Does 'one rule for us' have validity?

When I have calmed down a bit I may comment!!!

Posted: 19/09/2012 at 18:58

We've known for years that there is a vast imblance in the way motorists and motorcyclists are treated in the courts; it is the way it is and we need to continue to impress upon the public that we are voters, fathers, husbands, wives etc - you get my gist - ordinary people who deserve the same respect and treatment under the eyes of the law as everybody else. That the van driver should be charged with causing death on the highway is beyond dispute.

Unfortunately, for every good bit of PR that shows us in a good light, charity runs, ride to the wall, MAG campaigns etc along comes a prat like Lukasz to just confirm the publics perceptions and prejudices and we take a step backwards. Not only did he chose to ride at over 100mph on a busy public highway but to do it on one wheel in front of a CCTV shows just how moronic he is. I have no sympathy for the twat and we are better off now he is off the road.

I have lots of sympathy for the friends and family of Gordon Brear and they deserve better from West Yorkshire Police. Not been a good week for the Yorkshire plod has it?

Posted: 19/09/2012 at 19:31

What Harby Said!!!

Posted: 19/09/2012 at 20:24

To be honest the biker wheeling was below balancing point, maybe next time he will look to see if it's the smartest thing to do at the given time

Posted: 19/09/2012 at 21:59

Judges don't ride bikes. No empathy and no sympathy. It's that simple.

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 05:45

The van driver case can not be proved one way or the other.
The wheelie has evidence.

As to the level of seriousness... loss of life of anyone is far more serious.
Condolences to To Mr Brear's family

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 06:13

Can't believe that there is no action to be taken in the case of the van driver. Surely a Careless Driving prosecution? Destroys your faith in the judicial system, which after the Hillsborough report is paper thin.

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 09:02

The issue is that ignorance is an excuse if you are on 4 wheels - 'I didn't see you' is a valid excuse for killing someone because some twat didn't move his head 3 inches to check a blind spot before turning.

Imagine if a biker tried using that excuse: 'Sorry your honour, I was speeding because I didn't see the 30 sign'

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 11:39

A delivery driver who indicates AND checks his mirrors??? :-O

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 11:53

his lawyer wasnt very good - that wheelie could easily have been from acceleration... the road didnt seem that busy- and no one got hurt.... seems more than a bit OTT. how about a few points for dangerous driving?

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 12:07

I think there are a lot of people out there who just hate bikes.
We pass them in queues, out accelerate them from the lights, generally pay less road tax and spend less on fuel.
I don't think it's a majority, but a big portion of the public are also afraid of bikes and think they're dangerous. Why in a survey on this very site a large portion of respondees said they wouldn't want their offspring to ride bikes, and that's from a survey of bikers.
Then there's the judiciary..
When there is a crucial part of our society which believes playing softly softly with murderers and rapists is the way to go what hope is there for justice. One even recently described a burglar as brave.

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 13:06

no maniacal riding does nobody any favours, especially bikers...what if he had lost control? he could then at best be seriously injured, at worst have taken himself out, as well as the other biker on the video.....words fail me as to the lunacy of such an act!!

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 13:09

ok here's my 2 pence.

Personally, I hate Police Officers and think they are one of most corruptable people on the planet along with Solicitors. I know they have a job to do and I respect them for that and some are polite & friendly.
I have noticed with age, they will go for easy money, rather than an investigation.

My house was broken into about 10 years ago and they stole a credit card. I supplied the police the exact dates to the second and locations where the money was withdrawn, there was CCTV footage and I had been told that police could easily get hold of it. They did nothing.

With Regards to Mr Brear, he is not the first victim to lose a case where they use Sorry Mate I Didn't See You and certainly won't be the last. Remember the David Blackburn vs Ian Macintyre. see link below
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/smidsy-biker-killer-cleared/20957.html

A great injustice to bikers is being done hear and motorists need to be educated about the vunerbility of Motorcyclists and should be punished about their ignorance.

Rant over

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 13:15

The biker was riding like an idiot. And could have casued a nasty accident if he lost control and came off his bike. The van driver made a horrible and unthinkable mistake which proved to cause a fatality but it was a mistake, and an accident. He wasn't showing off.

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 13:52

Its not that surprising - if you do a 103mph wheelie past a delivery driver he is bound to try and knock you off.

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 14:52

Unfortunately the two stories are not comparable in anyway. The question raised by this article is therefore not valid. Poor journalism Visordown.

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 15:58

I defintitely think that there is a valid point behind this article. Motorcyclists are definitely demonised as road villains and disrespected when they are injured or killed by other motorists. There are innumerbable examples of four wheeled motorists accidentally killing motrcyclists who get a light rebuke. In contrast the antics of speeding/wheelieing bikers are treated quite differently by the law. Bikers who voluntarily misbehave get the book thrown at them while sentencing is very light for accidents where bikers die. There ought to be more balance in the equation especially because in one case a man has actually died (punishment nil) and in the other the Police cite the potential risk of death or injury to himself or others (punishment large).

Posted: 20/09/2012 at 17:14

If any other group were treated this way it would be called discrimination! and someone would be brought to book. Not just one rule, but double standards. Sentencing should be more balanced.

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 07:13

Wheelie at 103mph on public road and you are going to have to accept that the law will not congratulate you and offer free road tax.
However, in my experience there are two laws. In the early 90's I was banned for exceeding the speed limit at 06.30 on a Sunday on an empty dual carriageway. The nice policeman was in an unmarked car testing new equipment. He said that I had ridden very safely but had sped up as he approached my back wheel until I voluntarily pulled in to a garage. Entrapment? Maybe, but nonetheless I was speeding. I accepted my fine, the ban and the 5y of increased insurance premiums.
What I cannot accept is that 2 weeks later Gerald Ratner was caught on the same road at a faster speed in his Jag. He was given a lesser fine, kept his licence and probably walked from court a happy bunny.
Yes there are two rules. Had a biker turned Rt suddenly into a pedestrian crossing the road, I am not sure a prison sentence might not ensue. At the end of the day, the van driver must live with his fatal error and that will undoubtedly prove harder than any punishment........

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 08:23

Here is a boring answer, but it puts some legal meat on James May's argument. I English law there is a principle known (in Latin) as "Mens rea"- you can translate that at 'the mind of the offender'. The fatally unobservant van driver did not have that. He was not aware that he was doing wrong. The wheelie rider did have it. He knew he was breaking the law at the speed he was doing and made the offence worse by pulling a wheelie and demonstrating that, as far as the police are concerned, he was not in full control of his vehicle.
I'm not saying that the comparison of the sentences in the two cases is justice, but it is the way the law works. There is a fundamental question to think through here.
Should a court sentence be a punishment in revenge for damage done, or should it be a reflection of the lack of respect for established laws?
Cheers
Dave

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 08:43

Bullshit, with all due respect (not a lot, by the way).

Turning right without indicating or checking your mirrors is practically the definition of careless and inconsiderate driving. If you don't feel guilty about doing that, then you're a sociopath and should be serving an indeterminate sentence for the protection of the public - sadly, the yoghurt knitters have sacked those off as well.

There's case after case after case where courts let biker killers off because, you know, we're hard to see. Well, LOOK HARDER, nobbers.

It boils my piss that there's a blatant attitude that we're asking for it. Maybe we should ride around in short skirts with our moobs hanging out, really give them something to blame us for?

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 09:45

In answer to James May's comment: The van driver made a mistake of not checking his mirrors and broke a driving rule. The consequences of this was the death of the motorcyclist, thus the consequence to the van driver of making a mistake cannot be nothing, otherwise here can be responsibility to not make the mistake again. Most accidents are because someone made a mistake, the mistake being not doing something that should be done, usually looking or indicating.

What this is saying is that it Ok to make mistakes regardless of the consequences, so in effect it’s Ok to drive badly. This bring us to the wheeling biker, he was obviously riding badly in terms of the rules of the road, however based upon the Yorkshire ruling that’s Ok and if that’s the case then the penalties imposed on the him are absolutely wrong!

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 10:39

I guy on the bike pulling a wheelie is going to get the book thrown at him, in the same way a 17 yr old in a supped up nova would get the same. Unfortunately unlike car drivers because we wear a mask over our face we are all tarred with the same brush. I doubt very much that the 70yr old on his VTR was hooking up a 3rd gear wheelie as he passed the van but I suspect that was the first questions asked of whiteness's when the police arrived at the scene.

If you read the quote from West Yorkshire Police it seems the lesson to learn here for car drivers is, make sure you kill the rider when your not paying attention, that way they can't defend themselves and as in this case a reliable independent witness's statement is discarded as hearsay!

After the hearing, a spokeswoman for West Yorkshire Police, said: “No charges were made and no further action will be taken, because investigating officers could not apportion the whole blame to either party.”

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 10:47

I must admit I've read all the posts and I was erring on the side of James May's argument, but then I thought what if common sense prevailed in the courtroom?

A motorcyclist capable of pulling a 103mph wheelie is obviously fully in control of his vehicle. The skill and confidence required to perform such a task is surely a testament to that? Also, assuming the biker doesn't have a death wish, you can also assume he deemed it a 'safe' time to perform the wheelie and was probably in a heightened sense of alertness.. Don't get me wrong, I think he does need to be banned because the road is not the place for this behaviour and although it didn't end badly, it could of.

The van driver has a responsibility to other road users (as does everyone) to drive safely, using his mirrors to make sure he is not a threat to other vehicles. He did not fulfil this responsibility, did not use his mirrors and killed someone because of this. There was no punishment.

For me, both are in the wrong but the difference is the law decides to make a 'point' out of the biker but they refuse to make a point out of the van driver. Why? SMIDSY is just not a good enough excuse for killing someone and EVERYONE needs to realise that there are consequences to their actions, not just bikers.

This, to me, is common sense.. But I guess that's not how the law works. So the message being sent here is "Fuck responsibility and get a better lawyer"...?

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 10:54

Just a thought but have any of the bikers here ever had a near miss when driving a car or indeed riding a bike. If you drive/ride enough miles, there will inevitably be occasions where you get it wrong. I can think of several occasions where I have not used due caution and nearly come a cropper on my bike. I have been fortunate and none of these 'near misses' has involved other persons.....BUT, they might have. I confess that I have been lucky enough not to injure anyone when driving but there have been 'near misses' over the years.

I am not a yoghurt knitter but Bikers are not always blameless and can sometimes be the biggest t@$£%&rs on the road (there I've said it). So best not to throw stones when you live in a glass house. We are not often given all the facts by journalists and are therefore not in the best place to make judgements on cases decided in a court. 

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 18:59

Maverick wanders crazily between 'common sense' (meaning whatever he thinks is right) and the law. These are two totally different things and he should never confuse the two. Otherwise it's just hot air. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn't masquerade as wisdom - which his comment is definitely not.

 

Sorry Mav - your musings don't really cut it in this case. Reread everything here, consider my words and change your comments? Ta.

Posted: 21/09/2012 at 20:23

Everything from the size of your nose to the way you wear your hair can influence a judges decision. Not admitted but true. Doesnt mean you can get away with doing wheelies on a moderately busy freeway at 100 mph. Out on the plains in the mountains, no problem and an injustice is done if punished. But come on, get real. I dont think you can claim conspiracy on that. Unless you think the Daily Mirror is an excellent example of quality journalism I guess.

Posted: 22/09/2012 at 03:47

At best "driving without due care and attention" or even "careless driving" but no, clearly "dangerous driving" or have I missed them being deleted from the statute book??

Posted: 24/09/2012 at 10:30

Hugh, I think you should re-read my post. Here's a line from it that might explain what you're banging on about:

"WHAT IF common sense prevailed in the courtroom?" Note the words in capitals...

I'm saying common sense clearly doesn't have a place in the courtroom.

Then I make some logical deductions. Did you think they were't true? Do you think that a person with no skill can pull a controlled 103mph wheelie? If I'm wrong there, please enlighten me. Do people not have responsibilities to other road users? I must be missing something here hugh.

As for wisdom? I never professed to give any. I'm just commenting on an internet topic, like you.

On that note, cynicism written in a bolshy manner is fine - as long as it doesn't masquerade as the definitive answer to everything.

Take your own advice and repost. Ta.

Posted: 24/09/2012 at 10:57

I'm glad you're not handing down wisdom. That's good. I'm glad too, that you are at last seeing reason, after the hints I gave you about how to deduce conclusions. You have certainly progressed and I hope that continues.

You go on about 'bolshy'ness - let me remind you that the Bolsheviks were in the majority. The way you use the word is straight from the Daily Mail, is very anti-working class and reflects an unthinking response to issues. Are you by chance a Tory? A rightwing Tory? Come on, own up!

Well done my friend!!!

Posted: 24/09/2012 at 13:12

My dear hugh.. You need to revisit your own lessons in deduction - Someone from the daily mail would absolutely condone cynicism masquerading as the definitive answer to everything. Bolshy is 'anti-working class'??!! You're over sensitive mate. I'm just using it as a descriptive word..

Actually don't read the papers, they piss me off. If I want someone else's opinion forced upon me I'll go on here and post... :0)

As for being Tory: You disgust me Hugh - Come on here and call me a rapist, a murderer, a thief - that's fine. Calling me a Tory is just crossing the line though...

Posted: 24/09/2012 at 13:52

OK Mav, I admit asking you if you were a Tory was a bit below the belt - I withdraw that unreservedly.

'Bolshy' is an insult suggesting that people are bloody minded. It's an insult against working people, re: the Bolsheviks, those good people who got chopped by Stalin, the enemy of working people. Usually midddleclass Mail readers use it. I realise that's not you. Thank God.

You're right to avoid the press except for wrapping chips, and come on here and read what I have to say - it's a tonic isn't it?

Posted: 24/09/2012 at 20:02

Speaking as somebody who was a prosecutor (in Scotland, not England) for thirty two years, any fatal road accident would have been scrutinised in the minutest detail and if the evidence had been there the offending driver would have been taken to court. I can't speak for the CPS but to suggest that the Scottish equivalent (COPFS) operates some kind of anti-biker double standard is risible and insulting. A criminal case needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is a very high standard and requires a lot more than the "a biker has died therefore the driver is guilty" mentality which is being shown here. In the case involving the van there were two possibilities - the driver got it wrong or the rider got it wrong. If the best evidence the police could produce was that the passenger didn't hear the indicator working I'm not in the least surprised there was no prosecution. To prosecute on that evidence would have been a waste of time and public funds and would only have dealt Mr Brear's family an even greater blow by giving them false hope that the driver would be convicted. The wheelie guy was a tit of the first order, the sort of imbecile who gets responsible riders a bad name. The sentence may have been a bit OTT but he brought it on himself.

Posted: 25/09/2012 at 16:18

Well David, you operate in a superior legal system not hindered by the mediaeval practice of precedent which operates in England.

 

On this forum you are dealing with emotion, not reason. And the law is often unreasonable, as you know.

Posted: 25/09/2012 at 18:05