Losing His License !

[SimonsMerc]

From Marcos' "more details" post on page 1 of this thread:

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.

That sounds like a three point turn, not a U turn. Many people refer to any turn that puts you back on the other carriageway as a "U turn", even though strictly speaking it is a 3 point turn.

I know this for certain, as the road adjacent to mine has a "No U turn" sign, where the Police sometimes stand and catch people turning around, and the Policeman I spoke to explained to me that the "No U turn" sign actually means no turning around, and that the fact that I was doing a three point turn wasn't a defence

I was lucky that he let me off, and now I always turn into a side road, perform my U turn (actually a 3 point turn) in there, and pull back out onto the main road. It's actually safer in terms of not getting in the way of other cars, and it means that I won't get stopped by the Police again!

-simon

PS. This is a good example of where a friendly sensible warning by a Policeman has changed my behaviour for the better, without the need for a fine and points. The Policeman was very polite, explained the rules, and I have followed them ever since. That is good policing.

 

[Sp!ke]

The initial post said U-Turn Simon, hense the confusion.

Its seems we have been debating dfferent scenario's....

 

[SimonsMerc]

The initial post said U-Turn Simon, hense the confusion.

Its seems we have been debating dfferent scenario's....

Indeed we have. Scary how that happens

-simon

 

[marcos]

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.

Sorry for the confusion. It was a 3-point turn but unfortunately it's something I always call a U-turn. The road isn't wide enough to carry out the manouver in one go so hence the 3-point turn.
The rider I presume was just not taking enough notice and as it was pouring with rain his vision would have been impeded.
I presume that because of these facts everyone at the scene said it was just an unfortunate thing as was stated in my third post in this discussion.

Sorry for the confusion

 

[Shude]

I presume that because of these facts everyone at the scene said it was just an unfortunate thing as was stated in my third post in this discussion.

Sorry for the confusion

Did anyone volunteer to be a witness? I imagine it would not be difficult (at the time) to find some people at the scene who would be willing to back the statements up.

 

[marcos]

There were quite a few witnesses. As far as I know they all gave statements to the police so they would have all the information already.
From what my dad has said the solicitor really can't understand why a second court date has been set and why they will not give him his license back. He say's they normally do this to people they are going to ban but as he has a clean license this most certainly will not happen, we hope.

 

[Dieselman]

The initial post said U-Turn Simon, hense the confusion.

Its seems we have been debating dfferent scenario's....

Cobblers. Marcos updated the information on 16th, that's three days ago, which was before ANYONE, including you, started disecting the rights and wrongs of U turns or three point turns.

The error of wording was corrected on the second page and we are arguing over the terminology now on page 9.

This is not agreement or otherwise that the car driver or bike rider are right or wrong, just pointing out that you are smokescreening due to your posts being after the issue of the type of turn had been resolved, thus not really either an issue or necessary for discussion.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic again,(only I'm not, just accurate again)!

As far as I can read from the posts containing information the car driver was performing a 3 point turn and was on the last part of the manouver. a motorcyclist was riding down the road passing the cars, maybe over the white line maybe not.
Due to the rain his vision was reduced. As a result of the two actions the vehicles collided.

This sounds like a knock for knock situation to me as a car performing a manouver should be visible but obviously less so if ones visor has rain on it.
Like wise performing the said manouver in the rain might be considered a problem for others to see you.


I don't want to start a flame war but thought I would reply in a manner which you use to others, so should understand.

 

[Dieselman]

There were quite a few witnesses. As far as I know they all gave statements to the police so they would have all the information already.
From what my dad has said the solicitor really can't understand why a second court date has been set and why they will not give him his license back. He say's they normally do this to people they are going to ban but as he has a clean license this most certainly will not happen, we hope.

So what do the statements say, they should be available to your fathers Solicitor and could be crucial.
If they say your Father performed a careful 3 point turn, then all the Police/Cps have is crossing a white line as charge, if however they say your Fater swung the car round without looking and didn't see the motorcyclist then it sounds like lack of due care, but maybe compounded by crossing the white line.

 

[Sp!ke]

Its ok Dieselman, I have removed all my emotion from this thread now, so I won't bite

I believe the police will always have more than crossing the white line as a charge as it was his responsibility to make absolutely sure it was safe to perform the manoevre whether single point U-turn or 3 point U-turn. Failure to make sure it was safe constitutes undue care...

I've been dwelling on this in my mind today and still can't get my head around why anyone would go for the overtake knowing that someone was just about to complete the last part of a 3 point turn across their path. (moron bikers included)

Perhaps there is another possible scenario to ponder over other than the U-turn/3 point choices.

It could be possible that the bike was in such a position not to have seen the first two elements of the three point turn. If he had been a few cars back and in line with the traffic rather than filtering whilst these took place, perhaps even behind a high sided vehicle, then it could be that it would have been impossible to see this happening. On pulling out to filter past the line of cars, the road ahead could have been clear as the car at this point would have been backed up to the kerb and perhaps out of sight hidden by the leading car.

If the rider couldnt see the car do the first two stages of the 3 point turn and couldnt see the car about to turn right across his path, this would start to make some sense as to why he might have filtered past the leading car into the path of the car turning right.

Does that make sense or am I babbling?

 

[jimti]

No mater what side we sit on in these arguments I am sure we all want everyone to be safe on our roads, but unfortunately Bikes and cars don't mix very well.
Most bikers will say that it is hazardous riding on our roads when filtering because car drivers sometimes fail in their observations and do manoeuvres like lane swapping, u turning, 3 point turning, etc etc into their path while they are filtering.
Car/truck/bus drivers will mostly notice bikes, but do sometimes, maybe in bad/congested traffic conditions fail in their observations.
So, what is the salution..
Build biker only roads. Unlikely to happen
You could make it a hanging offence, that might sharpen drivers minds, but that is Unlikely to happen.
You could ban filtering, This would be a good salution if bikers actually stopped filtering, as it costs nothing
Allow it at the bikers peril. moves the onus on to the biker.
+Insert your salution here+

Think of it like a black spot, Thousands of bikers have been injured or even killed by other drivers actions when filtering but not much has been done to "prevent" it happening, yet other road hazards have had speed cameras, traffic lights, road humps, chicanes, reduced speed limits, etc etc to help remove the problem
I believe it is obvious this will keep on happening as long as bikes and cars share the same roads.
We know we can't stop these drivers making these mistakes to the detriment of Bikers, but we also know we can stop the biker filtering by making it illegal

Save a biker, ban filtering
Just my 10 pence worth

 

[marcos]

So what do the statements say, they should be available to your fathers Solicitor and could be crucial.
If they say your Father performed a careful 3 point turn, then all the Police/Cps have is crossing a white line as charge, if however they say your Fater swung the car round without looking and didn't see the motorcyclist then it sounds like lack of due care, but maybe compounded by crossing the white line.

From what my dad remebers at the scene everyone said about the poor visibility due to the rain, I can only presume that because of this my dad didn't see the motorcyclist as he finished the manouver and that the motorcyclist didn't see the car as he possibly had his head down slightly because of the rain.
I didn't start this thread to start a war between car drivers and motorcyclists but it seems that the headstrong, passionate bikers look at things from a completely different veiw than that of a car driver.
We all know how vulnerable bikers are and most of us take that into account when performing manouvers such as this but sometimes accidents do happen. This seems to be one of those unfortunate things as said by all at the scene but the argument has kept going and has escalated into a bit of a nonsense really.
The original question was simply about the courts actions and letters to my dad and I simply wanted some sort of veiw as to what sort of punishment he really should expect, not people telling me what an awfull driver he is and how he obviously has no consideration for motorcyclists and it's people like him that cause all the worlds problems.

 

[DieselE]

From what my dad remebers at the scene everyone said about the poor visibility due to the rain, I can only presume that because of this my dad didn't see the motorcyclist as he finished the manouver and that the motorcyclist didn't see the car as he possibly had his head down slightly because of the rain.
I didn't start this thread to start a war between car drivers and motorcyclists but it seems that the headstrong, passionate bikers look at things from a completely different veiw than that of a car driver.
We all know how vulnerable bikers are and most of us take that into account when performing manouvers such as this but sometimes accidents do happen. This seems to be one of those unfortunate things as said by all at the scene but the argument has kept going and has escalated into a bit of a nonsense really.
The original question was simply about the courts actions and letters to my dad and I simply wanted some sort of veiw as to what sort of punishment he really should expect, not people telling me what an awfull driver he is and how he obviously has no consideration for motorcyclists and it's people like him that cause all the worlds problems.

While the emotions were high I did not want to contribute to this thread. Now things have hopefully calmed down I can ask my question. In your posts you've said nobody was injured and both parties seemed to generally accept that blame was equally shared. So who called the police and why? Where there are no injuries there is no legal obligation to inform the police. Did the officer just happen on the scene or had he been called?

I don't know if it makes any difference now but just in case your father might want to raise it with his solicitor.

 

[Birdman]

So who called the police and why? Where there are no injuries there is no legal obligation to inform the police. Did the officer just happen on the scene or had he been called?

Probably five hundred bored drivers stuck in traffic chattering away nineteen to the dozen on their mobiles (like they do) called the emergency services, just out of excitement.

What?.....what?....did I say something wrong...?

I'm really glad this thread has calmed down

 

[Sp!ke]

In your posts you've said nobody was injured and both parties seemed to generally accept that blame was equally shared. So who called the police and why? Where there are no injuries there is no legal obligation to inform the police. Did the officer just happen on the scene or had he been called?

Jolly good point you raised DieselE, Usually they only attend if someone was injured or if the vehicles involved presents a further hazard. I don't think it has any bearing on forming a defence but it is an interesting point. An even more valid point is why did the police only issue an NIP to one party if the blame should be equally shared?

I appreciate that the banning bikes quip was tongue in cheek jimti, but bikes hold a stronger future than cars especially when one considers that single person transport methods present a rather compelling argument towards solving our road congestion problems. If one wanted to reduce congestion by say 30% in London, a very simple way of doing it would be to encourage more people onto bikes or motorbikes. The public transport systems couldn't handle the extra 30%volume for sure. They is also a very strong green argument too with many bikes able to achieve over 100mpg. There's a diesel bike out now that has a range of around 500 miles from a 3 gallon tank.

Education is the key here for bikers and car drivers alike and part of that education is coming down hard on those that don't adequately allow for different types of road user.

 

[marcos]

While the emotions were high I did not want to contribute to this thread. Now things have hopefully calmed down I can ask my question. In your posts you've said nobody was injured and both parties seemed to generally accept that blame was equally shared. So who called the police and why? Where there are no injuries there is no legal obligation to inform the police. Did the officer just happen on the scene or had he been called?

I don't know if it makes any difference now but just in case your father might want to raise it with his solicitor.

There were no injuries other than bruising to the bikers leg which wasn't particularly bad as he rode the bike off. No one is sure who called the police, as Birdman said probably someone in a car who was bored with the waiting.

 

[recycled]

sorry about your dad but if someone gets 12 points and is banned as i understand, for how long say 6 months or a 1yr.
after the ban is over do you drive around with 12points on your licence or is it wiped off? as it takes 4 or 5 years to clear your points. and if you do do they start counting another 12points or what to another ban?

 

[Unimaginative U]

Hope your dad gets off lightly marcos, it seems crazy the police pushing for a conviction if the biker doesn`t want to push the matter. I`ve ridden bikes for a few years and never came off (on the road anyway, had a few tumbles on my motocrosser) despite coming across plenty car drivers with their eyes shut and their brains in autopilot and that is a result of careful observation and most importantly when filtering riding at a speed where you can safely stop when the INEVITABLE happens. it is A CERTAINTY that someone will cut across your path without looking. so when filtering you have to cover your brake with two fingers and keep your eyes peeled. knowing how vulnerable it feels on a bike pisses me off when you see some of the suicidal manouvers many bikers make then they piss and moan when it comes a cropper. i nearly took one out in my old van, as he was undertaking me in the rain in heavy traffic on the motorway when i was doing 25mph. i checked my mirror, put my left indicator on waited a second until i could see both headlights of the car in the left lane in my mirror, checked my mirror again then just started to change lane and a **** on a bike came past at least 15-20mph faster than the rest of the traffic and riding one handed to give hand signals that arent in the highway code. i dont know if youve driven a fiat scudo with no back windows but theres a huge blind spot that just happens to be where bikers love to undertake.

 

[gl boy]

just looked at your thread...........has your dad been to court yet? lets hope he just got a slap on the wrist or a telling off at most as after reading the thread it does sound like 50/50.........if not GOODLUCK.................LETS US KNOW WHAT HAPPENS OR WHAT HAS HAPPENED.regards jon

 

[glojo]

Hope your dad gets off lightly marcos, it seems crazy the police pushing for a conviction if the biker doesn`t want to push the matter.

Is it the police that make these decisions?

John the curious

 

[gl boy]

Is it the police that make these decisions?

John the curious

the police make a report then send it to the cps(crown prosecution services)who ultimatly make the decision i think