Are you responsible for the rider/drivers speed behind you? |
Are you responsible for the rider/drivers speed behind you? |
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 18:38
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 21 Nov 2009 From: Staffordshire Member No.: 33,860 |
My first post guys and gals, so please go easy on me.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/new...eading-rideout/ I am both a motorist and motorcyclist of some 25 years, advanced rider for the last 12. I belong to a motorcycle owners club, and attend ride outs and social events, the last one being a 5 day tour round Scotland. I have seen the article above in the motorcycling press, and it has prompted me to join your site to see if anyone knows if there is any truth in the article, and if there is, to perhaps warn others of it. If this article is correct, it would appear that as a lead rider, you would be responsible for the speed of the following riders. I would assume that this would also apply to car drivers too, i see no reason why this should be any different. The fact that you can apparently be held accountable for another road users actions is quite unbelievable to me, but if the article is right, that is what was proven in court. If anyone has any info on the status of this law? or perhaps info on where i can obtain such info i would appreciate it. I often lead rides out, and riding does get quite progressive when conditions allow, so this would affect me greatly. Thanks all, and great site you have here. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 18:38
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 19:16
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,963 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
Another bizarre ruling. Hopefully the chap will launch an appeal?
It is after all a dangerous precedent. This post has been edited by roythebus: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 19:16 |
|
|
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 19:17
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 2 Jun 2008 From: Hampshire, UK Member No.: 20,026 |
I was alerted to that MCN item by a post on our forums and I was speechless. I'm a biker and IaM member and quite how it can be seen as fair to lay blame at the lead rider in this case is beyond me.
Where does it end, will the lead driver in a convoy of vehicles heading down to Brighton for a club show be held to account for all the drivers behind him? At the end of the day, the responsibility for obeying any speed limits rest with the person in charge of the bike/car/whatever and not with someone who has simply taken responsibility for guiding a convoy of vehicles on a trip/rideout. This seems like a clear case of singling out bikers for special measures. And I say that as someone who has have agreed with proactive targetting of bikers acting like berks on some of the well known biker roads. Were I the chap who was fined in this case I'd have a very bitter taste in my mouth and would be seeking to have the conviction overturned. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 20:33
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,343 Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Member No.: 10,873 |
You have got to be joking!!!
I wrote 2 paragrahs but on second thoughts ill just repeat, you have to be joking and that comes from someone who has been involved this year in a pack of 100 bikes and next weekend will be again with large numbers,i know where i wont be though. This country is a joke!! |
|
|
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 23:05
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,733 Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Member No.: 6,622 |
There has got to be something more here. If I am reading it right, he was given his original award from the magistrates court (no precedent) but his appeal at Crown court was rejected on the basis of his being the leader. But how did the magistrates go outside the sentencing guidelines (or did they ?) |
|
|
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 23:23
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Presumably they went outside the guidelines on the basis of the aggravating factors of the offence.
-------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Sun, 22 Nov 2009 - 23:28
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 442 Joined: 11 Jan 2008 From: Aberdeen Member No.: 16,574 |
Having just read the article this evening I had to come on here to see if you guys had picked up on this. Of course you have! I ride with a motorcycle club in the NE of Scotland and have led many runs all over Scotland. Not sure if the CC ruling affects things North of the border? If so what next? Will they be picking up on car rallies now? God help us!
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 - 13:07
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,783 Joined: 6 Jul 2006 Member No.: 6,518 |
What're you rebelling against, Johnny?
Whaddya got? |
|
|
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 - 13:11
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
I like the comment at the bottom of the article:
To read how the prosecuting cop posted pictures on a swingers’ website showing him astride a police bike, get MCN, on sale now. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 - 17:41
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Â
Not sure if the CC ruling affects things North of the border? The Crown Court doesn't set precedent at all, north or south of Hadrian's Wall. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 13:14
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,181 Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Member No.: 200 |
QUOTE (Darren Griffin) I'm a biker and IaM member and quite how it can be seen as fair to lay blame at the lead rider in this case is beyond me. I think that the key to this dates back a couple of hundred years and the principle (still current) of 'Joint Enterprise', namely if it can be shown that 'you' were acting as part of a group you are responsible for the actions of part of the group. This has been used against gang members where a murder conviction has been obtained against all present not only the person who used the weapon. In future there will be many group rides where nobody noticed any other riders around let alone knowing any of them This post has been edited by Blackbird: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 13:19 -------------------- Blackbird
Help Ruffle some Feathers |
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 13:18
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 2 Jun 2008 From: Hampshire, UK Member No.: 20,026 |
Yes I've seen the coverage of the use of 'Joint Enterprise' and without debating the rights and wrongs of that particular legislation, I can't see how a gang or group with some spectators and others actively involved in misdoing can be likened to a ride-out where the lead biker cannot reasonable be expected to know or see what is going on 20 bikes behind him?
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 13:29
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,181 Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Member No.: 200 |
I think everybody who has ridden groups knows that if all are of a similar ability riding at the back is hardest (read needing to catch up) therefore if you ride dead on the limit at the front then the rider at the back will need to occasionally speed in order to keep up...... much like the traffic on motorways coming to a halt even when there is no blockage. This all results from braking and accelerating.
So with that knowledge you could be deemed to have goaded 'tail end charlie' into breaking the limit by simply sticking to the limit at the front! Yes it stinks, but so does (IMHO) a lot of traffic law! -------------------- Blackbird
Help Ruffle some Feathers |
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 17:28
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,963 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
Strange, when i re-read this thread I saw the bit on the Panorama about the joint enterprise law which dates back about 300 years.
Having heard the pros and cons of that, I wonder if the Met Police will use it against themselves after the death of the demonstrator in the City of London having been apparently beaten by a policeman with a truncheon. Just imagine the other extreme of this law if sokmeone got killed for instance at a football match...all the supporters getting jailed for being there...hmm. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 17:48
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,390 Joined: 14 Nov 2006 From: Wales Member No.: 8,984 |
I always new there was a reason why I preferred going out on my bike alone.
Now I know why. -------------------- "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Links :- 1. NIP Wizard, 2. Speeding - Likely penalty calculator, 3. How to deal with PPC tickets. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 20:09
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
If we ignore the hype for a moment, the crucial 2 words (which only southpaw appears to have picked up on) were "aggravating factor".
Lots of things can be aggravating factors - wet weather, having a young pillion, local school kicking out, etc. There was nothing in the report that suggested that the lead rider could be liable for offences committed by the other riders, but offences committed by them which were attributable to his actions could aggravate his speeding offence. If he was doing exactly the speed limit and others had top exceed the limit to catch up, there would be no offence of his to apply aggravating factors to. Reading between the lines, it sounds like that court believed that he was travelling faster than they were able to prove, and chose to sentence him according to aggravating factors, rather than overtly unlawfully sentence him according to an unproven speed. Off the top of my head, ISTR that joint enterprise' tends be be along the lines of a number of people all kicking the victim and all being guilty of his murder, regardless of who actually struck the fatal blow. I'm pretty sure that that can't be stretched to making other riders in a group guilty of one rider's motoring offences. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 - 21:18
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 From: west yorks Member No.: 992 |
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...02/rahman-1.htm
My Lords, 1. On 4 March 2005 the four appellants were convicted in the Crown Court at Leeds before Wakerley J and a jury of murdering Tyrone Clarke on 22 April 2004. The indictment contained a second count, of violent disorder, on which no verdict was returned. It was not alleged or proved that any of the appellants had personally struck the fatal blow or blows and they were convicted as accessories or secondary parties to the joint enterprise which culminated in the death of the deceased. The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal (Hooper LJ, Gibbs and Roderick Evans JJ) dismissed their appeals against conviction on 23 February 2007, for reasons given by Hooper LJ: [2007] EWCA Crim 342, [2007] 1 WLR 2191. Their appeals to the House raise a narrow but significant question on the direction to be given to the jury concerning the liability of an accessory on facts such as arose in the present case. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Nov 2009 - 07:13
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,963 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
The case highlighted on Panorama involved a number of youths attacking one other who was killed. One of the gang members who had nothing to do with the attack was jailed for a long time for the murder just for being a member of that gang. It may be the same case referred to above by Nigel_Bytes.
Hence my assumption that a lead rider "could" be done under the same law. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Nov 2009 - 07:16
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,181 Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Member No.: 200 |
as per nigel_bytes post I have to disagree with you Andy.
QUOTE (Andy Foster) I'm pretty sure that that can't be stretched to making other riders in a group guilty of one rider's motoring offences. there have been other cases where as you suggested QUOTE it sounds like that court believed that he was travelling faster than they were able to prove so the highest recorded speed has been given to all. That may be easier to accept if say three or four riders were closely grouped together but some rideouts stretch for a mile or so!The point I was making (and will stand by) is that sticking to the limit could be interpreted as an 'aggravating factor' since it forces tail end charlie to speed if he is to remain with the group. -------------------- Blackbird
Help Ruffle some Feathers |
|
|
Wed, 25 Nov 2009 - 13:48
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The point I was making (and will stand by) is that sticking to the limit could be interpreted as an 'aggravating factor' since it forces tail end charlie to speed if he is to remain with the group. If the lead rider is obeying the speed limit then there's no (speeding) offence for his actions to be an aggravating factor of. I find it very hard to think of circumstances whereby one rider could be said to have a common purpose with other riders to break the speed limit unless it was a pre-arranged race. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:24 |