Losing His License !

[marcos]

My father had an accident last year whilst on the way to the airport. Basically he was sitting in a lane of traffic that wasn't moving so decided to do a U-turn. It was absolutely pouring with rain and he would have had my mum going ten to the dozen at him so I can only presume he was rather stressed. He said he checked his mirrors and procedeed to carry out the manouver only to be side swiped by a motorcyclist. The chap turned out to be a Vicar and as he and both the Police said at the time overtaking a long line of traffic in those conditions was a recipe for disaster.
My Dad admitted the offence at the time but both the Police and the Vicar said not to worry it was one of those unfortunate incidents.
The court hearing was in November and my Dad admitted driving without due care and attention by letter. The Vicar didn't bother turning up as he was not injured and it was no big deal to him.
On saturday my Dad received a letter stating that the offence has been deemed severe enough to warrant a second hearing and that at the very least he will lose his license and to be prepared for a custodial sentence.
He has no points, has never been in trouble and is absolutely devastated by this letter.
He has now had to consult a solicitor and the policeman who arrived at the scene is absolutely gobsmacked, I spoke to him today and he has said other than his written statement he has had no further consultation regarding the incident and would not expect to.
Are the courts taking the p*** or is this what we are to expect from Tony Blairs Judicial system now
To say I am angry about this whole affair is an understatement.

 

[glojo]

Hi Marcos,
I note you are on line and none of our resident boobies (oops fruedian slip ) are about so here's my two penarth.

This could simply be a procedural thing and they simply want your father to appear before the court. They might be considering lots of options, but unless his age was a contributing factor towards this accident then I doubt if disqualification is even an option. Forget imprisonment.

Hopefully our bobbies will put your mind at rest.

Where was the vicar's guardian angel?

Take care,
John

 

[Swiss Toni]

The court hearing was in November and my Dad admitted driving without due care and attention by letter.


Are the courts taking the p*** or is this what we are to expect from Tony Blairs Judicial system now
To say I am angry about this whole affair is an understatement.

If your father admitted the offence by letter, he is in a situation of his own making.

If you have a leaky pipe, call a plumber. If you are summoned to court, call a lawyer.

Complaining that it is the courts fault when he didn't bother to find out what the evidence against him was would appear mis-guided.

Blaming the Prime Minister for his error seems a tad over-zealous too.

Put the situation right and get him to speak to a professional. Get the advice he should have got in the first place (and which at Court, if he had attended, would be free).

And pay for an advanced driving course. Poor vicar.

 

[pammy]

Whatever - this will be an incredibly worrying and frightening experience for your father - so out of the blue like this.

I suggest he seeks good legal advice on this as a matter of urgency. While advice and recommendations given via a forum such as MB Club are helpful and supportive - they won't mean anything in a court of law - so bone fide advice is the only way to go - imho.

Good luck - try not to worry - your father too - but please do let us know what happens. I can't imagine how scared he must be feeling. I know how scared I would be.

 

[GrahamC230K]

Just as well nobody was injured. A nag in the passenger seat is not really much of an excuse.

I hope your father's solicitor conjours up a better defense to avoid punishment of unfair proportions however.

Apart from venting anger which this may well help with, getting your father proper representation is the only way to go.

 

[Swiss Toni]

BTW - They have to summons him to appear if they want the option of a ban.

If he does not turn up, they can ban him in his absence, but he must have been summoned at some stage for the beaks to have that option.

 

[marcos]

If your father admitted the offence by letter, he is in a situation of his own making.

If you have a leaky pipe, call a plumber. If you are summoned to court, call a lawyer.

Complaining that it is the courts fault when he didn't bother to find out what the evidence against him was would appear mis-guided.

Blaming the Prime Minister for his error seems a tad over-zealous too.

Put the situation right and get him to speak to a professional. Get the advice he should have got in the first place (and which at Court, if he had attended, would be free).

And pay for an advanced driving course. Poor vicar.

He was advised by the Police to send a letter along with his driving license as the offence was so petty.
As for blaming the Mr Blair I have many many reasons but they are best left undiscussed, but just why are murderers let out early to murder again and my poor dad put through this crap. OOH the word Human Rights that Mr Blair seems to bleat on about contantly spring to mind

Sorry I forgot to mention he has been summoned for the new court case.

 

[guydewdney]

Your father was very lucky to have such a light result from such an incident. More often then not, the biker is much worse off than said vicar! I have had it myself, and my mate has held the disintergrating helmet/head/brains of a guy who had this done to him (ok - a the idiot did a U turn at the top of a blind summit/hill my mate was screaming at the idiot in the end)

I make no assumption as to wether your father checked, and then indicated, then checked again, before moving at all - i dont sometimes - and im sure we all do...or dont.

But - the question arises - does the punishment fit the crime, or the end result of the crime? if a lorry was coming the other way, the vicar would probably know if his job was worthwhile - but should your father be treated any differently? Some say yes, some say no.

bad weather probably saved the vicar - as he was probably travelling very slowly. thank his God

But - again - weird that he cant be 'delt with' by letter...

 

[Howard]

Getting back to the age old argument of whether bikers should be riding down the middle of the road to get past a traffic jam aren't we .....

I suppose it depends what sort of road it was , if it was a single carriageway , then it would be very dangerous to pop down the outside , as the servant of God proved .....

If the vicar has the big man upstairs writing his legal letters, you'll never win ....

 

[Swiss Toni]

But - again - weird that he cant be 'delt with' by letter...

Because the law says that disqualification is not an option for the magistrates if the defendant has not been summoned to court.

If they allowed it to be dealt with by letter, disqualification (even for a short period) is not an option for them. They would want to keep this as an option.

 

[Sp!ke]

Getting back to the age old argument of whether bikers should be riding down the middle of the road to get past a traffic jam aren't we .....

I suppose it depends what sort of road it was , if it was a single carriageway , then it would be very dangerous to pop down the outside , as the servant of God proved .....

Actually your anti bike comments are begining to grate Howard... I'm really quite taken back by your biased views when it comes to bikes, normally you are so rational but when it comes to motorcycles your dark side really reveals itself.

There is no arguement, bikes are legally allowed to filter. End of story.

You are also wrong about filtering between lanes on a dual carriageway. This is more dangerous than filtering on a single carriageway. On a dual carriageway you have dangers from all sides. Cars changing lane both from both left and right. Filtering on the outside you only have danger on the left from cars turning right. Oncoming cars can see you and you can see them.

The facts of this matter is that someone (the driver) made a mistake, did not obey the highway code and pulled out on an innocent motorcyclist without properly checking it was safe to do so.

The authorities have correctly identified the individual at fault and procedures are underway to prosecute him for this offence. The motorcyclist hasnt had to attend court apart from as a witness because he wasnt at fault. Thankfully, he is still alive to tell the tale. The next biker mowed down by some dozy driver in a cage may not be.

We are talking about peoples lives here, not a scratch on some paintwork or a dent....

*****THINK BIKE****


As other have said, the hearing is a formality since the offence carries the possibility of a ban which requires the offender to attend court as by law this actual ban has to be served personally for it to be legal. The reference to a prison offence isnt anything to worry about unless your father has a mind to skip the court hearing. He'll be fine, a wrap on the knuckles, a few points on his license, thats all. The main thing is that next time he checks and double checks before such a move.

 

[Benzowner]

Are the courts taking the p*** or is this what we are to expect from Tony Blairs Judicial system now
To say I am angry about this whole affair is an understatement.

First things first, I am a biker! Second, what the hell has an accident to do with politics. If you or your dad pulled in front of me when I was on my motorcycle, and you claim you did not see me, then you should not be driving, and should at least get your eyes looked at.

Rant over

 

[BimMerc]

Ask the vicar to come into court and tell them how he is fine.

 

[Dieselman]

A
There is no arguement, bikes are legally allowed to filter. End of story..

Are you sure about this?

I see bikes "filtering" over continuous white lines and over safety chevron markings. I dont think either is legal.

In fact one did this to me this morning and had to cut in due to a traffic bollard, which is there for pedestian and turning vehicle safety. If I hadn't braked and given him space then he would have been on the floor or in the bollard.
Who would you have considered to be at fault then?
Don't tell me it would have been me as I am the "dozy driver in the cage", even though I was the one who wasn't overtaking inappropriately.

I do agree with this particular situation being the car drivers fault but see bad riding, somehow being classed as legitimate filtering, every day.
I have no problem with safe riding and do give bikers space to manouver.

Another pet hate of mine that bikers seem to believe is their right is to ride on full beam headlight. Again I have no qualms with them riding with the headlight on but it should LEGALLY be dipped not full beam.

As you find Howards remarks about filtering annoying, I find your constant hatred of car drivers equally annoying.
You ALWAYS attempt to make the car driver at fault irrespective of the situation.

Sorry Spike, not having a go, just telling it as it is. There are two sides to every coin.

 

[Dieselman]

First things first, I am a biker! Second, what the hell has an accident to do with politics. If you or your dad pulled in front of me when I was on my motorcycle, and you claim you did not see me, then you should not be driving, and should at least get your eyes looked at.

Rant over

Probably a bit unfair. The situation as far as I read it was that it was a rainy day and the cars were stuck in a queue. The driver started a U turn without properly looking in the side mirror as all the traffic was stationary.

Can you honestly say you have NEVER made a manouver and been caught out by not seeing something.

This doesn't mean I absolve the liability, just can understand the situation.

 

[SimonsMerc]

Just because someone is on a bike, doesn't mean that they are automatically in the right.

Actually your pro bike comments are really beginning to grate Spike... I'm really quite taken aback by your biased views when it comes to bikes, normally you are so rational but when it comes to motorcycles your dark side really reveals itself.

A U turn is a legal maneuver, as long as the driver takes due care while performing it. Yes, bikes are allowed to filter in traffic, but from personal experience I tend to notice many that do it like muppets. Should the bike not have been going slowly enough to safely come to a stop? Surely it's all about filtering safely through traffic?

I don't know this case, and I don't know Marcos' dad from Adam. But just because someone is on a bike, doesn't mean that they are automatically in the right. Even if they are under divine protection ;-)

-simon

 

[marcos]

Ok I'll add some detail to help the situation here.

It was on a single carriage way road leading downhill with double white lines in the centre. My dad checked and indicated and began the manouver. He had already gone forward and reversed and was just going forward again when the accident happened. It was not just a case of starting the manouver and the accident occured, he was almost near the end of the whole manouver.
Now without sounding like I'm having a go a bikers, he should have seen the car manouvering well before and should have stopped. He should have seen the manouver happening as he came down the hill but because it was pouring with rain he didn't. Is that not reason enough to then go round the traffic very slowly taking extra care
I'm not blaming the biker as he said it was just one of those unfortunate things, amd he certainly was not blaming my dad but because the police were called it then has to result in a court case.
What annoys me is the fact that, this is where the goverment comes in, there was no need for a court case and certainly no need for a second court date. Why are people like my dad treated like this when a simple fine and points would suffice, and yet murderers and the such are either let out of prison early to commit more crime or simply decide to walk out of open prisons, somewhere a murderer really should not be.
This is just such a complete waste of tax payers money it beggars belief.

 

[DITTRICH]

The safety of vehicles passing each other on the road depends on the relative speeds of the vehicles. This is why it is essential when passing not to rocket past other vehicles or bikes. People check but this is of no use at all if the other party is travelling at speed and "appears from nowhere". Also trying to notice the indicator lights of a car when all the vehicles are bumper to bumper / staggered (no-one pulls up exactly behind the car in front) in the rain when all the biker can see are brake lights - **is difficult**. U turning from a stationary queue of traffic does require attention, but so does filitering past a stationary line of traffic. On the description, the punishment seems harsh, and some good legal advice now seems essential.
People go on about "think bike" but the reality is that this took situation took 2 failures. Both the intended actions of the driver and the biker (assuming not travelling quickly) were reasonable, but sadly neither noticed the other in time.
**Edit:have just reread the thread and basedon the fact that the car was already more than half way through the U turn obstructing the road then the biker must have been going too fast for the conditions. If the car had been a fallen tree or a large rock whose fault would it have been judged?
Rgds
Les

 

[GrahamC230K]

Interesting new information. I no longer understand why our father admitted to driving without due care.

Sounds like due care was taken. Surely due care cannot include ensuring people don't blatantly drive into you.

I was secretly on the bikers side until I read that.

 

[Sp!ke]

It sounds like he had reversed back out of view and was effectively now turning right across the flow of traffic and invisible to the bike rider. If your dad actually bothered looking properly before this second phase of the manoevre he wouldnt have pulled out into the bike. The bike rider wouldnt have had a chance of seeing the car pull out from between the other cars - especially if there was no side turning for him to be careful of.

As for assuming the bike rider was going too fast, thats just plain wrong - lets remember who's in court here and why..... I would say the evidence suggests it was far more likely he was going very slowly and carefully or he would have been injured in the impact.