Court Summons?

[prprandall51]

Hang on, legally-minded people! Toasting us for our non-legal comments. Humph.

Michele asked for advice. She was given it and I think she got a lot of helpful advice from lots of people.

She was advised right at the beginning to seek professional advice. But that doesn't undermine or negate anything posted by any of us non-lawers.

Michele can sift through and decide which comments she wants to act on and which she wants to ignore. I don't think anyone has posted bad advice (don't bother turning up, claim police brutality, etc.) - just maybe not what a lawer would necessarily advise.

The whole forum is going to quickly grind to a halt if we have to hold degrees and years of professional experience in any subject we want to comment upon.

Philip

 

[Swiss Toni]

Hang on, legally-minded people! Toasting us for our non-legal comments. Humph.

Michele asked for advice. She was given it and I think she got a lot of helpful advice from lots of people.

She was advised right at the beginning to seek professional advice. But that doesn't undermine or negate anything posted by any of us non-lawers.

Michele can sift through and decide which comments she wants to act on and which she wants to ignore. I don't think anyone has posted bad advice (don't bother turning up, claim police brutality, etc.) - just maybe not what a lawer would necessarily advise.

The whole forum is going to quickly grind to a halt if we have to hold degrees and years of professional experience in any subject we want to comment upon.

Philip

"You get what you pay for" proves true once more....

 

[prprandall51]

Now you're baiting me.

 

[Plodd]

None of us here basically have a clue what actually happened in this collision. It could actually be that Spinal was at fault (shock horror). I hope it isn't the case but it could be. If that is the case and a not guilty plea is entered and a trial takes place with guilt proven at the conclusion then the punishment will be more severe that if a guilty plea has been entered.

My opinion is that somebody 'qualified' needs to look at all the 'evidence' held by the prosecution and only then should a decision be made with regard to a plea. I know everyone here wants to help (myself included) but the blanket calls for a not guilty plea when the person involved in the collision doesn't know how it happened are less than wise.

Oh, and another point. Irridium visors are illegal. All of them. Tinted, to the legal limit are not.

 

[pammy]

PS - Phil - Michele's a bloke

 

[prprandall51]

PS - Phil - Michele's a bloke

Really? Oops.

 

[BearFace]

Oh, and another point. Irridium visors are illegal. All of them. Tinted, to the legal limit are not.

I was pulled (a lot) on rideouts (especially in Derbyshire) when I had the iridium visor on my Shark RSV, but if I'm honest I only bought one in the first place because it matched the iridium screen on the '95 FireBlade I had at the time. Those vain days are far behind me now....

I was never actually charged with an offence; possibly because I just co-operated while the guys who'd stopped me checked over the bike and gave me the usual advice and statistics. A few "producers" and the odd b*llocking were as far as things went, but certainly I've been pulled far less (probably three or four times in the last six years) since I started using tinted visors. In fact, although it's a tad on the dark side (and it's certainly not a stamped, legal product), not a single copper has picked me up on it. They seem more concerned with the important things, like whether or not you've nicked the bike, whether or not it's insured/taxed and then giving you the same old (but perfectly friendly and well-intentioned) advice about speed and it's consequences.

You hear a lot of complaints about over-zealousness from the police in relation to bikers, but despite the momentary inconvenience of being randomly "tugged", they've always been pretty reasonable with me.

Just one question, assuming of course that you're able to answer honestly: When riding your own, personal bike, is your visor always legal? I know a few bobbies (mainly through biking meets etc) some of whom quite openly admit that theirs' are not. It's not a loaded question, I'm just curious.

 

[grasmere]

Really? Oops.

yes Phil note earlier post when I suggested he could get off on a technicality because the summons was addressed to Miss (iirc)

he he

 

[219]

One thing that no-one has commented on thus far .

Although the phrase 'U-Turn' has been mentioned frequently in this thread , a 'U-Turn' is classified as an 'unusual manoeuvre' and , while not specifically prohibited on many roads , the onus on any driver is to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it is COMPLETELY safe before attempting the manoeuvre .

In the event that an accident occurs , the driver performing any sort of 'unusual manoeuvre' (which includes such things as U-turns , '3 point turns , or even reversing) will be presumed to be at fault unless they can show very good reason why they were not .

Similar comment also applies to overtaking within the confines of any junction : an overtake should either be completed safely before reaching a junction or only commenced after clearing the junction - otherwise a driver is leaving themselves open to culpability .

 

[DieselE]

yes Phil note earlier post when I suggested he could get off on a technicality because the summons was addressed to Miss (iirc)

he he

And there was me thinking it was a feminist thing because "she" wasn't adressed as Ms.

 

[Spinal]

Hum-didly-day.... (thats whats left of my brain attempting to spell...)

J2ME isn't sorted, but I don't have anymore uncaught exceptions and I can throw gloves at people and get the accelerometer data on a mobile phone, whoop-dee-doo (now to make a game that actually needs that...)

As for the accident, yesterday I grabbed a friend, we went on the road, took well over 50 pictures of all the roads leading to the junctions and played around with the lights figuring out how they work. Assuming he was coming from the exact opposite direction, we would have both had a green light.

The interesting thing is that in bright daylight, the whole junction seems alot bigger... Where we collided seems quite "away" from the junction, and quite far (well, relatively far) down the road, this is especially true as there is an entrance to a bank on the left of where I picked his bike off the road, so I can judge the distances quite well... I took pictures of this too..

My fathers lawyer drew a blank, but I have one last card to play... My mother tutors people now and then, and one of her student's parent's is a lawyer... specialised in motoring accidents... I'll see if I can have a soothing chat with him, if not I'll just plead guilty and get it over with - I need a holiday and there is no way I'm spending my summer looking for a lawyer that can give me advice.

I'm also calling the courts to see if I can get some more info released, but in the meantime I have been told that I was DEFINETlY meant to receive a paper before the police left the scene with a summary, which I didn't get. Great - the only little bit of info I might have been able to understand, I didn't get.

As for me being a guy; yes its true. Hence, Michele, not Michelle (note the l's). No offence taken, I'm very used to it by now, so much so that friends call me by a nickname (its indian nickname you call little kids... like cutie or chubby... great huh? and NO there is no way I am telling you what it is, that ends with the friends I know now ) Anyways, back to Michele,
Michele (pronounced Mi-ke-le) is Italian for Micheal (I am half Italian)
Michelle on the other hand (Mi-che-elle) is not italian, and if feminine
Kinda like Andrea (another italian guys name)...

I'm going to head to google soon and figure out the differences between the two courts mentioned. As for non-professional advice, thats precisely what I was looking for Something without all the legal mumbo-jumbo, kinda like a "driver-to-driver" thing... The legal jumbo, a lawyer can do that... But first I wanted to know a bit on the backgrounds of similar scenarios.

Tuesday I'm calling my insurance company and finding out what WOULD happen if I had 3/5 points on my licence and a driving without DCAA on it... That might also decide if I fight... If it doesn't get too much higher (I AM turning 21 in September, so it shoudl go down for that, maybe the two cancel each other out? unlikely huh?)I might just plead guilty to get it over with...

Oh and my advice to any students out there... Don't EVER tell your supervisor about insurance companies... tell the senior tutor if you need to, but not your personal supervisor. He will get a blue marker out and start drawing UML-ish diagrams showing how insurance companies in the UK and the US defeat the purpose of insurance and how they are not helping the "human insurance cause" but damaging it... (and all I wanted to know was how much more time I had to submit my thesis...)

Back to java...
Michele

 

[Dieselman]

As for the accident, yesterday I grabbed a friend, we went on the road, took well over 50 pictures of all the roads leading to the junctions and played around with the lights figuring out how they work. Assuming he was coming from the exact opposite direction, we would have both had a green light.

I'm confused..

You previously said you were on a filter light. How can you be on a right turn filter when the road you are crossing also has a green light?

 

[GSBellew]

I'm confused..

You previously said you were on a filter light. How can you be on a right turn filter when the road you are crossing also has a green light?

That has me confused to feck too

 

[Chris_J]

I'm confused..

You previously said you were on a filter light. How can you be on a right turn filter when the road you are crossing also has a green light?

If that's the case, you may as well plead guilty. Can you prove the biker was speeding? I have a disliking of most people on bike, the way the cut in and out of traffic forcing their way in. It's a wonder more of them aren't hurt or killed, and it's always the car driver's fault

 

[SimonsMerc]

I'm also calling the courts to see if I can get some more info released, but in the meantime I have been told that I was DEFINETlY meant to receive a paper before the police left the scene with a summary, which I didn't get. Great - the only little bit of info I might have been able to understand, I didn't get.

This sounds to me like the proper process was not followed, which often is the kind of technicality that means the prosecution should not proceed. Ask your solicitor.

Mind you, whenever I hear about people getting off on technicalities, it makes my blood boil (and I've a cousin in the police force so I hear about it a bit). The reason I get upset, however, is that the people who get off on them are usually the scum of the earth. Situations like this are not quite as cut and dried. Perhaps you should enquire as to exactly why the correct process was not followed, and what the implications are for the case.

Good luck either way. It doesn't sound like a fun situation to be in.

-simon

 

[Chris_J]

Good luck Michele. P.S. no offence intended to any of you who are bikers, I know it's the minority giving the majority a bad name.

 

[BearFace]

Can you prove the biker was speeding?

Only the attendance of accident investigators immediately following the accident, OR images from a suitably-calibrated camera could prove the bike's speed, surely..?

I have a disliking of most people on bike, the way the cut in and out of traffic forcing their way in.

You couldn't have made a more generalised, prejudiced and less informed statement if you'd tried. Hilarious, but somehow disturbing at the same time...

It's a wonder more of them aren't hurt or killed, and it's always the car driver's fault

Lot's of bikers are hurt and killed, although you'll be sorry to hear that a vast number are victims of mindless car drivers, whose default first words to the stricken biker (who had been riding with his or her lights on, while invariably wearing brightly coloured leathers and helmet...) tend to be "but...but........I didn't see you...!"

Sure, there are a few bikers who give us a bad name by cutting up traffic and riding inconsiderately though villages etc (just as there are countless numbers of idiotic car drivers who make bikers' lives a misery/shorter...). However for most of us, biking is something we simply enjoy, and we ride with every consideration for our fellow road users as well as for our own safety.

Ask any regular rider how many times a perfectly respectable-looking family car has pulled out on him (or her) as he has been riding down a 40 MPH A-road, or a dual carriageway (within the speed limit), with his headlights on and the bike defensively positioned close to the middle white lines. Ask any rider how many times he's been safely filtering through traffic (which is perfectly legal, contrary to many car drivers' opinions...), only to have some pr*ck decide to turn right without checking his or her blind spot beforehand, or worse still, to find that a pompous car or van driver has decided to close your gap because they resent the fact that you can filter in the first place...

The biking community's fear of car drivers is a justified one; car drivers are simply not as aware of their mortality (when driving) as bikers are, so they tend not to be as razor sharp when it comes to noticing the more trivial hazards, such as approaching bikes....

However the blind prejudice (similar to that expressed by you, above) displayed openly by certain car drivers often beggars belief. See if you can find out how many car drivers are killed or seriously injured by bikers each year and then ask yourself a couple of questions:

"Is there an objective basis for my prejudices, or am I just p*ssed off that (a) bikers can filter through traffic while I remain trapped......(b) that bikers seem to pull all the attractive women...?.....or (c) my driving is so damn competent that I'm more than able to criticise the standards of other road users..."

I read your subsequent disclaimer that you weren't tarring us all with the same brush, but your initial statement strongly suggests that your first comments came from the heart and the subsequent disclaimer was merely the predictable result of the realisation that there are several passionate bikers in these forums and indeed this very thread.

 

[Howard]

Ask any regular rider how many times a perfectly respectable-looking family car has pulled out on him (or her) as he has been riding down a 40 MPH A-road, or a dual carriageway (within the speed limit), with his headlights on and the bike defensively positioned close to the middle white lines......

This is an age old discussion on this forum , cars versus bikes..... some car drivers think they are better than bikers and some bikers think they are 'above' car drivers ... and the debate is far too boring to be drawn into again ...

However the only point i disagree with is the one highlighted in red above, while it may be nice to pretend that this happens, i really , really cannot remember the last time i have ever seen a bike ridden within the speed limit on an A road or dual carriageway (unless there was dreadful congestion) anyone who claims that it happens is not telling the truth, pure and simple ....if the road is clear (and has no cameras ) the bike is off at warp 9 ....

and i have no problem with this, i don't begrudge bikers their fun, but please don't pretend that they are ridden according to speed limits on open roads , because you , and i both know this just doesn't happen ...


No doubt soon, someone will counter with 'Well i do !!' , so i'll pre-empt it by saying 'No, you don't !'

 

[BearFace]

This is an age old discussion on this forum , cars versus bikes..... some car drivers think they are better than bikers and some bikers think they are 'above' car drivers ... and the debate is far too boring to be drawn into again ...

It's a discussion which related closely to the subject of the thread, hence the reason for it's resurrection; if you find the subject boring, that's your problem. At no stage was it about one group being superior to the other, but it's well known that a typical bikers' general awareness of potential hazards is generally sharper than that of the typical car driver.

This is explained not by the superiority of the biker, but by the simple (and obvious) fact that a bike requires greater awareness and concentration to keep on the road, while at the same time being at a disadvantage due to it's relative invisibility when compared to a car; bikers are at greater risk of death or injury, even before they take any unnecessary risks. Anyway, I'm speaking as someone who both drives and rides.......are you?

However the only point i disagree with is the one highlighted in red above, while it may be nice to pretend that this happens, i really , really cannot remember the last time i have ever seen a bike ridden within the speed limit on an A road or dual carriageway (unless there was dreadful congestion) anyone who claims that it happens is not telling the truth, pure and simple ....if the road is clear (and has no cameras ) the bike is off at warp 9 ....

Most bikers will tell you they've ridden at silly speeds on quiet country roads or on motorways, either in the early hours or late at night. However most of them will also tell you that in built-up areas, 30 and 40MPH limits and on urban dual carriageways, it is dangerous, anti-social and counter-productive to ride over the limit for so many reasons, not least of which include the sheer volume of traffic, speed cameras and their own safety.

No matter how narrow-minded and ill-informed you might be, and no matter how much you choose (entirely without basis or evidence) to cast doubt on those of us who ride bikes considerately and safely, it remains a fact (read any biking magazine's letters pages for evidence...) that most of us stick to the limits UNLESS we are on well-surfaced country roads at a time when there is little, if any traffic. We do not go around carving up daytime traffic and breaking urban speed limits because like car drivers, we have licences to protect and believe it or not......other road users to consider. We are after all the very same people who also have cars, love our children and generally value human life.......Just like you regular car drivers. Unbelievable to you apparently, but completely true.

and i have no problem with this, i don't begrudge bikers their fun, but please don't pretend that they are ridden according to speed limits on open roads , because you , and i both know this just doesn't happen ...

I wasn't discussing "open" roads in my last post, Howard. I referred to dual carriageways and 40MPH roads where there is always a likelihood someone in a car will pull out as you approach, or where riders tend to maintain a safe speed with that very knowledge in mind. Open roads (assuming there isn't much traffic and few real hazards beyond the rider's own self-control and ability), are of course the very places where fast riding and speed in general are relatively safe..........but like I said, open roads were not mentioned.

No doubt soon, someone will counter with 'Well i do !!' , so i'll pre-empt it by saying 'No, you don't !'

Well......nobody really needs to counter in the absence of a solid, evidential argument from you. However please feel free to exercise your blind prejudices to your heart's content - the freedom to express poorly-informed opinions is after all one of the benefits of forums such as this...

 

[Plodd]

Just one question, assuming of course that you're able to answer honestly: When riding your own, personal bike, is your visor always legal? I know a few bobbies (mainly through biking meets etc) some of whom quite openly admit that theirs' are not. It's not a loaded question, I'm just curious.

Not a problem to answer this.

I don't have a bike of my own and have no desire to get one. I haven't had my own bike for over 20years.

I think you will find most bobbies don't have a problem with tinted visors if the conditions are good. Scratched visors are a much bigger problem and don't cost that much.