PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Motorcycle rode into car
Candelabra
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 15:10
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,352



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - November 2017
Date of the NIP: - 22 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 24 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - 0 Lake Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was traveling down the road with the intention to turn right into a side street across traffic.

I was indicating and waiting for the road to become clear, as traffic oncoming cleared a motorcycle was overtaking a few vehicles from behind (stationary as I was waiting to turn) and didn't see me making the turn and rode into the front/drivers side of the car.


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The first NIP to the Registered Keeper must arrive within 14 days unless there is a valid reason why that was not possible, for example a recent change of details.

    This link will take you to the advice provided by the RAC's legal team.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:10:24 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 15:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 19:44
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 19:42) *
If a vehicle is stood in the correct place indicating or having progressed further into a right turn and something over takes you at that point then its on their head.


+1


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:40
Post #22


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,266
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



The motorcyclist wants to be having a word with himself. However, that is not the issue. The issue is potentially whether by turning across the path of the motorcyclist without properly checking that it was clear to do so, the OP's driving fell below the standard of a careful and competent driver.


--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:47
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:40) *
The motorcyclist wants to be having a word with himself. However, that is not the issue. The issue is potentially whether by turning across the path of the motorcyclist without properly checking that it was clear to do so, the OP's driving fell below the standard of a careful and competent driver.


Hmmm. Correctly positioned to turn right, and stationary traffic queued up behind me, apart from the normal awareness check, i don't think i have never deliberately checked whether someone is overtaking me before i manoeuvre...

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:21


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:58
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



Since you were indicating, it should have been clear that you were going to turn right. I agree with Logician, its at least 50/50. As a motorcyclist, I don't overtake close to junctions on the offside as this is what can happen.


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:48
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:42) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 16:01) *
According to what you have written above, you saw the motorcycle approaching from the rear, overtaking the vehicles stopped behind you, and then you turned right in front of him (whilst indicating). If that's what you (or witnesses) told the police, then a prosecution for driving without due care and attention is not surprising.

--Churchmouse


Garbage!

If a vehicle is stood in the correct place indicating or having progressed further into a right turn and something over takes you at that point then its on their head.

You do NOT over take near junctions for this very reason.If facts are as said,it would be a clear not guilty plea from me.

The necessary implication of what you are suggesting is that, providing you are correctly positioned and indicating right, you are entitled to turn right without checking your mirrors because if a bike overtakes you it's "on their head". No court would accept that as good law. Where the motorcyclist was "there to be seen", the driver is at fault if he does not check his mirrors and ensure it is safe to commence the turning manoeuvre (Buchan v Whiting [2008] EWHC 2951).

As Logician says, fault here sounds like it was probably 50/50 because the motorcyclist shouldn't have been overtaking, and the OP should have checked his mirrors more thoroughly or for longer to satisfy himself that it was safe to turn. A prosecution for DWDC does seem a little harsh but unless the layout of the road or the speed of the bike means that the OP couldn't have seen the bike, this is not something I would suggest taking to trial. Pleading not guilty and arguing that it is all the bike's fault will likely result in a guilty verdict.

The OP's best bet is to name himself asap and hope a driver improvement course will be offered.

QUOTE (fedup2 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 22:17) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 20:40) *
The motorcyclist wants to be having a word with himself. However, that is not the issue. The issue is potentially whether by turning across the path of the motorcyclist without properly checking that it was clear to do so, the OP's driving fell below the standard of a careful and competent driver.



Who said they never properly checked?

The speed even a small motorcycle can accelerate is quite dramatic.Which leaves even a good competent driver who does the correct shoulder checks seeing nothing wrong on starting the turn.Its quite simple,the motorcyclist not only shouldn't have been there at all,but obviously has some death wish, a wish they WILL get unless they alter their driving style.

Someone tried arguing this at a trial recently and the police got an investigator to workout how fast the bike would have needed to be going to go from out-of-sight to hitting the car in the time between the driver looking away from the mirror and starting to turn. The result of the calculation was 172mph. So the court had to decide whether the bike overtook at 172mph (which the physical evidence didn't support), or the driver didn't look in his mirror properly. Nobody bought the 172mph version of events and the driver was convicted.

Given the layout of the road and the fact that the biker got away with only hurting his wrist, it's going to be very difficult to argue that the biker came up so fast that a careful and competent driver couldn't have seen him.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:50
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,652
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



the view from any mirror has blind spots. Motorcyclist was looking straight ahead. a greater responsibility falls on their shoulders. This of course presupposes that the OP's version is correct. His dashcam can confirm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:20
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



My question to the court would be,if the op did the proper checks,what more should/could they have done they have done to avoid the situation?

Checks are not one directional,nor are you expected to drive looking back where you have been for idiots.As you turn,you do your checks,if clear progress,and your focus should then be on ONCOMING traffic and traffic IN the road you are entering.Humans have but one set of eyes.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:34
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:50) *
the view from any mirror has blind spots. Motorcyclist was looking straight ahead. a greater responsibility falls on their shoulders.


1. There are indeed blindspots. That is why - on their very first lesson - learners are taught to check them.

2. We have no idea where the biker was looking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:38
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:20) *
My question to the court would be,if the op did the proper checks,what more should/could they have done they have done to avoid the situation?

Emphasis on “proper”. The court may conclude that if proper checks were carried out the defendant would have seen the bike. Hence proper checks were not carried out. If a competent and careful driver would have carried out proper checks (and thus seen the bike) the defendant was careless.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:38
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,652
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:34) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 21:50) *
the view from any mirror has blind spots. Motorcyclist was looking straight ahead. a greater responsibility falls on their shoulders.


1. There are indeed blindspots. That is why - on their very first lesson - learners are taught to check them. how often?

2. We have no idea where the biker was looking. but we should, it should be where they are going

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:39
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,938
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:20) *
My question to the court would be,if the op did the proper checks,what more should/could they have done they have done to avoid the situation?

That's a fair question, but the key point here is, based on the OP's account, the proper checks could not have taken place. If you're turning right immediately after a bend, or it's late at night / dark and/or the bike hasn't got its lights on and so on, there's nothing you could do to avoid a collision and a court would be bound to acquit.

However on a straight road, where the bike would have been visible from at least several seconds prior to the collision right up to the point in time when the driver started to turn, the proper checks would result in the driver seeing the bike. In this context "the proper checks" would include looking in the mirror for long enough to ensure that if there is a bike in your blind spot, they have time to move out of you blind spot so you can see them (which, even if the bike is only doing 30mph, would only require you to look in your mirror for a mere fraction of a second).

QUOTE (fedup2 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:20) *
Checks are not one directional,nor are you expected to drive looking back where you have been for idiots.As you turn,you do your checks,if clear progress,and your focus should then be on ONCOMING traffic and traffic IN the road you are entering.Humans have but one set of eyes.

I take your point about looking for idiots, but the courts have specifically held that when turning right, drivers should expect, and check for, bikes overtaking a queue of stationary traffic.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 00:04
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,090
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



Proper checks ? What exactly constitutes a proper check?? Very ambiguous
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 00:14
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,333
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 00:04) *
Proper checks ? What exactly constitutes a proper check?? Very ambiguous


The minimum checks that would be carried out by a careful and competent driver. And would be a finding by the court.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Colin_S
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 07:26
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,321



Did the motorcyclist have a helmet camera?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spanner345
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 08:56
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,708
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
From: hull
Member No.: 14,394



QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 00:14) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 00:04) *
Proper checks ? What exactly constitutes a proper check?? Very ambiguous




Rule 180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

This post has been edited by spanner345: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 11:48


--------------------
ARSE DRINK FECK........



DRINK MORE
TOILET DUCK
50 mls vodka
50 mls Red Bull
330 mls Blue Wkd
25 mls tequila
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 09:27
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,974
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



If this goes to court then there is a realistic chance of conviction (fine and points [3 to 9]) and sizeable costs if pleading not guilty. Even though the motorcyclist appears to carry a percentage of the blame, the court might conclude that the car driver did not exercise sufficient observation as expected of a safe and competent driver. The injury of the motorcyclist could be considered aggravating.

Others may disagree with me but if a course is offered (likely) then it may be pragmatic to take it for an assured outcome.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 09:28


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spanner345
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 11:52
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,708
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
From: hull
Member No.: 14,394



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 09:27) *
If this goes to court then there is a realistic chance of conviction (fine and points [3 to 9]) and sizeable costs if pleading not guilty. Even though the motorcyclist appears to carry a percentage of the blame, the court might conclude that the car driver did not exercise sufficient observation as expected of a safe and competent driver. The injury of the motorcyclist could be considered aggravating.

Others may disagree with me but if a course is offered (likely) then it may be pragmatic to take it for an assured outcome.

I completely agree.


--------------------
ARSE DRINK FECK........



DRINK MORE
TOILET DUCK
50 mls vodka
50 mls Red Bull
330 mls Blue Wkd
25 mls tequila
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tartarus
post Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 12:03
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 284
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,324



QUOTE (spanner345 @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 08:56) *
QUOTE
Rule 180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

I've complied with all that, and still had someone almost smack into the side of me as I've pulled out of a road because they've come zooming around the corner, hidden by a parked vehicle or two on the bend apex. And having been side swiped by a lorry on the motorway because he made the lane move with me in his blind spot, I always check mirrors and manually before anything now, so I don't fall into the same mistake he did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:13
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,090
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (Tartarus @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 13:03) *
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 08:56) *
QUOTE
Rule 180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

I've complied with all that, and still had someone almost smack into the side of me as I've pulled out of a road because they've come zooming around the corner, hidden by a parked vehicle or two on the bend apex. And having been side swiped by a lorry on the motorway because he made the lane move with me in his blind spot, I always check mirrors and manually before anything now, so I don't fall into the same mistake he did.



All very well but we are humans and have only 2 eyes therefore do no have the benefit of 360° vision, in fact only one third of that. It is an impossibility to see in all directions at once and therefore will always be an instance whereby you cannot be certain there isn't something appearing, from an apparent "nowhere"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 23:00
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



QUOTE (spanner345 @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 11:52) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 09:27) *
If this goes to court then there is a realistic chance of conviction (fine and points [3 to 9]) and sizeable costs if pleading not guilty. Even though the motorcyclist appears to carry a percentage of the blame, the court might conclude that the car driver did not exercise sufficient observation as expected of a safe and competent driver. The injury of the motorcyclist could be considered aggravating.

Others may disagree with me but if a course is offered (likely) then it may be pragmatic to take it for an assured outcome.

I completely agree.


I would be taking no course.You do not over take at or near junctions,answers on a post card why not? Hands up the ones that do and deem it safe.If its not safe and by my standards it most certainly isnt, then please let us know why that is? Cos im mistified why in this case some seem to think its ok,then tell the op who seems to have done what the other competent drivers here would have done why they should fold on ifs and maybes when like ive said the bike shouldnt have been there at all leaving no reason at all for Having eyes in the back of their head.
Of course it is all dependant as i said before what has already been said,maybe the op left it open to debate in their statement which has brought on the prosecution. Unfortunately not much has been offered from the op to lead to any conclusion.

Wasnt it you that was knocked off a bike? Remind us again how that came about? Poor obs??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 24th June 2018 - 04:52
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.