Reading the OPs post I cannot see how her husband was not at least partly responible. Sorry. Give up and move on.
Also:
1. Why ask for hep now when the accident was more than a year ago? If the OPs husband not in the wrong they should have been seeking compension.
2. Chebrons - how were they bound/marked in terms of white lines? Solid or broken? But moving into chevrons only allowed if safe to do so.... and it seems it was not.
3. You cannot blame a 4x4 for blocking the indicator.... he should have seen the repeater on the side of the vehicle anyway.
As Screwloose says your evidence seems to suggest husband (sadly injured) was mainly to blame. If I walked in front of an HGV and got injured without looking is it my fault or the drivers? Been hit (driving a car mind) by an HGV in the last 12 months (ish).
What I would look at is the positives.... if OP's husband still rides and the threat of prosecution looms enquire about driving courses. Could avoid points.
Rob
|
|
If the lines surrounding the chevrons are broken -you SHOULD not enter that area-if solid you MUST not enter.
|
|
Rule 109 of the Highway Code (just looked it up to be sure) gives an 'except in an emergency' exception to the solid line rule. It also makes a distinction between straight hatching and chevrons, which I'd not noticed before, so you learn a little every day. }:---)
|
|
|
|
Mrs E
From the file fed to CPS by the Police they have decided that the evidence was such that they had more than a 51% certianty of obtaining a conviction.
They do not want to waste time and money running something that has little chance of success. In one against one they invariably take NFA so the witness must have been pretty good.
As to CPS charging standards look at:
tinyurl.com/yw5rtx
scroll down to careless driving.
As no doubt from your post Mr E pleaded Not Guilty then he has the option of appealing the case against conviction or sentence. As PU states this is a matter that needs your urgent attention as you only have 21 days to lodge the appeal with Mags Clerks Office.
Also as PU states taking legal advice on this matter would be most appropriate.
dvd
|
Just to add re mention of NOIP in cases where there has been an accident then the 14 day rule does not apply.
dvd
|
"My husband's view was obscured by a 4x4 vehicle, an upward incline in the road and the fact that the indicator of the car was located towards the centre of the rear bumper as opposed to being on the corner, where it would have been clearly visible."
Why did he overtake then? It's things like that that get motorcyclists the bad reputation they have with some car drivers.
|
Not always the motorcyclist or cyclists fault.
Highway code reads:-
* use your mirrors frequently so that you always know what is behind and to each side of you
* use them in good time before you signal or change direction or speed
* be aware that mirrors do not cover all areas and there will be blind spots. You will need to look round and check.
|
Unless I have read the OP's original post wrongly, the car driver pulled out ACROSS the front of her husband, he was NOT overtaking the car, as such, the car was parked.
If that is the case then surely the car driver is at fault, totally, for pulling out without ensuring that it was clear to do so. In which case whether the car was indicating or not is irrelevant to a large extent. Signalling is an intent to do something, not a right to do it.
|
|
Having re-read it, with clean glasses, :) I see that the cars were stationary, not parked.
|
If I had been that car driver making a u-turn, I too would have been most surprised to be hit by someone who is overtaking on a piece of road where there is only space for one line of traffic. Every time a cyclist or biker filters or passes traffic on the offside of single-file traffic then they take their life in their own hands.
Harsh, but fair.
|
1. The u-turn was illegal - signs indicate that.
2. The road is wide enough for 2 vehicles.
3. Every time a cyclist or biker goes on the road, they take their lives in their hands because of car drivers, who are just as much a cause of accidents as the motorcyclists. I am a car driver and accept this.
|
Presumably, the driver pulling out didn't do this on purpsoe, so we must assume he didn't see the moped driver. If I understand correctly, the magistrate found the unfortunate moped driver 'guilty' of not seeing the inidcating driver. But, by the same token the driver didn't see the moped driver - why is the moped driver at fault?
If the driver was indicating, and this was obscured by the trafic line (esp. the 4x4) , this means the driver's view was obstructed - yet he/she still carried on with manoeuvre - is not the car driver to blame?
If I pull out from a stationary position, it's my responsibility to check my way is clear. I've seen this situation from a motocylist's perspective many times. It's perfectly legal to filter, but many car drivers simply don't observe - as is the case in right-turn from junctions where motrocyclists are hit (recent TV ad campaign on this very point).
Mrs_E - If you do appeal, I would focus on the above - it's irrelevant whether the car inidcated or not - he/she pulled out on your husband, and in a stationary queue of traffic, the relevant & expected care was not shown by the car driver. If you can show he was filtering legally within the chevrons, the car driver, imho, showed lack of due care.
Good Luck with the case & I hope your husband makes a full recovery.
cheers
woodbines
|
|
|
Would just like to say that he overtook in a safe manner (this came from one witness) and did not expect to have a car pull out in front of him with no warning. Remember the advert about motorcyclists? Look once, look twice, look again for motorcyclists. The driver said in court he only looked once and that was before he checked the oncoming traffic situation, not after. It isn't possible for any driver to anticipate every manoeuvre other drivers might make, that is why accidents happen. In our barrister's view, this was the case - an accident happened and an unnecessary prosecution occurred. The point is, the only victor from this conviction is whoever gets the money from the fine. Also, I realise motorcyclists can have a bad reputation but so can car drivers who don't look out for them.
|
|
|
|
|
You are entitled to your opinion but I would like to respond:
1. My husband has been seeking compensation since the accident through the insurance company's solicitors.
2. He only moved into the chevrons to avoid the car - how is that not safe? Should he have stayed in the road and collided at a different point?
3. There was no repeater on the side of the vehicle.
|
Mrs E
Whilst you loyalty to your husband is commendable; you appear, perhaps understandably, to have lost a sense of perspective on this matter.
Should your husband have collided in a different place? No; he should have pulled-up behind the stationary line and waited until they moved off. He took a calculated decision to overtake them, unsighted and clearly at some speed, these two factors led directly to the collision.
If the car didn't have a side repeater; then, at the very latest, it was registered before 1987. Was it?
As to the CPS's decision to prosecute; this would seem to be fully vindicated by the verdict of the magistrates. Had the case been thrown out, maybe with critical comments from the bench, then the CPS's judgement could have been called into question. As it is; they considered that they had a solid enough case to proceed to trial and were proved correct.
Whether you have grounds to appeal the bench's verdict is a totally different matter. No less a person than your own barrister, an expert fully conversant with all the facts, has advised against it. Why do you consider that he is mistaken?
|
If the car didn't have a side repeater; then at the very latest it was registered before 1987. Was it?
Perhaps she means the side repeater was broken?
Good old Backroom support :-)
Blue
|
|
|
Your opinion is your right, as is mine. You do not know me or my husband and you are making assumptions based on what you think you know. I am not here to argue pointlessly with those who think the right decision has been made and, as you will see from other posts, I am not alone in believing that the wrong decision was made.
He was not going at "some speed". The witness in court admitted he was driving at less than 20mph.
Since I do not own the car involved, I do not know when it was registered but having seen the vehicle at the site of the accident, I confirm there was no side repeater.
The Magistrates accepted that my husband had not been driving in the chevrons, as he had been charged with, but made the case that he was at fault for not seeing the indicator. As another poster has pointed out, an indication is just that - an intent to perform a manoeuvre, not a right.
Our barrister said that if we had the funds, an appeal would be worthwhile pursuing but as we do not have the financial means for this, he advised against it.
End of story.
|
Mrs E
I am making no such assumptions. The known facts are as you have stated them.
Surely you must know. at least, the make of the car?
A 20mph speed differential, very close to the stationary vehicles, is "some speed." It leaves little, or no, time for reaction if the unexpected happens.
Filtering past at little more than walking pace may have had very different consequences; but that choice was your husband's to make and it was a very high-risk manoeuvre indeed that he had initiated.
If you have decided not to appeal; what is the point of criticizing the CPS's decision?
|
|
|
|
..he should have pulled-up behind the stationary line and waited until they moved off...
Why should be pull up behind staionary traffic - don't you overtake slower or stationary vehicles? Any overtaking is risky or riskier, that doesn't absolve the ovetakee of any care,responsibility & due diligence.
..He took a calculated decision to overtake them, unsighted and clearly at some speed..
We don't know what speed, you can break a leg just falling over while walking. Wasn't the car driver unsighted? If not, i.e. he could see the road behind, it implies he did pulled out despite seeing the moped - not what you mean I presume.
|
|
|
|
It is normal when about to make a U turn or right turn in traffic to look in your offside mirror to see whether anything - a motor bike for example - is coming past you on the outside. If your view is blocked by a vehicle behind you, you are obliged to proceed cautiously until you are sure nothing is coming.
In my opinion the uturning driver was 90 per cent to blame. However this is not an uncommon accident scenario, and it is one that can easily lead to fatalities. One of several reasons why I don't consider a bike despite the obvious advantages. I am just too wimpish.
I have to say that claiming compensation from the injured party is despicable of the car driver and his insurance company, but in no way surprising or unusual.
|
"It is normal when about to make a U turn or right turn in traffic to look in your offside mirror to see whether anything - a motor bike for example - is coming past you on the outside. If your view is blocked by a vehicle behind you, you are obliged to proceed cautiously until you are sure nothing is coming"
Playing devils advocate:- If the motorcyclist was travelling at 20 miles/hour the driver might have preceded with the utmost caution but as soon as the front of his car moved right to allow him to see what was behind the motorcyclist may have had no chance of braking without hitting the car.
I am sure this was all debated in the court and found in favour of the car driver. We are all trying to judge this case in our "armchairs" when this has already been reviewed, judged and dealt with, with all the facts, not just information from 1 side of the argument.
Carse
|
|
|
Initial post suggests view of the moped rider was partially blocked by 4x4, incline, an indicator that was apparently near the middle of the car (?) etc. But yet was happy to ride along at 20mph. What if someone simply opened a door?
The moped rider swerved but still hit the car - note I take it the moped collided with the door of the car. In fact once the car pulled out a little, the moped was at risk of hitting it. Whatever happened in front of the moped that required it to stop - the moped rider was responsible for stopping even if the thing happening might have been wrong.
My example of this (I have little memory of the accident though)... driving from Milan airport in a hire car and when near a junction an HGV ran into the back of us. What caused me to slow down or even stop (and I cannot recall if I did either) is irrelevant as the lorry should have been able to stop. After nearly a year the police found the driver guilty - not that they told me I only know because I got the excess back for the hire car damage. Making matters even worse, the lorry itself was run into by a tanker of some sort and goodness knows what else happened behind that. Major road closed for some time and flights etc. probably missed too sadly although the road was on the way from the airport.
The reason I think the accident was probably unavoidable was due to the speed of the moped. It is only safe to drive at a speed that you can safely stop in an emergency etc. The moped rider should have been looking out for risks and it was his responsibility to adjust speed and even stop if required. What if someone had stepped out between the stationary traffic trying to cross the road.
I sadly believe he could have been driving a little carelessly and that led to the accident. The cost of appealing and the risk of losing in my opinion could be high. So you lose lots more money and still pay the fine and get the points. You also prolong the time of getting over the accident...
What I think I would do:
- See if there's any chance of doing a driving course instead of being prosecuted - it might still be offered
- Try to gauge how many points and how big a fine is likely. If not too bad accept it.
- Start to put the accident behind you. It sounds like your husband nearly died and has had a terrible time. The prosecution is almost irrelevant and perhaps just needs accepting.
- Stop riding the moped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
