Unlicensed driver leaves biker for dead
Licenceless, uninsured driver gets a year's porridge after wiping out biker in mindless overtake
AN UNLICENSED driver who ploughed a car into a motorcyclist, leaving him seriously injured before fleeing the scene, has been jailed.
This week, Bristol Crown Court heard how Ian Prater lost control of the car he was driving after overtaking on a notoriously bad bend on the A37, in August 2008.
After losing control, Prater's car collided with motorcyclist Simon Oborne, shattering the rider's leg. Mr Oborne, 41, has been unable to work since the accident.
Police reports say following the smash, Prater set fire to the vehicle before fleeing the scene in an attempt to cover his tracks.
Prater, 44, from Hartcliffe, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice. The accused also admitted failing to stop at an accident, as well as driving without a valid licence or insurance.
A report in yesterday's Bristol Evening Post states Prater was jailed for a year.
After the trial Mr Oborne said: "He didn't know whether I was dead or alive and I don't feel any sympathy for him at all. I think he got off light – I will have easily another year's disruption in my life while he will get six months. I would have liked him to get a couple of years."
Discuss this story
The thing that really gets me is that had he killed the dude he would've only got a manslaughter charge yet by driving without insurance he has carried out a premeditated act... When the fuck are the government (or whoever) going to start taking unisured drivers seriously? Alb x
Posted: 28/05/2009 at 15:08
>> We have all made mistakes driving uninsured and without license is not a mistake in my book. And in my opinion such a blatant disregard for the law goes often hand in hand with lack of concern for other's safety, and a wrong attitude towards driving (and riding) safety. Or, in other words, I think that if you deliberately break the law about insurance and car tax, you are also likely to drive/ride around like a p****ck. Ride Safe.
Posted: 28/05/2009 at 15:08
When the fuck are the government (or whoever) going to start taking unisured drivers seriously?
How long a prison sentence would you like them to have? (The original Evening Cancer article about it is here)
Posted: 28/05/2009 at 16:51
How long a sentence would YOU like him to get? Fsj
Posted: 28/05/2009 at 18:12
I see the rider was wearing hi-vis... I'm starting to see the point made by FJSRiDER in the thread "I just got some sound advice". Appologies for going off subject, I don't feel there's a lot I can say on this one. Down with un-insured drivers etc etc....
Posted: 28/05/2009 at 18:32
<a href="http://null/localiser/member.asp?sp=&v=2&MemNo=181622" title="Visit IlPrincipeBrutto member profile">IlPrincipeBrutto</a>Today 15:08
"driving uninsured and without license is not a mistake in my book. And in my opinion such a blatant disregard for the law goes often hand in hand with lack of concern for other's safety, and a wrong attitude towards driving (and riding) safety. Or, in other words, I think that if you deliberately break the law about insurance and car tax, you are also likely to drive/ride around like a p****ck" +1 I think the problem with incidents like this, is the premise used in the sentencing guidelines for this type of offence, that the perpetrator did not "intend" to kill or injure any one when driving in a dangerous manner. This is why it is very difficult to prosecute them for murder or even manslaughter. However I personally feel that this is no defence because the severe consequences of dangerous driving are well documented and known about by all - you only have to look at the local news on TV any night to see how many serious incidents occur on our roads. To me, the "no intent" argument is weak and morally wrong. I'm fairly sure that an armed robber who ends up shooting someone during a robbery probably didn't "intend" to shoot someone - but I can't really see a court accepting that as an argument or a mitigating circumstance. So why is someone who knowingly drives a motor vehicle in a reckless and dangerous manner given the protection of "no intent"? If someone is prepared to deliberately endanger others by their selfish and reckless actions, then they must be prepared to pay the price when the consequences of those actions result in death or injury to others. Further circumstances in this case should also be taken into account - leaving the scene, not reporting an accident involving death or injury, attempting to pervert the course of justice by destroying evidence - these are all punishable offences in their own right and if found guilty, sentencing should reflect this. Now I'm not suggesting that this driver should be placed in the same criminal group as the likes of fred west, peter sutcliffe et al and be banged up for life. But, I do strongly feel that a 1 year sentence in this case is a bit light when put in the context of sentencing for other offences. For example, the Darwins (faked death, insurance scam) both got over 6 years for obtaining money by deception. I agree it was a serious offence and 6 years seems "about right" to the general public at large. But it seems that crimes involving money are treated much more severely by the courts than wilful recklessness causing death or injury. So the public perception is that sentencing for this type of offence is both inconsistent and insufficiently long to be seen as just. Edited once for bed spalling!
Posted: 28/05/2009 at 19:09
That's the cruncher Yoda, they can destroy someone's life, livelihood and their family's also. Banned for life from driving anything would be a good start. Forget sending them on courses etc, you can't train someone to change their attitudes, and the ''I was afraid and just ran away' excuse is not good enough. The dangerous driving coupled with the failing to stop = complete fucking wanker in my eyes and they should get 1 year in prison (serving the full year; not letting it be diminished by things like good behaviour, wife and children will loose their dependant and suffer hardship or previous good character as this act has wiped out that good character) and then when they leave prison they should be registered on a national 'Dishonesty' database, like sex offenders. Thay way, everytime they apply for credit, jobs, travel visa's etc they can't hide their past and will have to explain it to others. THAT alone would make them feel the consequences of their act for life; just like the victim.
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 15:02
Banned for life from driving anything would be a good start. Forget sending them on courses etc, you can't train someone to change their attitudes, and the ''I was afraid and just ran away' excuse is not good enough.
And what do you think people 'banned for life' would actually do? Not drive or carry on driving illegally?  The dangerous driving coupled with the failing to stop = complete fucking wanker in my eyes
I don't think anyone disagrees.....but.. and they should get 1 year in prison (serving the full year; not letting it be diminished by things like good behaviour, wife and children will loose their dependant and suffer hardship or previous good character as this act has wiped out that good character) and then when they leave prison they should be registered on a national 'Dishonesty' database, like sex offenders. Thay way, everytime they apply for credit, jobs, travel visa's etc they can't hide their past and will have to explain it to others. THAT alone would make them feel the consequences of their act for life; just like the victim.
...but your system would not have any time that convictions could be spent, or allow for offenders could be rehabilitated? You are not far off making them live in ghettos, tattoo their prison numbers on their arms and, as a final solution, gassing them.
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 15:11
but your system would not have any time that convictions could be spent, or allow for offenders could be rehabilitated? You are not far off making them live in ghettos, tattoo their prison numbers on their arms and, as a final solution, gassing them. Thats the best idea so far, and theres me thinking you were a bit of a leftie / liberal sort of guy .
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 15:43
You are not far off making them live in ghettos, tattoo their prison numbers on their arms and, as a final solution, gassing them.
sounds good to be.... fuck em i say. these are the sort that should have been aborted after conception - waste of fucking space and my taxes.
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 16:28
Thats the best idea so far, and theres me thinking you were a bit of a leftie / liberal sort of guy .
sounds good to be.... fuck em i say. these are the sort that should have been aborted after conception - waste of fucking space and my taxes.
Great! I look forward to the future cull of loud pipe and small plate riders. It was all illegal motoring offences you want to clamp down on wasn't it?
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 17:17
That's the cruncher Yoda, they can destroy someone's life, livelihood and their family's also. Banned for life from driving anything would be a good start. Forget sending them on courses etc, you can't train someone to change their attitudes, and the ''I was afraid and just ran away' excuse is not good enough. The dangerous driving coupled with the failing to stop = complete fucking wanker in my eyes and they should get 1 year in prison (serving the full year; not letting it be diminished by things like good behaviour, wife and children will loose their dependant and suffer hardship or previous good character as this act has wiped out that good character) and then when they leave prison they should be registered on a national 'Dishonesty' database, like sex offenders. Thay way, everytime they apply for credit, jobs, travel visa's etc they can't hide their past and will have to explain it to others. THAT alone would make them feel the consequences of their act for life; just like the victim.
+1 Will the 'victim' get better quicker/not lose their job/keep their house just because of the 'good character' of the w****r that hit him/her.
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 21:37
Thats the best idea so far, and theres me thinking you were a bit of a leftie / liberal sort of guy .
sounds good to be.... fuck em i say. these are the sort that should have been aborted after conception - waste of fucking space and my taxes.
Great! I look forward to the future cull of loud pipe and small plate riders.
It was all illegal motoring offences you want to clamp down on wasn't it?
And power ranger suits for colour pollution offences .
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 22:42
Hmm, yes, not quite sure how we ended up comparing loud exhausts with injuring people and leaving them for dead. It's really quite a different situation with different penalties that should be applicable, isn't it? Unfortunately, banning someone who's already driving a stolen car / driving without insurance, will make no difference - they're already effectively banned before it started and it didn't stop them then! Physically keeping them off the road is the only way to be sure they'll not drive. Whether that's jail or tethering them to a post for years, I couldn't care less. The lefties who are all about gentle treatment of criminals will disagree but I think that it's not only about keeping the roads safer, it's also about the victim seeing justice done to the person who just ruined their life, terminated their career and destroyed their mental health forever.
Posted: 29/05/2009 at 23:29
Hmm, yes, not quite sure how we ended up comparing loud exhausts with injuring people and leaving them for dead.
Being 'left for dead' is just journalistic hyperbole. It was an unlicensed driver who was not waiting around for the consequences of his actions and scarpered pronto. His defence was that he never even knew that he hit the motorcyclist. I suspect that to have some grounding in reality. The lefties who are all about gentle treatment of criminals will disagree but I think that it's not only about keeping the roads safer, it's also about the victim seeing justice done to the person who just ruined their life, terminated their career and destroyed their mental health forever.
I have no sympathy for the cretins that think that they can cede responsibility for their own safety onto others. Shit happens but you need to remember that shattered legs and months in hospital - or worse - are a distinct possibility even for a minor incident and people do make mistakes. Those found to be culpable are not routinely tried as if they are attempted murders for road traffic incidents in this country - you could petition for the law to be changed but 'bikers' - being high on the list of those unable to consider the consequences of their actions - would be a large proportion of those convicted. Then the hard of thinking will only be moaning every time a 'biker' is sentenced to life for speeding.
Posted: 30/05/2009 at 06:51
So next time you go over a hump back bridge, find a queue on the other side, stop safely and the stolen car behind crashes straight into you, turns round leaving you unconscious in the road [for all he knows you may be dead], flees the scene.... If we catch the chap, shall we say that he just made a mistake and let him off lightly because after all you knew the risks when you got on your bike. I don't know where you're getting the attempted murder thing from, or sentencing people to life for speeding - you're just being silly there. Everyone knows that inappropriate speed or reckless driving can have bad consequences, if you choose to do that, you choose the possibility of killing yourself or someone else. No-one's saying that bikers cede responsibility for their safety to others, but in some cases, others are the cause of their accidents - and driving a stolen car recklessly raises the chances of causing an accident. The driver is at fault and should be taken off the road. I accept every time I go out that something horrific could happen either by my own or someone else's actions. But I'd rather reduce the chances of the latter by removing people who have no thought for the lifetime of misery they may well inflict on someone else and their family.
Posted: 01/06/2009 at 23:49
If we catch the chap, shall we say that he just made a mistake and let him off lightly because after all you knew the risks when you got on your bike.
Where in your tiny mind do you imagine I have written anything about the punishment for this driver? I don't know where you're getting the attempted murder thing from, or sentencing people to life for speeding - you're just being silly there.
Have you even bothered to read this thread? That is exactly my point. The driver is at fault and should be taken off the road.
If this driver was banned already - he was already removed from the road. If he is locked up - just as I asked in my first post in this thread - how long a jail term should 'inappropriate speed' or 'reckless driving' from someone who has no thought of the 'lifetime of misery they may well inflict' on others be? I accept every time I go out that something horrific could happen either by my own or someone else's actions. But I'd rather reduce the chances of the latter by removing people who have no thought for the lifetime of misery they may well inflict on someone else and their family.
It is a matter of proportion. This would work both ways. I'm trying to get the mouth-breathers to consider what they are ranting about. Think how far this could be taken by the Daily Wail reading proles and it is not unimaginable for 'thoughtless' loud pipe howling, speeding 'bikers' looking at jail time for their 'crimes'.
Posted: 02/06/2009 at 07:21
I think you're almost agreeing with me there, with a smattering of insults just to try to hide it. I can feel the love .
Posted: 02/06/2009 at 22:54
The thing that really gets me is that had he killed the dude he would've only got a manslaughter charge yet by driving without insurance he has carried out a premeditated act...
Yes, but the premeditated act was just driving. Killing someone was accidental.
Posted: 03/06/2009 at 08:03
The thing that really gets me is that had he killed the dude he would've only got a manslaughter charge yet by driving without insurance he has carried out a premeditated act...
Yes, but the premeditated act was just driving. Killing someone was accidental.
Legally it's about cause and intent. If he had killed the rider, he would have been the cause, but for it to be murder he must have had intent to kill. Otherwise the killing is accidental, it will be manslaughter if intent to kill is not there. Intent to drive stupidly (don't know whether this was the case) and without insurance is intent to do a criminal act which he would know could have worse consequences. For some of us, that's a very fine line morally, and a resultant death wouldn't be as much of an accident as say someone running out in front of you on a motorway. And as for you, I think you're almost agreeing with me there, with a smattering of insults just to try to hide it. I can feel the love .
Unsurprisingly you could not be more wrong.
have a nice evening xxx
Posted: 03/06/2009 at 23:50
Back home in SA, bikers would simply get hold of the guy, strip him naked, drag him down a dusty dirt track a mile & that would be that, case closed!! Have a nice day 
Yes whether it was the right guy or not.
Posted: 04/06/2009 at 08:00
(he'd pulled a Uey virtually over my front wheel)
And yet you ran into the back of his car.
Posted: 04/06/2009 at 12:41
yeah, he stopped 3/4 way thru his turn (in shock at seeing me i guess) i'd already started going the other way to try and get round him, had to anchor on, hit the deck went into the rear left hand corner of his car, kinda under his bumper. Is that ok for you?
Posted: 04/06/2009 at 12:54
I think he is just sticking up for car drivers who like to hit & run
As opposed to 'bikers' who just like to run?
Posted: 05/06/2009 at 08:05
If we catch the chap, shall we say that he just made a mistake and let him off lightly because after all you knew the risks when you got on your bike.
Where in your tiny mind do you imagine I have written anything about the punishment for this driver?
It is a matter of proportion. This would work both ways. I'm trying to get the mouth-breathers to consider what they are ranting about. Think how far this could be taken by the Daily Wail reading proles and it is not unimaginable for 'thoughtless' loud pipe howling, speeding 'bikers' looking at jail time for their 'crimes'.
There you go again fellah. Why throw in a random insult just because you disagree with someone? You make a lot of sense, you've thought through the whole issue and you're close to persuading someone like me to try to follow your line of thought. Then you jump all over someone and my hackles are up, much less poor Yodas, just because you imagine she hasn't thought the issue through.
FWIW, you're an interesting guy, you even influence the way I think about habits I've maintained for decades, but you don't do yourself any favors, man. 
Posted: 05/06/2009 at 13:13
There you go again fellah. Why throw in a random insult just because you disagree with someone?
Not random at all. Try to follow the posts prior to that. You make a lot of sense, you've thought through the whole issue and you're close to persuading someone like me to try to follow your line of thought. Then you jump all over someone and my hackles are up, much less poor Yodas, just because you imagine she hasn't thought the issue through.
She was the one that seemed to believe I thought that this driver be 'let off lightly' - which is something I most certainly had not written. Her tiny mind had failed to grasp even the simplest of constructs. Again.
Posted: 05/06/2009 at 13:25
There you go again fellah. Why throw in a random insult just because you disagree with someone?
Not random at all. Try to follow the posts prior to that. You make a lot of sense, you've thought through the whole issue and you're close to persuading someone like me to try to follow your line of thought. Then you jump all over someone and my hackles are up, much less poor Yodas, just because you imagine she hasn't thought the issue through.
She was the one that seemed to believe I thought that this driver be 'let off lightly' - which is something I most certainly had not written. Her tiny mind had failed to grasp even the simplest of constructs. Again.
Try "you fail to grasp the construct I've posted, again". Personally I recon she's grasped the issue (and many others you've locked horns on) and then dared to come to a different conclusion to yours. Fair enough, you think she's dead wrong, but talking to her like a recalcitrant eight year old doesn't help to get your point across. 'Course, if you just come on here to dish out abuse and insults that's fine, too, but Don Kiddic et al will take some bettering ...innit?
Posted: 05/06/2009 at 21:27
Hello Flo . You're quite right; many of us prefer to get our point across by sticking to it, rather than wandering off the point by hurling insults. Being rude is not a generally accepted method of persuaded people to accept alternative views. [Torture perhaps being an exception]. Technically speaking, my head size is quite small so my mind is probably smaller than most. FJS is right again  
Posted: 06/06/2009 at 00:20
You're in good company. I read that Sir Issac Newton was a bit self concious about his tootie wee swad . Still a bloody cleaver bloke and top scientist. Not a bad alchemist, either, although he never quite managed the lead into gold trick.
Posted: 06/06/2009 at 11:57
|
|
