Driver Who Caused Fatal Crash Was Council Road Safety Officer

Indeed, providing you both mean "in effect" rather than "effectively".

 

wrote in

Years ago I was following a mate down the outside of a bunch of cars, when
a woman pulled out of a side street without looking (the stupid git in
front waved her out while we were overtaking him). My mate's bike slammed
into her car and he went right over the top and broke his collar bone. I
swerved across the road and drove my bike onto the pavement, scattering
pedestrians in all directions, eventually stopping just inches short of
crashing into a very solid brick building. My point? The daft cow who
pulled out was a driving instructor!!!

 

Years ago I was following a mate down the outside of a bunch of cars, when

Thing is, you were all guilty of making poor observations. Stoopid git for
not checking in his mirrors, stoopid cow for not checking that it was safe
to pull out and stoopid gits for not spotting the impending problem by the
first two stoopid gits. No one is blameless here.

 

Years ago I was following a mate down the outside of a bunch of cars, when

Thing is, you were all guilty of making poor observations. Stoopid git for
not checking in his mirrors, stoopid cow for not checking that it was safe
to pull out and stoopid gits for not spotting the impending problem by the
first two stoopid gits. No one is blameless here.

 

You were overtaking, in town, at a junction and you got caught out.
Sounds like insufficient observation and excessive speed to me. What's
that thing about never overtaking on junctions.

The driver would have been looking right, view blocked by the car that
motioned her out, once he'd said "go" she would have been looking *left*
for traffic in the other lane. She simply wouldn't have been expecting
a couple of blokes on bikes to overtake on a junction.

How did the insurance claim go?

 

Twice?

 

As far as I am aware only guilty pleas have caused convictions for
simple speed cases where the CPS have added dangerous. There have been
convictions for death by dangerous when the main proportion of the
dangerous part was speed - but its difficult to plead that the driving
wasnt dangerous when someone has died.

With the only factor in dangerous being the speed the CPS wouldnt have
proceeded on that alone. They would have accepted the plea to the
speed and dropped the dangerous. It just wouldnt have been worth their
while and the chance of conviction would be slight.

 

Alun Palmer wrote

As an apprentice with BT I was just in the process of going down a hole
at a junction when I saw a Scoot get flattened by a car jumping the
lights. Rider and pillion were quite badly broken, the bird never wore
a short skirt again. The driver of the car was charged with all sorts
of nasty things after he (finally) admitted to racing his mate to the
cafe for a cuppa. He too was a driving instructor.

 

You have just described my "big" accident from July last year, above.

Substitute Bedfordshire, the A507 where it runs under the M1 as the
location and an impatient TNT van driver and you have it. I came
round the corner at 45mph and my Bandit impacted the side of the van a
second and a half later.

This was despite having my taken account of the possibility that
something like this may happen in the situation as it was - and having
had a "warning" on that stretch of road. Perhaps it worked - I'm
still here.

Mine never looked: the first he knew of it was the big bang and
commensurately large dent in the side of his van.

 

Funnily(?) enough, that's what I thought reading Pez's post.
:-/
--
| Wik -UKRMHRC#10- 2000 ZX12R-A1 -DC#1 -'FOT#0 'FOF #39 - BOD#12 BOB#12
|# You don't believe me | "Experience is the worst teacher.
|That the scenery | It always gives the test first
|Could be a cold-blooded killer. | and the instruction afterward."
***** human response from wik at blueyonder dot co dot uk *****

 

It was spooky this end, mate. I had to check the poster's id in case
I'd been suffering from ghost writing again.

 

You were a bit luckier than this chap...

 

Indeed I was. That's why I put "big" in inverted commas. If I'd been
going round that corner at usual Bandit velocity ... well, I might not
be here now. I'd call that a result.

 

That's a bit dodgy, considering how many people loud cans can affect.

 

Pardon? Didn't quite hear that...

 

Fair enough.

The bald tyres made **** all difference.

 

Pip wibbled like a little girl....

"If" you'd have been going round there at your usual velocity, you'd
have passed the accident scene 10 seconds before matey pulled into the
field entrance.

Now *that* would have been a better result. Auvache gets it right again,
going slow is dangerous.

--
Lozzo
ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3.
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, two#49, MIB#22, TCP#7, BONY#9,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, KoBV#3.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
www.mjkleathers.com

 

I agree.
My point was that the fine was only the same as the cost of two new
tyres -hardly an incentive to replace them - especially as he was only
prosecuted when involved in another incident. I didn't propose that he
should have been done to the full extent, merely that there is a huge
gulf between the punishment that could have been given and what was
actually given.

 

As huge a gulf as exists for small numberplates, speeding, loud cans and
all the rest of it.

 

That was pretty much exactly the scenario I had in mind.