Lad on MotorCycle tipped over

Status
Not open for further replies.
FootballFan said:
Was driving away and the rain was coming down earlier. Lights went orange so I slowed down and stopped.

Then saw in my rear view mirror typical motorcycle idiot was driving too close, jammed on his breaks and wallop - bike into a skid and him on the ground.

Got out to see if he was ok, along with a few others, seemed a bit shaken up but sound. daft idiot not aware of weather conditions.

Later I was thinking, should I have waited for police or something? Then again what for? Its not a collision, just a daft idiot.
Click to expand...

Traffic lights have amber not orange.

The RTA s170 says that it is a reportable accident. You need to exchange details or report it
 


FootballFan said:
bit late now like. why should I have to exchange details? I didnt do anything.
Click to expand...

Read up Section 170 of the road traffic act which deals with reportable accidents. It has in its first part, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road an accident occurs. The motorcyclist had to brake because of the presence of your mechanically propelled vehicle, it does not matter if no actual collision occurred between your vehicles.
You also have a maximum of 24 hours to report it too so best get yourself off to get it done
 
yamar1 said:
Duff mans a copper too. Your up for the high jump when he checks your ip adress.
Click to expand...

OP is officially a wrong 'un. No details exchanged so must be reported as soon as reasonably practicable within 24 hours. I am off to ring the out of hours magistrate now for a warrant of arrest
 
FootballFan said:
bit late now like. why should I have to exchange details? I didnt do anything.
Click to expand...

I'd just pack a bag mate. You're off to the big house.

duff_man said:
Read up Section 170 of the road traffic act which deals with reportable accidents. It has in its first part, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road an accident occurs. The motorcyclist had to brake because of the presence of your mechanically propelled vehicle, it does not matter if no actual collision occurred between your vehicles.
You also have a maximum of 24 hours to report it too so best get yourself off to get it done
Click to expand...

I'd suggest he had to stop owing to the lights changing and not necessarily due to the vehicle ahead stopping because of said lights. If he was behind the OP's vehicle, which stopped because of the lights, he would also of had to stop because of the lights. Anyway, there's the defence I'd be advocating for a fail to stop and let's be honest, he's not getting a summons out of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gavinmcant said:
I'd just pack a bag mate. You're off to the big house.



I'd suggest he had to stop owing to the lights changing and not necessarily due to the vehicle ahead stopping because of said lights. If he was behind the OP's vehicle, which stopped because of the lights, he would also of had to stop because of the lights. Anyway, there's the defence I'd be advocating for a fail to stop and let's be honest, he's not getting a summons out of that.
Click to expand...

But the presence of the OPs car made the distance to stop that little bit smaller, therefore owing to the presence of his MPV an accident occurred.
 
duff_man said:
But the presence of the OPs car made the distance to stop that little bit smaller, therefore owing to the presence of his MPV an accident occurred.
Click to expand...

Well, as I say, my defence would be that it wasn't because of the OP's car that he braked, it was because of the lights. And a slippy road. If the OP had been a less diligent driver Sir, he may have driven off quite unaware of the motor cycle behind him coming to a halt resulting in damage or injury. Quite frankly sir, I'd suggest the mother cycle driver was not paying due care to their driving. Has the Officer investigated this? To attempt to penalise my client ( I'm you're brief now OP) is to ignore his fundamentally decent actions at the scene for which he could never reasonably suspect was caused by his driving.
I submit that it was, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle being on the road other than the motor vehicle that the complainant was driving, in a potentially dangerous manner, the defendant could reasonably surmise they had fully complied with their obligations which I would propose, were nil in respect of this article if said act.
 
gavinmcant said:
Well, as I say, my defence would be that it wasn't because of the OP's car that he braked, it was because of the lights. And a slippy road. If the OP had been a less diligent driver Sir, he may have driven off quite unaware of the motor cycle behind him coming to a halt resulting in damage or injury. Quite frankly sir, I'd suggest the mother cycle driver was not paying due care to their driving. Has the Officer investigated this? To attempt to penalise my client ( I'm you're brief now OP) is to ignore his fundamentally decent actions at the scene for which he could never reasonably suspect was caused by his driving.
I submit that it was, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle being on the road other than the motor vehicle that the complainant was driving, in a potentially dangerous manner, the defendant could reasonably surmise they had fully complied with their obligations which I would propose, were nil in respect of this article if said act.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but did he report it as per his duty under S170? Plus there's no need to call me sir, sarge will do ;)
 
gavinmcant said:
Well, as I say, my defence would be that it wasn't because of the OP's car that he braked, it was because of the lights. And a slippy road. If the OP had been a less diligent driver Sir, he may have driven off quite unaware of the motor cycle behind him coming to a halt resulting in damage or injury. Quite frankly sir, I'd suggest the mother cycle driver was not paying due care to their driving. Has the Officer investigated this? To attempt to penalise my client ( I'm you're brief now OP) is to ignore his fundamentally decent actions at the scene for which he could never reasonably suspect was caused by his driving.
I submit that it was, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle being on the road other than the motor vehicle that the complainant was driving, in a potentially dangerous manner, the defendant could reasonably surmise they had fully complied with their obligations which I would propose, were nil in respect of this article if said act.
Click to expand...

You are hired! :lol:
 
duff_man said:
That's all well and good, but did he report it as per his duty under S170? Plus there's no need to call me sir, sarge will do ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's only a matter of time before you're insisting on sir or boss. Boss is my guess. My point is. The OP isn't getting a summons is he. Unless some newly promoted Sgt. is dictating that he wants results damn it. Anyway, transfer back up here if your a sgt now- you'd be SIO material within minutes if you've been in the Met. Seems to be the craic before I retired. With me lovely ** pension
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top