Losing His License !

[SimonsMerc]

Thats not up for debate here is it really?

....but if you would like to start a new thread on the subject then I would open it up by saying if I find a quiet piece of road and go fast, as long as I'm not endangering anyones life but my own then whose business is it to say anything?

See this is exactly the whole problem. If you have hired a race track for your own private use and you know that you are only going to be endangering your own life, then hell, go do it. It's your life to throw away. However, on a public road, how dare you? How dare you? You cannot assume that there will be no-one else on that road. You have no right to do it, because you might be risking someone else's life. You just don't know.

Go out and hire yourself a private track, or go somewhere where high speed is expected, and do your best to kill yourself if you must. But don't do it on our public roads. It's the business of every man, woman and child that you might kill.

-simon

 

[Sp!ke]

Sp!ke:

The very bit you put in bold states that you cannot cross it? I think you're getting confused. This is a list - perhaps it will help your understanding if I present it in a format that is easier to read? The sentence says:

You may cross the line if necessary to:
1) pass a stationary vehicle, or
2) overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.

This is the only possible reading - the "if they are traveling at 10mph or less" cannot apply to a stationary vehicle, because by definition a stationary vehicle is not moving at all. This says nothing about crossing the line to pass in moving traffic. I really think you're reading it wrong.

-simon

Simon, lets go right back to the first line of the first page of this very long thread.....

Basically he was sitting in a lane of traffic that wasn't moving so decided to do a U-turn

Based on this simple fact, did the motorcycle cross this solid line legally or not? (Its not even been established that he even crossed this line remember, it was only supposition)

Now, where is this debate going? It seems to me to be going in ever decreasing circles. I'm happy to debate but only if reason and consideration is applied to the posts.

To start to steer the thread in a completely different direction by trying to sling mud relating to the fact that I have been known on occasion to speed bears no relation the this debate.

It does however signify that you are running short of any basis for debate on the actual subject in hand.

I'm happy to continue the debate further should you wish but lets keep it on topic. By all means have a go at me in another thread as I have more than enough of an a r s e n a l (wouldn't let me type it) in hand to dispute whatever you think you know about my use of speed - lets just not do it here as it does nothing but detract from the thread topic.

 

[SimonsMerc]

Hey, I'm not slinging mud. I replied directly to your statement - "if I find a quiet piece of road and go fast, as long as I'm not endangering anyones life but my own then whose business is it to say anything?". I'm not trying to steer the thread in a different direction - I simply replied.

Incidentally, I'm also not saying whether or not in this specific case a motorcycle crossed a white line. I don't know, I wasn't there. I'm simply saying that, according to the highway code that you quoted, a motorcycle is not allowed to cross a white line while filtering past cars that are not stationary. Period.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that it is illegal - the code is just that, a code, not a law. But it would clearly break the code to do so, according to your quote.

-simon

 

[Pietre]

Gents,
can we all agree to differ over the rights and wrongs of what other roadusers do, but just agree that we can do our bit by tring to be more forgiving when someone does make a mistake in front or near us, as one day it could be us making the error of judgement. I hope this case is resolved to everyones satisfaction, but that we all learn one thing ............. that the roads are dangerous enough without anyone not taking the time to give that second look before commiting to a manouver whether it be on two, four or more wheels. I wish you all safe travelling on the roads on however many wheels you prefer. And may we all agree that arriving safely at the destination of our choice is what really matters. Take care and enjoy your motoring.

 

[marcos]

I have just come back from a meeting at police HQ and popped in the garages to see some of the blokes. I started speaking to a couple of Police motorcyclists and explained the situation to them and what they both said is basic common sense really.
They said that in those conditions and with a car in the last manouver of a three point turn the motorcyclist would have seen what was happening and stopped for the car driver to finish the manouver, he should also have been going very slowly as the first thing they teach new riders is that when you are passing a line of stationary traffic is to expect the unexpected.
They both knew the stretch of road and both were in agreement that both partys should share the blame. They also said that my Dad should expect no more than a £400 fine and 5-points on his license.
They were actually the first bike riders I have spoken to that didn't start moaning about the car driver straight away and looked at the whole thing from both partys sides.
I'm a little happier now knowing that at least some of our police do have common sense.
I was begining to think that maybe they should lock my dad up as he is obviously one of the worst types of criminal about

 

[glojo]

I was begining to think that maybe they should lock my dad up as he is obviously one of the worst types of criminal about

Now if you had said that in the beginning then I would have been less sympathetic.

I'm glad your happier now and perhaps the Police you spoke to were readers of the Daily Mail and not the more radical news papers.

I would have been very surprised if the police had said anything other than what you were told, although if it were a 50 - 50 type incident then I would expect both parties to be reported, or neither?

Am I correct in thinking you never witnessed this incident?

Good luck
John

 

[Shude]

They also said that my Dad should expect no more than a £400 fine and 5-points on his license.

My sister was involved in a similar accident a few years ago.

The red line is a toyota avensis estate, driven by my sister, the blue line is a random car indicating and turning left and the yellow line is a toyota carina.

The carina (yellow) overtook the other car (blue) at a junction and drove straight into the side of the avensis (red) driven by my sister. The carina pushed the avensis sideways over the pavement and into the grassy area.

Even though the carina was clearly speeding and also overtaking at a junction my sister was found at fault, fined about £350 and given 3 points for driving without due care and attention because YOU SHOULD NOT PULL OUT UNLESS IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. She has not driven since (accident was 1998 IIRC).

Pic:

 

[bitonw]

Is this a normal behaviour for you British to make U-turns when even? I see this happen all the times if there is an traffic jam. Even on the double red line circular in London...

 

[blassberg]

my sister was found at fault, fined about £350 and given 3 points for driving without due care and attention because YOU SHOULD NOT PULL OUT UNLESS IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.

But surely true for the overtaking driver too (more so in my opinion)

 

[Birdman]

But surely true for the overtaking driver too (more so in my opinion)

Possibly something to do with the onus being on the driver approaching a major road to exercise judgement before pulling out by checking that the road is clear.

By the way, the principal cause of motorcycle-vehicle collisions is from a driver inexplicably pulling out from a side road straight into a passing rider. Research on this type of accident demonstrates that not all drivers are attuned to recognise the 'picture' of an approaching motorcycle, and so can fail to react to the one that is there. It is suggested this failure is due to the way the brain processes visual information and this can be changed by mental preparedness. That is one of the reasons behind the 'Think Bike' campaign.

 

[andy_k]

Fair comment Birdman but in my experience a bike's speed is much harder to estimate and despite what all our law abiding bikers on here seem to think there are more than a few bikers that actually ride a little bit quicker than they should do.

To give an example, we have a driver pulling out of a junction to turn right in a 40mph zone. He looks to his right and sees it is clear, he looks left and sees a biker which he judges to be 800 metres away away and then looks right again, sees it's clear and pulls out. Now if the biker is sticking to the speed limit then no problem, if the biker is travelling at 70mph the car will be directly in his path and when (if he's lucky) he wakes up in hospital he'll no doubt blame the car driver for the accident.

I still think more lives could be saved if bikers were educated to think car

Andy

 

[marcos]

Is this a normal behaviour for you British to make U-turns when even? I see this happen all the times if there is an traffic jam. Even on the double red line circular in London...

Not normally but if you are on your way to an airport and have been sitting in traffic for 40 mins that isn't going anywhere, then it may be in your best interests to try to find a different route.

 

[Sp!ke]

Did the police bikers you spoke to witness the accident or interview those involved or did they just hear your version of events before making these comments?

Surprised they didnt reserve judgement with a case pending as it doesnt seem a very professional approach.

 

[Birdman]

I still think more lives could be saved if bikers were educated to think car
Andy

I'm sorry this thread keeps veering towards the tendentious. Bikers actually do get killed and injured not through any fault of their own, but because a driver has made a simple error. But the incontinent attitudes expressed on this thread (I'm not saying you are one, Andy, but they know who they are) towards biker fatalities reflects no credit on those who hold them, and taints this thread.

The point I am making is that many - by no means all - vehicle-on-bike accidents occur when a driver fails to see a bike approaching him at legal speed, on dipped headlight, in daylight, on a straight road, in dry conditions and when all parties are sober. The question many have raised is: Why? Research has beeen done in this area. It has found that some drivers are not actively thinking about the possibility of a motorcycle travelling even at legal speeds, when scanning the road ahead and before pulling out into their path. We can all conjure up scenarios where the biker is travelling at silly speeds, it's not difficult to do. It doesn't address the problem of deficient driver awareness in circumstances where they - you, me, even - could drive straight into a sensible motorcyclist - possibly one who is middle-aged (like me!) with many trouble-free biking years, who also has a car, a family, friends, a good job etc but nevertheless and oddly perhaps, likes biking! And that driver has to carry for the rest of his or her life the knowledge that they have killed or maimed someone, simply through lack of bike awareness.

And by the way Andy, all bikers are taught from the start to treat cars as highly dangerous. They negotiate thousands of them successfully each year. But it only takes ONE...

 

[andy_k]

I know, all of that is true and I used to ride bikes all the time including passing my advanced rider and racing at club level for several years but I see many bikers these days who quite frankly may as well have "organ donor" painted on the back of their weekend warrior road leathers.

I think that all car drivers should be forced to ride a bike as part of the learning to drive process and I think that all bike riders should be made to drive a car as part of their learning to ride.

Perhaps that would reduce the casualties as there would be less inconsiderate behaviour on both sides.

Andy

 

[DITTRICH]

Did the police bikers you spoke to witness the accident or interview those involved or did they just hear your version of events before making these comments?

Surprised they didnt reserve judgement with a case pending as it doesnt seem a very professional approach.

Dear Sp!ke
I think it is possible to infer the answer to the first question from marcos's post (and given that inferred answer) your opinion on the police officers' conduct in providing an opinion is without merit. Your comment looks like a cheap shot.

marcos is simply trying to help his Dad through a very stressful situation and it is not in his interests to give a one sided story to the police officers he spoke to as he won't get a considered opinion of the likely outcome.

I can imagine you posting details of one of your serious accidents and (perhaps) becoming extremely frustrated if another forum member waded in and strongly took 'the other side' using language similar to yours.

People generally post on this forum because they need information, help, call it what you will. We all owe it ourselves to be constructive, helpful and understanding of other people's points of view in a sensitive way. After all, you (or i indeed) might be grateful for it one day.

Rgds

Les

 

[marcos]

Did the police bikers you spoke to witness the accident or interview those involved or did they just hear your version of events before making these comments?

Surprised they didnt reserve judgement with a case pending as it doesnt seem a very professional approach.

Spike,

As I know most of the people in the garages at Police HQ they simply spoke to me on a freindly basis and gave me an unbiased veiw on the situation.
They didn't give me a bike riders blinkered veiw as being Police officers they have to be able to see things from both sides.

 

[glojo]

People generally post on this forum because they need information, help, call it what you will. We all owe it ourselves to be constructive, helpful and understanding of other people's points of view in a sensitive way. After all, you (or i indeed) might be grateful for it one day.

Rgds

Les

Good morning Les,
I think we all need to accept this excellent point and in the true spirit of friendship we should perhaps be tactful when we disagree with the poster. I'm sure we can all accept tactful observations and take them on-board. However would it be right to just agree with the poster and then let them think they are in the right and then act accordingly?

I see no reason why we cannot start a new thread if there are contentious issues. That way it is not aimed at the author of the original posting?

Tact?
I will simply question any police officer that states it is not an offence to inconvenience any other road user when carrying out a u-turn or a three point turn. In my own personal opinion they are wrong and hopefully I am being tactful.

Marcos,
I am now completely confused.
In your first post you stated your father carried out a U-turn:

Basically he was sitting in a lane of traffic that wasn't moving so decided to do a U-turn.

Yet when you discuss this incident with the police you describe it as a three point turn?

I started speaking to a couple of Police motorcyclists and explained the situation to them and what they both said is basic common sense really.
They said that in those conditions and with a car in the last manouver of a three point turn the motorcyclist would have seen what was happening and stopped for the car driver to finish the manouver,

I was going to say that it would be a complete idjut to drive straight into a vehicle that is carrying out a three point turn, even though the vehicle carrying out this manoeuvre is obstructing the highway? That to me would be a case of 50/50 blame. U-turn your dad might be in deep doo dooes, 3 point turn then hang em both

Am I taking your last post out of context? If that is what you said to the officers then they were perfectly right in what they said, your father is guilty, and if this was a three point turn, then to me the motor cyclist must take some responsibility.

Regards,
John

 

[Sp!ke]

Am I taking your last post out of context? If that is what you said to the officers then they were perfectly right in what they said, your father is guilty, and if this was a three point turn, then to me the motor cyclist must take some responsibility.

I agree with this whole heartedly John. My concerns here are two fold.


Firstly, the goalposts have been moved to suit. In contrast to the original post where the manoeuvre was described as a U-Turn, the story has now been revised to suggest that the accident took place on the third and final part of a three point turn. The two are very very different scenarios.

Secondly, if the three point turn version of events is to be believed, I find it very hard to imagine the motorcyclist wouldn't have seen the driver making the first two elements of a three point turn and therefore not anticipated the third and last part. If he had seen this then I know of no-one that would have been foolish enough to go for the overtake. The rider would have known for sure that the car was about to pull out on him and it should have been obvious to him that contact will likely ensue. Basically I can't realistically picture this happening unless the vicar was an absolute moron (possible but I feel it is improbable). I seriously doubt any of us have the full picture of the actual chain of events that led to this accident (including Marcos). There are elements of this case that simply don't add up, and it is for these reasons, that the debate has dragged on and on.

The point I raised about the police officers remarks were deliberate. I simply wanted to remind people that these police officers were not in a position to make any kind of judgement call. In fact I am very surprised that they did. Police in my experience are generally very cautious about basing an opinion such as this where they don't know the full facts, especially when there's a hearing pending and they express views contrary to their fellow officers.

Again, we were not privy to this conversation and the context of the response could have been interpreted in more than one way. Whatever the case I am sure that it wasn't quite such a black and white answer as we have been told.

To me, this case hangs on whether Marcos's father did a U-Turn or three point. If the accident took place whilst doing a U-Turn or whilst performing the first stages of a three point turn then the driver of this vehicle is 100% culpable. If it took place during the final stage of a three point turn then rider and driver should share the burden of responsibility as both parties have made serious errors of judgement.

 

[glojo]

I agree with this whole heartedly John.

Ooopps

John