"Collision" with another scooter [Helmet cam], Other scooter brakes hard and comes off. No contact. |
"Collision" with another scooter [Helmet cam], Other scooter brakes hard and comes off. No contact. |
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 21:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 30 May 2019 Member No.: 104,082 |
Here's the video link: https://youtu.be/33qW9cZPwu4
I provided the police with the helmet cam footage and they believe I was driving without due care and attention. I was given the option for either a course or go to court. I decided to go to court to defend myself. I can't afford a solicitor at the moment and have already paid £500+ to court as they went ahead with the first court date and found me guilty by default even though I pleaded not guilty. I've been to court to reopen the case and it was accepted as it was their fault. In my view the scooter was speeding down the wrong side of the road towards a zebra crossing where overtaking isn't allowed. Yes I should've poked my head out and not relied on the lorry drivers flashing light as a sign to proceed. I'm not here to discuss what I should've done with the options I had previously from the police or to discuss how silly it was for me to provide the footage voluntarily to police. Just want some advice on the court trial due in a couple of days. Thank you. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 21:28
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 00:26
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 11 May 2014 From: Scotland. Member No.: 70,553 |
Hopefully others can help with points on how to defend this, as given the video and circumstances it seems a little harsh.
It seems however if you were a pedestrian coming to cross the road in front of that lorry, the other Scooter rider would have still came off, but a pedestrian unfortunately doesn't have as high an onus as responsibility legally in these scenarios. -------------------- Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you, but not in one ahead. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 00:38
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
What the prosecution will need to do to secure a conviction is to prove that your actions fell within the definition of careless driving given in s.3ZA RTA 1988 and you need counter that, for instance that regarding sub-section 3, you could not be expected to be aware that the other scooter was overtaking the truck. It is not important that he was on the wrong side of the road, that is inevitable when overtaking, what is important is that he should not have been overtaking approaching a pedestrian crossing, rule 165 of the Highway Code. I suggest you carefully go through the Highway Code looking for rules applicable to your actions and those of the other drivers, a competent and careful driver will follow the rules of the Highway Code, so you need to show that you did, and perhaps that other drivers did not, and you could not be expected to anticipate that they would not. The Code is available online.
Good luck! -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 07:00
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 30 May 2019 Member No.: 104,082 |
Many thanks for the response. I will drill down on the highway code for the defence.
Forgot to add the first court date where they incorrectly found me guilty by default they gave me 6 points! This post has been edited by vespadriver: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 07:02 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:14
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
The standards of a careful and compentent driver* are supposed to be reasonable and viable.
It seems to me that your contribution to the incident was pulling into the other lane (partially and seemingly with a reasonable degree of care) without being able to see that it was clear from idiots overtaking recklessly. You were able to stop almost immediately on seeing the other scooter, and rather than changing course to avoid you, he simply snatched at the front brake and lost control. Would another careful and competent driver have done what you did? Or would they invariably have remained at the junction until they could be certain that there wasn't a kamakazi 'ped pilot overtaking with gay abandon? Clearly the lorry driver would have done what you did. (N.B. As a matter of law, a driver flashing his lights merely means that he is ceding priority to you, not that he has assessed that it is otherwise safe for you to pull out). If a careful and competent driver would not have done what you did, how long would they wait at the junction? With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect that you won't pull out across a lane blocked by a lorry or van again. However, careful and competent drivers don't usually have that benefit. N.B. There seems to be a possibility that it could be argued that even if pulling out across the lorry was not in itself careless, you could and should have been more vigilant for vehicles travelling at speed on the wrong side of the road as you were able to look around the lorry. I'm not sure that the video clip would support such an argument. *"Driver" also includes "rider" (Interpretation Act 1978) -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:24
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
. . . . . As a matter of law, a driver flashing his lights merely means that he is ceding priority to you, not that he has assessed that it is otherwise safe for you to pull out).. . . . Really? Which "law"? Quote - Highway Code rule 110 states that drivers should "only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there", which was always my understanding. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:28
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Case law. Don't recall the name of the case. I had intended to include the caveat that the Highway Code says otherwise, but in the context of the incident/video clip, it is abundantly clear that the lorry driver's intention was to allow/encourage the OP to pull out (albeit as a point of law that it only ent as far as ceding priority).
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:44
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
Obviously most would take a headlamp flash as an indication that the "flasher" is ceding priority, but I find it difficult to believe that any court would find contrary to advice given in the Highway Code.
I have, on a few occasions, annoyed other road users by not taking the implied "all clear" signal as gospel and by taking my time to ensure I could see the way was clear. Maybe it stems from when I was following a coach on my BSA Bantam in the 70s and he waved me past, only for me to find a couple of sheep in the road! One bu@@ered Bantam! (Plus an even more bu@@ered sheep!). This post has been edited by Steve_999: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:45 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:50
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
That is very harsh IMO any driver in that situation would accept the lorry drivers offer and pull out checking left before crossing the centre line and doing so carefully(slowly) aware that a pedestrian may be making there way across but to expect someone to be overtaking illegally. What can you do in the normal course of driving
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:51
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,496 Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,899 |
Looking at the video one could level a charge at the OP that he should've crept out more slowly given that he was crossing an HGV which completely obliterated his view of the lane he was joining.
Unfortunately people will often take other drivers flashing as a cue to proceed with a manuoerve, delegating their normal observational duties to the person doing the flashing. Giving other drivers cue to do things by flashing happens everywhere daily, and its become a language that exists outside of the Highway Code, and people are arguably far too trusting of it and get away with it without incident through luck rather than judgement. In this instance the lorry driver was flashing for the OP to proceed, basically that he could pull out without being run over by him, but beyond that it's tough to argue that the flash conveyed any greater meaning, or that the flash should've been taken as a cue that all was safe, etc. If I were the OP I would feel very hard done by because the actions of the other rider were both poorly observed (overtaking in the first place, not anticipating the junction) and poor from a riding a bike competently point of view. As said above in the exact same circumstances with a pedestrian he would seemingly be fully at fault. This post has been edited by Durzel: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:53 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:03
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Forgot to add the first court date where they incorrectly found me guilty by default they gave me 6 points! Don't get hung up on this. It was a 'mistake' and a guilty outcome is not unusual where the defendant is absent. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:16
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
Looking at the video one could level a charge at the OP that he should've crept out more slowly given that he was crossing an HGV which completely obliterated his view of the lane he was joining. It looked to me as though the OP did proceed reasonably cautiously & that the issue was the other two-wheeler was overtaking the lorry at speed & lost it when he braked too hard on catching sight of the OP. There was ample room for him to avoid the OP so there was no need to panic & brake so hard that he came off. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:41
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 291 Joined: 12 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,321 |
There was ample room for him to avoid the OP so there was no need to panic & brake so hard that he came off. From experience with helmet cameras, they tend to make distances look much further than they really are due to their wide angle effect so the overtaking bike was probably a lot closer than it appears. Also from first sight to him dropping the bike was less than one second so I think he reacted pretty impressively albeit a little too fiercely on the front brake. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:47
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
There was ample room for him to avoid the OP so there was no need to panic & brake so hard that he came off. From experience with helmet cameras, they tend to make distances look much further than they really are due to their wide angle effect so the overtaking bike was probably a lot closer than it appears. Also from first sight to him dropping the bike was less than one second so I think he reacted pretty impressively albeit a little too fiercely on the front brake. He could have swerved instead of panicking & braking so hard. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 12:51
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I provided the police with the helmet cam footage and they believe I was driving without due care and attention. I was given the option for either a course or go to court. I agree that it's very harsh. I also think the other rider went down far too easily. Alas the course would have avoided a prosecution but it's not clear cut to me and the video evidence helps you. In my view the scooter was speeding down the wrong side of the road towards a zebra crossing where overtaking isn't allowed. You need to concentrate on that you took reasonable care (that of a safe and competent driver) - I wouldn't mention the speeding element (it's unproven), especially as he shouldn't have been there at all. As an aside did insurers get involved? -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 13:23
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 30 May 2019 Member No.: 104,082 |
I provided the police with the helmet cam footage and they believe I was driving without due care and attention. I was given the option for either a course or go to court. I agree that it's very harsh. I also think the other rider went down far too easily. Alas the course would have avoided a prosecution but it's not clear cut to me and the video evidence helps you. In my view the scooter was speeding down the wrong side of the road towards a zebra crossing where overtaking isn't allowed. You need to concentrate on that you took reasonable care (that of a safe and competent driver) - I wouldn't mention the speeding element (it's unproven), especially as he shouldn't have been there at all. As an aside did insurers get involved? I called my insurers the day after to let them know and they said thanks for letting them know but there's nothing for them to do unless they have the other riders insurers contact them. So nothing came of that. Funnily enough I went to take part one of my motorbike test the next day and passed. I now have a full license and took a bike safe course with police voluntarily. Not sure if the court will care about that. Thank you for the responses so far everyone. It's going to be stressful back in court tomorrow! |
|
|
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 16:15
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
He could have swerved instead of panicking & braking so hard. Maybe, but it's hardly something that could be suggested to a magistrate. When you have just a split second to make a decision, as the other rider did, the action taken is not necessarily the best. |
|
|
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 - 14:22
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 30 May 2019 Member No.: 104,082 |
So the trial date was today.
They discontinued the case 2 days ago but didn't tell me. Thanks for the help guys. Hope this helps thread helps someone else out in the future. |
|
|
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 - 16:49
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You should claim wasted costs for your attendance.
And well done. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 - 18:40
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Keep an eye on your license status make sure the points are removed
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:21 |