Speeding motorcyclist

[Big Jenny]

I'll try and keep it brief. A motorcyclist, doing approx. 100 mph, hit the rear of my vehicle while my son was driving. My son was almost stationary at the time, indicating to turn right. Son and his girlfriend suffered whiplash injuries, the car was completely written-off. Motorcyclist suffered fairly serious injuries and his bike was written-off. We have had a letter from the Police saying they do not think it is in the public interest to prosecute the motorcyclist. We have written back (as has my son's girlfriend) saying we feel very strongly that motorcyclist should be prosecuted. Police have written back saying they've looked at the case file again, but still stand by their original decision - not to prosecute.

My question is, is there anything further we can do? We can send letters back and forth to the Police like this for ever. Is there anyone else we can write to, or contact, to look at the case independently? There is nothing in it, financially, for us, but I do feel very strongly that this motorcyclist should be allowed to get away with this sort of reckless driving. I would appreciate any advice.

BJ

[bednobs]

jenny, how do you know the m/c was doing 100? It would seem to me if the m/c was doing 100 and hit a stationary vehicle, he would be more than seriously injured! Perhaps the police see it as an accident, pure and simple? can you ask them on what basis they have come to their decision?

[bednobs]

i wonder if they mean that not in the public interest means its very expensive to prosecute someone, and they feel his injuries are severe enough that he hasn't got away with it

[bednobs]

i wonder if they mean that not in the public interest means its very expensive to prosecute someone, and they feel his injuries are severe enough that he hasn't got away with it

[Shadow Man]

Totally agree with bednobs. If a motorcyclist was doing anywhere near a hundred when he hit a stationary car he would be DEAD AS A DODO!!!

And justice has been done unto him surely??

[pug100]

Hi Jenny,
Can I ask what are you trying to achieve? Do you want the motorcyclist locked up or fined or do you want compensation? Was the motrocyclist insured and have you been reimbursed for the damage to the car?

[tigwig]

Well i agree with you Jenny I think he should be prosecuted for at least driving without care and attention even if he wasn't doing anywear near 100mph. Too many motorbike drivers are reckless and drive like complete idiots, I know car drivers do as well sometimes but not as much as motorbikes. Sorry but I don't know if you can do anything about the police's decision though

[bednobs]

i suppose you actually have to weigh up spending thousands and thousands of pounds on a prosecution, with the possibility of a fine at the end of it of just a fraction of the cost, or taking out a useful member of society and putting them in prison at the taxpayers expense to teach him a lesson he's already been taught, then him learning the tricks of the trade in prison, not being able to be employed when he gets out etc, family has to go on benefits.

[happyjo]

Hi
Imo, I suspect the bike rider may have suffered horrendous injuries, he may be severly injured for life. I think he may regret his speed!!!

I think the police will look at would a prosecution change the situation? probably not. If your son or his girlfriend had suffered more serious injuries, then I think they may have taken a more strict approach.

I feel for your son and his girlfriend, but thank your lucky stars they are alive, albeit with whiplash.

If they want compensation, I am sure they can get onto their insurance or an ambulance chaser law firm.

Jo x

[Big Jenny]

Thank you for all your answers. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. We are pretty sure that the motorcyclist was going about 100 m.p.h. because my son saw him, and another motorcyclist, in his rear view mirror apparently having a race. They were on the wrong side of the road for much of their approach, and although my son was indicating right, it would seem that the motorcyclist didn't realise until he was nearly on top of him. The speedometer on the bike was smashed and the needle was stuck on 95, so assuming he started to brake when he realised my son was stationary, he was probably doing 100 or more on his approach. He was thrown onto the grass verge, and as far as we know suffered some broken ribs, a punctured lung, and a broken ankle. The police were astonished that he wasn't more seriously hurt, or even killed.

While I sympathise with him up to a point, as he was hurt, I still feel that it was his own stupid fault and that he was driving recklessly. I am very grateful indeed that my son and his girlfriend were virtually unscathed, but it could so easily have not been the case. Should this bloke be allowed to get away with driving like that? He says he can't remember anything about the accident, but all that says to me is that you can drive like a steaming idiot, write a couple of vehicles off, injure a couple of people not too seriously, and if you pretend you can't remember anything about it, you get off scott free. If you or I were caught doing 38 in a 30 m.p.h. zone, without causing any accident, we would probably be prosecuted. It makes me very angry.

BJ

[cascarelli]

I agree with you Jenny. Why should he get away with breaking the law and, lets face it, attempting to kill someone just because he injures himself doing it?

As you say, if you were caught doing 40 in a 30 mph area you'd be prosecuted. I can't see the argument standing up that you'd learned your lesson by doing it!

I suppose we'd let off a burglar who injures himself breaking into your house too? Crazy!

Is it not possible to take out a private prosecution? I don't know the answer to this but I understand your sentiments.

[Shadow Man]

Just a few further points and clarifications.

Yes it is possible to take out a private prosecution re any shortfalls in insurance NOT for the driving side of things. However, this will cost you about 3 grand up front with only a balance of probabilities.

There is no way the police can prosecute without evidence (which has to be collaborated in speeding). If "joe publics" testimony was good enough for speeding offences the cop shop will be inundated with Victor Meldrews saying he saw a Ford Escort doing 44 in a 30mph stretch.

Further, although no doubt the bike was speeding it is very hard to judge a cars or bike speed. So much so that the police are not allowed to without very accurate and Home Office tested equipment. Even if a speeding offence is carried out by a policemans speedo, it will usually only be followed through if there is another officer in the car and then the speedometre (or whole car usually) is taking in for calibrations checks. So we need collaboration and calibration!!! There is no case law whatsoever on visual "estimations" of speed.

Further, I still maintain that a 100mph crash will kill the rider. Look at the damage a cricket ball bowled at 80mph does to a cricketers chest when it is unprotected. Imagine the weight of person therefore on concrete (or even a grass verge). I am certain he would die.

[bednobs]

also, it is probably just as easy for the m/c to say your son pulled over to the middle without looking , or was in some other way to blame as it is for your son to say "he was doing 100 mph"
Im not saying thats how it happened but if there is no EVIDENCE aany trial whould have to find not guilty