CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 MON. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) What about this. Say it turned out the driver of the car had been on his phone. Who's at fault then? I think he could well have been on his phone. Link. The driver of the Renault, who admitted not seeing David or the car travelling behind, was prosecuted in April. While David was travelling above the speed limit, a number of other drivers had seen both the motorbike and the other car. Ch Insp Spinks added: “We know from the footage that David was travelling up to 100mph. Regardless of the speed of the bike, the car manoeuvre should not have been attempted. He didn't even claim to have misjudged the bike's speed, he didn't see it (or the car behind it) at all. Edited September 5, 2014 by ArteSuave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I've just seen elsewhere that the driver of the car was given 130 hours community service and banned from driving for 18 months. To answer your question Stevo this is where I'm coming from. In the absence of the bike (bear with me) the driver didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't speeding, hadn't been drinking and was correctly positioned in the road for the turning. The bike rider however, was riding like a lunatic from the moment of getting on, and was breaking the speed limit by a considerable margin when he hit the car. The police officer at the inquest stated that at 60 mph, the crach could have been avoided. http://www.derehamtimes.co.uk/news/inquest_hears_how_motorcyclist_david_holmes_was_travelling_at_97_miles_per_hour_down_the_a47_at_honingham_when_he_crashed_with_a_turning_car_1_3649858 If the driver had been on his phone, then that is breaking the law, and would have meant that his attention was elsewhere, and so would partly have been at fault. In this instance though, the speed of the rider is in my opinion, the main contributing factor to the fatal collision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I think he could well have been on his phone. I'd say that's unlikely. The police check all relevant mobile phone records in the event of a serious motor accident, and I'm sure if it was a factor, it would have been reported and the driver would have got a much stiffer sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I think he could well have been on his phone. I'd say that's unlikely. The police check all relevant mobile phone records in the event of a serious motor accident, and I'm sure if it was a factor, it would have been reported and the driver would have got a much stiffer sentence. Can they check something as specific as if your phone is unlocked (and for example, you're reading a text) at the time of impact? I didn't think they could and I was under the impression it's quite hard to prove phone use without visual proof but I genuinely don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 I've just seen elsewhere that the driver of the car was given 130 hours community service and banned from driving for 18 months. To answer your question Stevo this is where I'm coming from. In the absence of the bike (bear with me) the driver didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't speeding, hadn't been drinking and was correctly positioned in the road for the turning. The bike rider however, was riding like a lunatic from the moment of getting on, and was breaking the speed limit by a considerable margin when he hit the car. The police officer at the inquest stated that at 60 mph, the crach could have been avoided. http://www.derehamtimes.co.uk/news/inquest_hears_how_motorcyclist_david_holmes_was_travelling_at_97_miles_per_hour_down_the_a47_at_honingham_when_he_crashed_with_a_turning_car_1_3649858 If the driver had been on his phone, then that is breaking the law, and would have meant that his attention was elsewhere, and so would partly have been at fault. In this instance though, the speed of the rider is in my opinion, the main contributing factor to the fatal collision. I guess I'm trying to highlight the grey area in the situation. If the driver of the car had done exactly what he'd done, but had been on his phone, or drunk for example, then he's at fault. Even though the action he took was no different. I agree that the speed is the main contributing factor. Even if the Clio driver was pissed off his face then I'd still think that. But like I said right at the start, I don't think you can say its the biker's fault. It is certainly MORE his fault. But the Clio driver is at fault too. (Again not saying you or Trent absolved anyone of blame) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 In the absence of the bike (bear with me) the driver didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't speeding, hadn't been drinking and was correctly positioned in the road for the turning. Just to be pedantic though, I don't agree with this. If the driver didn't see the bike at all, which is what he admitted, then he wasn't paying enough attention. That is doing something wrong. He turned across oncoming traffic without taking enough care, bike or no bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Think once, think twice, think bike. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 Our freezer packed up. It's insured. If it had happened yesterday it would be fixed by now. But because it's nearly the weekend, they won't come out till Monday. A weekend of random eating coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Frozen food definitely belongs in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 Just eaten a family tub of ice cream. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Just eaten a family tub of ice cream. This belongs in the Things That Cheer You Up thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 True. Glass half full/glass half empty. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Mike, check pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Finally seen the video that people have been discussing Weird one really , I've watched all manor of stuff on the Internet that people really shouldn't watch and never batted an eyelid but that final whoa really is powerful stuff ... I think the family have made a brave decision and hopefully it will save lives and that can give them some small amount of comfort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 Those magazines where you get a bit of a model train or plane or whatever every week until you end up with a full model. There's one out at the moment for the Mallard. First issue 50p. All other issues £7.99 COMPLETE IN 130 ISSUES! That's £1031.21 Just buy a **** model instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Those magazines where you get a bit of a model train or plane or whatever every week until you end up with a full model. There's one out at the moment for the Mallard. First issue 50p. All other issues £7.99 COMPLETE IN 130 ISSUES! That's £1031.21 Just buy a **** model instead. I'm sure I read once that these magazines don't often generate enough interest to be financially viable for the publishers to print the whole series. That must really be annoying if you were the type to buy into those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 Yeah I was just thinking that myself. Has anyone actually ever completed one? Also, if its monthly, that's over 10 years!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I bought one once, when I was like 7, but the next issue was a fiver, so I went to the model shop and bought a few Airfix instead of doing that shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts