Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Jag Driver Kills Rider & Gets Off With SMIDSY Defence

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Womble, Jul 4, 2012.

  1. speechless...
  2. please start using "i didn't see the '60' sign so I can't be responsibile for doing '68' " as a defense
    • Like Like x 3
  3. That's what I was thinking...

    Here I thought you can get done due to negligence/ignorance if you break a law you didn't know existed.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. True - ignorance is no defence
  5. That's disgusting. There has to be more to it surely?????
  6. Makes your blood boil !!!!!
  7. Here's the text of the article SC linked too.

    = = = =
    A motorist has walked free from court after being cleared of causing the death of a Lincolnshire motorcyclist.

    Ian Duncan MacIntyre, 58, was driving his Jaguar XF sports car when he collided with a Ducati motorbike ridden by David Blackburn. It happened on the A155 at Hagnaby, between Alford and Sutton on Sea.

    Mr Blackburn, 53, from the nearby village of West Keal, died as a result of the crash which occured shortly after 5.30pm on 9 April, last year.

    The prosecution alleged Mr MacIntyre, from Foxton, Cambridgeshire, was driving carelessly when he pulled out of a staggered junction into the path of Mr Blackburn's motorcycle.

    But a jury at Lincoln Crown Court cleared Mr MacIntyre of causing Mr Blackburn's death by careless driving after hearing he simply did not see the motorbike coming.

    Mr MacIntyre was discharged from the dock after after the jury took just minutes to return their not guilty verdict at the end of a three-day trial.
    The jury heard Mr MacIntyre, who was travelling with his wife, described the sun as low and blinding when he looked to the left asMr Blackburn rode along the A155 from west to east.

    Robert Underwood, prosecuting, said: "On April 9 2011 at about 5.35pm David Blackburn was riding his Ducati motorbike. That motorbike automatically had illuminated it's front light.

    "The weather conditions were dry, the sun was bright, the sky was clear blue.
    "Mr MacIntyre was the driver of a Jaguar motor car. His intention was to cross that junction and continue along that road, but as he pulled out of that junction the Ducati ridden by Mr Blackburn collided into his car."

    Mr Blackburn, who was travelling along the A155 between the villages of Eat Kirkby and East Keal, suffered fatal injuries.

    The jury were told to consider the position of the sun at the time of the collision. Mr Underwood told them: "How low in the sky was the sun? How bright was that sun?

    "What kind of impact did that have on Mr MacIntyre when he emerged from that junction."

    Mr MacIntyre, of Shepreth Road, Foxton, Cambridgeshire, denied acharge of causing death by careless driving.

    = = = = = =

    What a disgrace. If you couldn't see up the road, wouldn't you take extra precautions??

    But what am I saying... we have the cupcake killer, who did a blind U turn in total fog and they got off. :roll:

    • Like Like x 4
  8. FFS - the bare minimum required competence to drive just gets lower and lower...

    If its harder to look, then damn well look harder!
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Keep in mind he was found not guilty by a Jury of peers
  10. And if he was wearing fluro he would've been HARDER to see if the sun was behind him.
  11. His headlight being hard wired on probably made him harder too see as well. But that argument was lost a long time ago.

    Look i can understand why he got let off, i mean if he turned his head and had a quick glace up the road (same thing i guess he would have done in most situations) and didnt see a bike, of course he would have gone. Im sure he did that loads of times each day at many different junctions for the last 20 years or whatever with out hitting a bike.

    I mean, are we supposed to sit there at junctions and just keep staring down the road until we see a bike? what if there is no bike actually there? how can you ever be sure 100% that you have seen the bike, or that there isnt a bike there.

    Look its terrible that this guy died, and is leaving behind his family.

    However the driving public does not feel like they should put in extra effort to compensate for our decision to increase our risk out on the roads by riding a bike.

    If he had pulled out on a car, likely the accident would have just been a fender bender with no fatalities. Hence the court sets him free, because in normal circumstances this wouldn't have resulted in fatality thus the driver does not deserve a manslaughter charge or criminal driving change.

    Of course as a rider i find it disgusting that this man is allowed to walk free however i can understand the logic and reasoning behind it. Its shit but its reality, we need to rely on our own safety to keep us alive.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. You forgot to mention to TV ad that shows a driver proceed to make a turn even though they can't see shit from the oncoming lane. He "takes all required steps to look for other road users before proceeding to turn." Given that those words and images come from our governmental road authorities, not a jury of peers, I would argue that this kind of thinking is probably more rampant here than in the UK.

    I can't believe how simple it is. If you can't see anything at all, don't go.
  13. People need to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. That's what happens when you become an adult.

    If you've killed someone because of your carelessness, you've killed someone because of your carelessness.

    Not, you've killed someone, but only because they were on a motorbike, oh well.

    That's a shocking decision by the jury. The fact is, he is definitely careless if he didn't see the motorbike, whether the sun was there or not. If he can't be 100% sure there's nothing coming down the road, including motorbikes, cyclists and whatever else is legally allowed to drive on the road, then he should reverse up and go a different way or pull over and hand back his license to drive if he thinks going anyway is an option.

    What sort of message does that decision send to the public? It's okay to be careless if it's only a motorbike, or a cyclist, that you crash into?????
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Obviously bullshit because the sun never shines in England.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. But how can you ever be 100% sure there isnt a motorcycle when you check?
  16. So an error goes unpunished and it's OK? Seriously?

    You're supposed to be CERTAIN that there's no traffic. You stay there for as long as it takes for you to make that decision. FFS. It's not rocket science.

    So you proceed slowly. If the bike sees you, it can take evasive action.

    Well there you go, you've just defined the problem is with the lack of care and respect from the driving public and what's worse, YOU ARE APOLOGISING FOR THEM. Good one mate.

    Are you sure?? A T-bone at main road speed INTO THE DRIVERS SIDE OF THE CAR?

    Insurance and coppers would have found him guilty of FAILING TO GIVE WAY and issued fines and liabilities accordingly.

    Are you even listening to yourself?

    Sorry, did you say logic? :roll: So einstein, how does the rider rely on his own devices if a driver that looks stationary suddenly pulls out at the last second because they didn't see you??
  17. Look i get it, its a simdsy, im just trying to make sense of how the jury came to the not guilty verdict. People seem to not be able to comprehend why they let him off, so im providing some insight as too why i think they let him off.

    Its because if he had pulled out on anything other than a motorcycle, it probably would have not been anything other than damage to the cars, modern cars are very safe, i doubt there would have been a fatality unless the other car failed to react and didnt brake.

    Because in normal circumstances, nobody would have died, the jury figures it would be unfair to punish this guys actions because this time instead of a car by however remote statistical chance, it was a bike and the guy on the bike died. They are judging him by his actions not by their consequences.