not guilty.
Good luck. You will be fine.

 

[pammy]

Good luck with all of this Michele - I have been reading the thread closely and you have got some good advice - Dieselman's experince could just be the one that saves you though.

Fingers crossed it all works out

 

[BearFace]

...... but I cannot imagine where most riders are keeping their spare,clear visors. They don't have backpacks and they certainly are not carrying a visor under the seat of any modern motorbike - you can hardly find room for a toothbrush. My guess is they aren't carrying one.

Well a visor wrapped in a sports sock fits easily under the seat of my ZX12, and I know for a fact that the Aprilia Tuono, the Honda CBR600 (and most Fireblades), the ZX6 and countless other modern bikes have plenty of space for a visor and a disc-lock under the seat, and they're all sports / sports-biased machines. The more practical bikes generally have cubbies and often panniers. The point is, I'd assert that most modern bikes offer more than sufficient space for a visor. I'm also aware of numerous riders who simply slip their spare visor inside their jacket - it shapes to their bellies, you see...

On a Saturday evening, at the end of a long sunny day, as the light falls, there are no shortage of bikers still hooning around in deeply tinted visors - dark enough for the Stig to feel comfortable behind.

Probably true - just as there is no shortage of car drivers (more likely younger drivers going slightly faster than they should be...) still sporting their shades, long after the sun has fallen. The thing is, in both cases I suspect that the perperators are in a minority - especially bikers, who definitely tend who have a stronger sense of their own mortality.

I once rode using a friend's tinted visor as a necessity when a minor crisis arose. It was dusk and the 40 mile ride was as frightening as anything I have ever experienced on two wheels. Maybe his was one of the illegally/overly tinted ones? It certainly gave me an experience that was sufficient for me to form a very strong opinion about the safety issues of tinted visors in poor light conditions.

I've used iridium and a whole variety of tinted visors, but never one through which I was virtually blind at dusk! In fact with my current tinted visor, I rode around the Nurburgring in the pouring rain (visibility was dire - lots of 911s kicking up spray as I passed them) on a dismal, dark afternoon last year. I'd suggest that your current prejudice is based on what sounds like a particularly untypical experience with a very, very dark visor.

I have ridden thousands of miles in bright sunshine with a clear visor (and sunglasses - ah, a fair weather biker) and I cannot believe that anyone could argue that a tinted visor's benefits outweigh their potential hazards (if they are not carrying a clear visor as well).

A tinted visor (and we're talking about ones you can actually see through here, not the Stig-esque types that you seem to think are the norm; they just aren't...) has more to offer in terms of preventing daytime sun-blindness than any disadvantages one could cite.

Sure, if one were nipping out for a quick blast and could be sure of being back without a change in light levels or weather, then fine. But if you were delayed and ended up riding in failing light or under a thundery sky? - just not worth the risk in my opinion.

I travel with groups to the continent at least twice a year, in addition to attending ride-outs and meets almost weekly. Most riders carry spares - contrary to your opinion - and those who don't generally have the sense to use ones they can actually see through. Frankly I'm stunned at your apparent lack of insight into the biking community generally, but particularly in respect of this belief you're perpetuating; that bikers "hoon" around virtually blind at dusk. Trust me, most riders are 100% focused on not being killed by some shades-wearing Corsa Sport driver who's too busy changing his Dr Dre CD to notice the brightly coloured, brightly lit bike approaching.......the last thing inthe world they need to make life worse is a visor they can't see through. You need to revise your prejudices, I'm afraid.

If I were hit by a biker and I believed myself to be the innocent party I would look very carefully at the biker's capacity to assess hazards. Wearing a tinted visor is a reasonable part of that analysis.

With respect, that's utterly subjective, unquantifiable and unscientific tosh.

 

[prprandall51]

OK.

I think we can agree to disagree.

Best regards
Philip

 

[996jimbo]

I have an irridium visor and do not have any problems seeing through it at dusk or any other time for that matter. I also find it much easier to carry a clear visor in my jacket (fits nicely around my side) than sunglasses, and find I get more distorted vision wearing sunglasses than a tinted visor. And I can't ever remember accidentally finding myself out after dark when I didn't anticipate it.

Irridium visors look much more tinted on the outside than they actually are and this may be where you are getting the idea that we are 'hooning around in deeply tinted visors' - try looking from the inside out and you may be surprised.

If I were hit by a biker and I believed myself to be the innocent party I would look very carefully at the biker's capacity to assess hazards. Wearing a tinted visor is a reasonable part of that analysis.

I guess ultimately you can look at whatever you like but it's up to the court to judge and not you.

Sorry, this is getting a bit OT.

Michele - I had 5 points for a CD10 once - seems to be a common theme. As a worse case scenario it doesn't seem too bad.

 

[prprandall51]

Wow, I have annoyed everyone, sorry.

Irridium visors look much more tinted on the outside than they actually are and this may be where you are getting the idea that we are 'hooning around in deeply tinted visors' - try looking from the inside out and you may be surprised.

OK, I take the guidance. My only experience was of a tinted visor in the late 90's - clearly the technology has moved on.

I guess ultimately you can look at whatever you like but it's up to the court to judge and not you.

Yes, it's up to the judge / magistrate. But it is up to Michele to gather all of the salient information and present it for consideration. If the magistrate doesn't know the rider had a tinted visor then they cannot consider the question of whether it was a contributory factor in the incident. [HYPOTHETICAL] It's like checking the bike had a valid MoT. If you don't find out the answer, you can end up being held responsible for an incident that may not be your fault. [/HYPOTHETICAL]

Philip

 

[jwarren]

There appears to be too many Poirots and Miss Marples here, firstly, if you have been summoned then the charge will be on the summons to appear letter that you have recieved. This wil give the indication on what your defence, if any, and subsequent plea entered would be.

If you plead Not Guilty, a trial date will be eventually arranged, dependant upon the charge, whether you have a summary offence or indictable offence cited. The latter will forward you to whether you can enter a full jury trial, or, whether heard at the Magistrates Court. Dependant on the seriousness of the offence. I would advocate in reading your story, that if it is indictable and upon disclosure by the CPS, you go to a not guilty plea in a Crown Court, statistic show a higher acquittal rate at the Crown Court (50%ish), whereas Mag Courts have about a 98% conviction rate.

You can utilise the services of a duty solicitor at the court on the day, but they may be very busy with others and yo may not get the full time you need, depends on the court listing that day, whether you are in a mixed bag or just CPS only.

It is not normal practice to give full disclosure of the evidence relied upon until you have entered a plea. You can ask for a summary and in addition the police report.

I can only assume that you will have been charged or summoned on a sumary offence, you dont mention whether you were formally interviewed under caution by the Police, but reading the postings (well scanning) it appears that you hadnt. Therefore, I would suggest summary offence which would give a level of fine being imposed, and that it was more of a undue attention matter rather than an injury to the biker. To assess the fine level they will undertake a means testing on you, handy to take bills, wage slips etc to court with you.

Courts are not scary places, Trust me, spend my life in them (on the good side!!).

Stick to the basics, establish the offence summoned, and then take advice from that point.

regards

 

[BearFace]

OK.

I think we can agree to disagree.

Best regards
Philip

Of course we can

That's the beauty of being civilised adults. Anyway, for my part I just speak my mind when I feel it's necessary, and I'm sure you do the same. And it's nothing personal, even though you are a fair-weather biker...

 

[Swiss Toni]

There appears to be too many Poirots and Miss Marples here, firstly, if you have been summoned then the charge will be on the summons to appear letter that you have recieved. This wil give the indication on what your defence, if any, and subsequent plea entered would be.

If you plead Not Guilty, a trial date will be eventually arranged, dependant upon the charge, whether you have a summary offence or indictable offence cited. The latter will forward you to whether you can enter a full jury trial, or, whether heard at the Magistrates Court. Dependant on the seriousness of the offence. I would advocate in reading your story, that if it is indictable and upon disclosure by the CPS, you go to a not guilty plea in a Crown Court, statistic show a higher acquittal rate at the Crown Court (50%ish), whereas Mag Courts have about a 98% conviction rate.

You can utilise the services of a duty solicitor at the court on the day, but they may be very busy with others and yo may not get the full time you need, depends on the court listing that day, whether you are in a mixed bag or just CPS only.

It is not normal practice to give full disclosure of the evidence relied upon until you have entered a plea. You can ask for a summary and in addition the police report.

I can only assume that you will have been charged or summoned on a sumary offence, you dont mention whether you were formally interviewed under caution by the Police, but reading the postings (well scanning) it appears that you hadnt. Therefore, I would suggest summary offence which would give a level of fine being imposed, and that it was more of a undue attention matter rather than an injury to the biker. To assess the fine level they will undertake a means testing on you, handy to take bills, wage slips etc to court with you.

Courts are not scary places, Trust me, spend my life in them (on the good side!!).

Stick to the basics, establish the offence summoned, and then take advice from that point.

regards

Best advice so far......

 

[Flasheart]

There appears to be too many Poirots and Miss Marples here, firstly, if you have been summoned then the charge will be on the summons to appear letter that you have recieved. .........

Or as we used to say at the Court Martial... March in the guilty bastard and their lying friends.

First decent and probably legally accurate post of the bunch. The only advice you should be seeking is that of a qualified lawyer and not the barrack room lawyer.