RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/mcn/news/ ... atal-cras/

Made me sick reading this. My blood has gone far beyond boiling point!

Makes you wonder just who she knew!

Wouldn't have ended like that if it wasn't a biker she hit, would it?

As I said when I replied on Facebook, the driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle - so there is no get out on that count ........

The careless driving case against her was not proceeded with because the failure of the tyres could not be ruled out as an operative cause of the loss of control of the vehicle.

Surely there is more to this that we know? The above quote sounds as if a tyre suddenly failed, causing the spin. The mismatching of tyres itself is not a failure, surely?

It wouldn't really work in a speeding case would it - Sorry officer, each of my tyres are different. Not my fault I was doing 150mph.


EDIT - according to a post further down, one of the tyres had been issued with a recall.

However, surely this would have made the car unroadworthy and would therefore be unsafe to drive?

Ultimately, the driver has the responsibility for the roadworthyness of their vehicle...

This fucking stinks....
Driving un insured .. major alarm bell
Mis matched tyres ... major alarm bell
Not really the type of behaviour you would associate with a responsible road user.. how many alarm bells can the CPS ignore

fatboy wrote:how many alarm bells can the CPS ignore

All of them because it was a biker who copped it. We don't matter, obviously.

Couple of things to bear in mind here

Firstly, MCN have been, as always, selective in the facts they have printed. There is more to this than they have reported, and yet everyone takes their account as gospel and then jumps on the bandwagon.

Whist I always regret another rider losing their life, we need to take a balanced view in that we are not privvy to the ful facts, and yet, even here evryone is up in arms because they have taken the report in the pathetic rag as gospel.

The driver is responsible for ensuring that the tyres on her vehicle are legal, namely that they have sufficient tread, that there are no cuts, bulges or defects, but the majority of drivers (or riders for that matter) would know whether there has been a mismatch or whether the brand is even recommended for that particular vehicle. So you cannot prosecute someone simply on the basis that the tyres were not recommended, particularly if the no recommended tyres are of the correct size.

Most drivers rely on their supplying dealer to fit tyres that are appropriate to that vehicle.

What needs to be established in order to secure a conviction is that the prosecution need to prove beyond all resonable doubt that the driver did something where her standard of driving fell well below that expected of a reasonably safe and competent driver. If the evidence is not there, then no prosecution can occur, and you can rest assured that the Police will have carried out a full and detailed forensic investigation.

Using non recommended tyres is not an offence per se, unless for example crossply tyres have been mixed with radial tyres, but even then the mismatch has to be on the same axle, and whilst the question that needs to be asked is "Why and how did the driver lose control?" proving why can be difficult, and you cannot go to court on a whim or supossition, you can only present hard facts and evidence.

The Police will have done everything they can to determine whether the driver committed an offence, ut if the evidence is not there, you cannot fabricate it because defence experts would tear the prosecution apart (Keeps me in a job though

However, whilst there may be no court proceedins against the driver, it does not end there as the civil claim will take years to sort out, so you could to a degree say poetic justice, because where with a court hearing it would have been done and dusted, the civil claim will run for a long time, and the liability of proof n the civil claim is different as we work on the balance of probability of 51% or better rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

So please guys, don't jump on the bandwagon and make comments based on some idiot writing selective facts. There is (especially in fatalities, and yes even with motorcyclists) a very good reason for a prosecution not to take place

Not sure we were all jumping on a bandwagon TC. I think many of the points that were made were general observations that might be relevant to this case - for which we all realise that we don't hold all the facts.

Nevertheless, surely a driver is responsible for the safe conduct of their vehicle whatever the condition of the road or the vehicle? Therefore if they crash it, they were outside of the envelope and it's their fault.
Sure that can seem harsh if it's you and something unexpected happens but we all know if a kid dashes out in a situation where you have no chance to avoid them, you will still be deemed at fault for not driving in a way that could have avoided it.

Thanks T.C

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon though. My post started with the sentence "Surely there is more to this that we know?" ;)

One thing I haven't come across before is "causing death by driving uninsured". Can you explain how much weight this conviction is and whether a years driving ban and 100 hours community service is a 'normal' sentence for this offence? In fact, i have seen people get harsher sentances for driving uninsured - and they didn't kill anyone.

It would seem like a light sentence in relation to causing death by dangerous driving or even speeding in some cases. Surely if the conviction starts with "causing death by.." it should be required that the person serves jail time?

In fact, i'm struggling to understand the conviction at all. Driving uninsured does not automatically mean you are going to kill someone.


It would seem that being uninsured and killing someone on the roads would be advantageous as to being insured... Very confused.

T.C. wrote: The Police will have done everything they can to determine whether the There is (especially in fatalities, and yes even with motorcyclists) a very good reason for a prosecution not to take place

I think we all know of cases where we disagree with what you said. When one of our club members died even the police were furious that the CPS refused a prosecution and tried to get them to reverse the decision.

It's the uninsured part that wound me up. Little to no facts considered, the buck must stop with the uninsured as they simply should not have been there.

Whilst TC has given us a balanced analysis, there still are lots of points for surprise:

1/ how does causing a death ever get just a short ban and a fine?
2/ The tyres should be irrelevant. The issue is the death and surely tyres should only really come into it as mitigation.
3/ damages for a death arent that big on the usual scale used, and unless she has some assets herself the bill is likely to be picked up by you and me via the fund the insurance industry runs for uninsured drivers.
4/ surely its for the courts to decide whether there is sufficient evidence not the cps. In effect she has been tried and acquitted by the cps who have a target to hit in terms of successful prosecutions.

All in all its a good example of how our legal system is crap and only benefits the large number of lawyers we have - 6 times as many per head of pop as the Japs for example.

lazarus wrote:Whilst TC has given us a balanced analysis, there still are lots of points for surprise:

1/ how does causing a death ever get just a short ban and a fine?
2/ The tyres should be irrelevant. The issue is the death and surely tyres should only really come into it as mitigation.
3/ damages for a death arent that big on the usual scale used, and unless she has some assets herself the bill is likely to be picked up by you and me via the fund the insurance industry runs for uninsured drivers.
4/ surely its for the courts to decide whether there is sufficient evidence not the cps. In effect she has been tried and acquitted by the cps who have a target to hit in terms of successful prosecutions.

All in all its a good example of how our legal system is crap and only benefits the large number of lawyers we have - 6 times as many per head of pop as the Japs for example.

Something I should have mentioned, (which I forgot to do ) is that whilst it is tragic that someone lost their life in a crash, to a large extent, the sentimentalty of someone having died has to be taken out of the equation when the case gets to court and it has to be judged purely on the facts of the case.

The CPS have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, and I have investigated many fatalities, where I knew what had caused the crash, but for various reasons I was unable to prove it.

The exception of course is in section 1 cases (Death by Dangerous Driving) which can only be tried by the Crown Court, but when a case is dealt with by the Magistrates courts, which is for the majority of cases where the offence is usually at best the section 3 offence of Careless Driving, the penalties that the court are allowed to impose are limited

Things are better now tan they were a few years ago. Until 1988 section 1 was death by reckless driving, and to prove this offence we also had to prove a state of mind which was near on dam impossible, but with the change of legislation, death by dangerous is easier to prove, but you still have to establish that the standard of driving fell seriously below that of what would be expected from a reasonably safe and competent driver. This is why most cases end up being prosecuted for careless driving which carries a lower penalty, and yet if that same person had been involved in say a simple damage only and received a lenient penalty, nothing would have been said.

The no insurance issue is a different matter, and I have no doubt that the driver will be prosecuted for this offence, it simply has not been reported in the press yet.

Damages for a death uner the fatal accidents act are not that big per se, unless, the deceased has dependants and other responsibilities in which case the value of the case can go soaring, and bear in mind that whilst we do contribute into the MIB pot with our own premiums, the MIB can and have gone after these individuals to recover their losses, often resulting in that individual being declared bankrupt, and I know of 2 cases recently where just that has happened.

The law is not perfect, but it is a dammed sight better than it used to be under the old 1972 act, and the press (and MCN are amongst the worst) have a habit of not telling the full story, or being selective with what they report.

The bottom line is, the fatality aspect is irelevant, the case and any potential prosecution has to be judged on the evidence, and as I have already said, having 2 mixed or non recomended tyres fitted is not initself an offence (unless mixed ply are on the same axle) and it may have been deemed by those directly involved in the investigation that they tyres were not contributory to the cause of the crash.

Agreed the consequences should not be a factor as they are usually a matter of luck.

T.C. wrote: as I have already said, having 2 mixed or non recomended tyres fitted is not initself an offence (unless mixed ply are on the same axle) and it may have been deemed by those directly involved in the investigation that they tyres were not contributory to the cause of the crash.

I thought that the (reported) reason (or a large part of the reason) is that the poor mix of tyres might have contributed and so the driver couldn't be held responsible.

The point many of us are asking is "so what?" the driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle and has a responsibility to drive within the envelope of safety. We don't understand why the tyres might be a mitigating factor.

Sorry TC

But the driver - in this case the ILLEGAL driver is responsible for their vehicle - if I have a tail light out - I get pulled

Even if the press - as always - put spin on it

The fact remains - an illegal driver caused an accident

Would the CPS have done the same if the driver was drunk?
Or under the influence of drugs?
Or under the influence of prescribed drugs?

Leaving that to one side, sounds to me like we should look very closely at the CPS....

If I remember correctly they are public servants and therefore should be answering to the public.... Not a set of flawed targets