Motorcyclist to sue family of teenager he killed

[Sidla]

Originally posted by RockDrummer

Er, YES IT IS! Having killed somebody whilst committing an offence should not offer the opportunity to benefit from it.

So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

 

Does that sound fairer?

 

I suggest that until you know the full ins and outs of the case, you stop playing judge, juror and executioner.

[foo_fighter]

Originally posted by Sidla

I suggest that until you know the full ins and outs of the case, you stop playing judge, juror and executioner.

Precisely, let's not forget people, the young lad who was unfortunately killed was driving uninsured (was the car roadworthy ?), and (at least allegedly) carried out an illegal right turn manoeuvre.

 

So far we've only heard so much of the story.

 

Wait for the full facts to appear before judging the issues.

[cloud]

Originally posted by Sidla

So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

 

Does that sound fairer?

 

 

Well....the law says that in a 30 mph zone, you must not exceed 30 mph. We all know (or should know if we have a driving licence) that if you hit a pedestrian at speeds over 30 mph, their chances of being killed are far more likely.

 

Driving a vehicle on a public road requires a huge degree of responsibilty. If you don't accept this responsibility then you should send your driving licence back to DVLA with a covering letter to the effect of 'sorry, don't accept the highway code.' Otherwise, observe the code and the law.

[ADC_28]

Originally posted by cloud

Originally posted by Sidla

So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

 

Does that sound fairer?

 

 

Well....the law says that in a 30 mph zone, you must not exceed 30 mph. We all know (or should know if we have a driving licence) that if you hit a pedestrian at speeds over 30 mph, their chances of being killed are far more likely.

 

 

That doesn't necessarily answer the question posed.

 

I tend to agree with FF and Sidla on this one. Speed is definitely a strong factor in this equation, but let's not lose sight of the fact the reason that the biker was knocked off in the first place was due to the car driver. Having said that, without knowing the details of how fast the biker was travelling it's difficult to apportion blame as it could be equally possible that the biker was travelling at a pace such that the car driver could not see or hear him prior to committing to the maneuver.

 

However, as a biker I'm a little bit sensitive to the fact that in biker/car collisions the guy on the bike is usually assumed to be guilty of causing the accident and, similarly, 'didn't see you mate, sorry' is considered a perfectly good excuse for knocking somebody off. Yes, some bikers ride like they're late for an appointment with their maker but then heaven knows how many more boy racer mobiles I've seen endangering everyone else. We tend not to tar all car drivers with the same brush. Unless they drive BMWs, that is

 

In terms of uninsured loss, I'm assuming people here can remember the death of F1 world champion Graham Hill? When his uninsured light aircraft came down killing him and all the occupants, the bereaved families were left with no choice but so sue the estate of the Hill family for their loss. The fact was Graham was liked by the families, was not blamed by them for the crash (adverse weather etc) but their sons and husbands had been killed and recompense was clearly due.

 

It's a horrible, horrible business and a distasteful pill to swallow but sometimes legal proceedings like that/this are justified.

 

Anyway, I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets nest but I've got some fairly strong emotions when it comes to bikers being vilified and such this thread moved me to comment.

[Cycleracer]

Its distastefull if you ask me.

Had the car driver survived then yes, fine sue him, but he died and part of his parents would have died with him to.

Putting a claim like that on them is discusting and should be thrown out.

[Siân]

Putting a claim like that on them is discusting and should be thrown out.

 

His parents aren't being sued/having any claim put on them - it must be horribly distressing for them to hear that there's not been the end to this that they thought there was though

 

Had the car driver survived then yes, fine sue him,

 

If there are grounds to sue him there's grounds whether or not he survived surely

[Cycleracer]

Of course there is, but surely on grounds of morality not when he is dead.

[Siân]

Of course there is, but surely on grounds of morality not when he is dead.

 

If he was solely responsible for the accident then you'd hope that morality would stop him from making a claim like this (although it sounds as if he's claiming he wasn't solely responsible) either way the idea of bringing his claim to court is so justice can be done, surely.

[Shine]

Mouseman - fantastic post, and just what I would have posted if I had had time!

[Cyclone]

that does change things doesn't it.

 

It's amazing how if he'd be doing 29mph's you'd all no doubt be vilifying the car driver for driving without insurance. Yes 6 mph difference and it all becomes the motorcyclists fault. (We don't know it was 35 I realise that, just an example).

 

If the car driver contributed to the accident, which it sounds like he does. Then dead or not he is partly responsible.

We can assume that the poor disabled parents will probably be receiving compensation from the bikers insurance, I don't see why the biker is not entitled to compensation to the % of negligence that is assigned to the car driver.

 

IMHO driving without insurance is a much worse crime than speeding by 5mph's.