Accident on bike meet - participants charged by Police

G

Guiseley

Senior member
 West Yorks
I don't have any other facts than those listed in the attached article, which were repeated in the local news, but it seems that the fellow participants of a run organised between mates have all been charged when one of their party had a fatal accident. :erm:

I've not seen this before and wondered what the parallel was if someone had a bump during one of 'our' runs?

Anyone with a more legal mindset with additional info, or anyone come across this before?

Particularly the bit that says "Legislation is already in place for a lead rider to be charged for speeding offences comitted by others in a group."

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/five-bikers-charged-over-group-riding-deaths/17515.html
 
My legal skills only extend to contracts, so no cases to backup here, but as background from my past...

In the lotus world convoys are not allowed anymore, due to the risk of police action in the event of an incident. There were instances of club runs (in biking forums), where the members of the run and the legal owner of the forum were included in the investigation after an accident. Lotus clubs such as SELOC are now MSA approved and register runs officially to provide protection to the forum owners. If anyone on the forums organises a run without MSA approval being sought, the thread is pulled - the risk of litigation is judged too great.

A big issue is also insurance, many policys state if you are part of a convoy your cover is not valid - best to check this before going on a run. The magic number on when a group is judged a convoy is generally 12 I believe.

Will see if I can find detailed refs....
 
I did post something similar over a year ago when I suggested that care be taken with organising our events, after a similar event took place, but I was shot down for being paranoid and trying to spoil other members' fun.

That's one of the reasons that I tend to go on drives that involve no more than 5 vehicles, and it also has the added benefit of making it easier to keep the group together. That's also why I tend to driver slower in a group than when by myself

If someone in the group decides to 'burn rubber' at every possible opportunity, then I'm sure that in the event of an incident most witnesses will conveniently 'forget' the 150 miles of careful driving and simply point out the 'boy racer' antics.
 
Speaking as a frequent organiser/leader of drives I think splitting the groups down to less than 12 makes a lot of sense for several reasons.. Also, I'd already decided to keep speeds down from other events as I wouldn't want someone crashing trying to keep up with me and I know several people have commented that some sections of runs were a little too 'spirited' for them.

It worries me when I see organisers talking about having a 'special' fast/spirited/turbo group at the front, I remember this on an S2000 meet and of course one of the 'fast' drivers stuffed it into a wall. Someone on here is even offering to pass on their newly learned driving skills verbally before setting off on a run :thumbsdown:

Having said all that I really get peed off at this Police state we seem to live in. I hope we continue to organise/participate in group drives sensibly conducted for the 'fun' of meeting up with other like minded people, admiring their cars and enjoying driving around the countryside.
 
Interesting discussion, had not thought of the insurance aspect, my policy states no racing, rallies or trials. With the empathies on rallies here I wonder if a group of zeds having some fun is defined such by the insurance companies and I would question if we are actually covered.

Surmising this logically, if you had an accident and you were followed by another zed, then this could be easily explained by chance, however is you were being followed by six zeds then it could easily be argued that this was an organised meet, ergo a rally, which by definition is a call together for a common purpose. However as an oppose if I were in a fiesta being followed by six other fiesta's this could be achievable by chance due to volume of fiesta's on the road. Thus there must therefore be a legally defined quantity of vehicles that specifically determines the definition of "Rallies" as it cannot be subjective.

Have no idea what this number is mind
 
and if the insurance companies can find a get out clause they certainly will

would be interesting to know the official view from tim@chrisknott
 
sars said:
Interesting discussion, had not thought of the insurance aspect, my policy states no racing, rallies or trials. With the empathies on rallies here I wonder if a group of zeds having some fun is defined such by the insurance companies and I would question if we are actually covered.

Surmising this logically, if you had an accident and you were followed by another zed, then this could be easily explained by chance, however is you were being followed by six zeds then it could easily be argued that this was an organised meet, ergo a rally, which by definition is a call together for a common purpose. However as an oppose if I were in a fiesta being followed by six other fiesta's this could be achievable by chance due to volume of fiesta's on the road. Thus there must therefore be a legally defined quantity of vehicles that specifically determines the definition of "Rallies" as it cannot be subjective.

Have no idea what this number is mind
Click to expand...


Interesting..... I always deemed 'Rallies' to be 'Rally Driving' as per Colin McRae style, and not this version. especially as the ones either side on the certificate (Racing and Trials) are motorsport events. So IF this is the meaning, 'groups of similar vehicles', then we can go 'Rally' Driving instead..... :D
 
The amount of 'exclusions' on policies now is getting ridiculous.

There was an article in the marshal's newsletter about insurance while your car is at a circuit for marshalling. The article stated that it would be possible for an insurer to refuse to pay out if there was an incident at a race meet where you're marshalling, or even if you're only a spectator. This was down the broad nature of the terms of the policy, where the definition of being used on a race track/circuit covered the boundaries of the venue as well as the actual track.

So if you were crashed in to by a numpty on the wet grass, or your car was broken into at a BTCC/F1/GT meet, then you might find you're not covered. Of course, it's unlikely to happen, but would you take the risk?

Marshal's are covered to an extent by the governing body's insurance scheme, so if we get injured during a race (due to flying debris, etc.) then we get incapacity benefit and a contribution to loss of earnings, and we're also covered on the way to & from an event in our own vehicles. However there's nothing in place to cover our private vehicles once we leave them in the car park at the venues, and we can't always keep a good eye on them as we're facing the 'wrong' way for most of the day.

We even had it where the marshals were told to stand down for lunch, but to take car crossing the circuit as a certain driver was giving leisurely passenger laps to some VIPs in his new car. However this owner decided to do some fast laps as well, at the same time as marshals were pootling around the circuit at 30mph to lunch. If this driver had hit one of us then I don't know where the insurance claim would lie, as whilst we are most definitely on the track, we were not racing and just using it as an access road to get to lunch.
 
I used to be chair of J33P and did (and they still so) organise all sorts of events, many that require both on and off road driving. Our club had full PLI insurance to protect the club, committee, public and others.

Without it I won't organise events myself as I would be open to unlimited liability and as a mod probably scooped in. Sad reality that I could lose my home I'd someone did something stupid.

Personally I believe all drives should be in small groups, no long lines and navigating near alone between pre known meet points. Not snakes of 30 cars.
 
Hmm - interesting. I've just called my insurers (Admiral - surprised they were open on a Sunday) and explained the nature of the events, and they said it would be covered and not to worry - the chap even went to check with his supervisor. Not definitive I know but somewhat comforting.

The 'rally' they referred to seemed to be a timed event, not a social meeting of friends travelling to a pre-agreed destination - I did labour that point, and I think he understood.

Another interesting slant on another forum... http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4ab4f18d982d123081e45e29caed4f50&t=261268 - MikeP writes well and seems to have a good read on the matter...

p.s. Don't want to get too paranoid, and I love the meets as much as anyone (7 last year), but could a (il)logical extension to this be some liability for the forum admin / mods / owners? Is there an insurance cover requirement for that?
 
Very interesting post. Last year I was at the ZFest in LA with more than 80 other z folks and I had the opportunity to go cruising the canyons near LA with other like minded drivers on a few occasions. I went with a group of 11 cars one day and I found it rather slow and a bit tricky, the other drives involved between 6 and 8 cars, much easier to stay together and not cause too much attention. I see now why the organizers didn't set up any formal trips but just provided maps and suggestions for us to make our own groups. I must read ALL the fine print on my insurance policy. :x


Who was it said " kill all the lawyers" ?

King Solomon, and every person that has lived since then..... :D
 
Interesting stuff. The incident in the original link is an extreme example, but unfortunately the probability of it happening on an organised run is always present. Obviously I've "organised" a few drives with this forum in the past and the continuation of my doing makes me a bit worried. If something were to happen, I'd not want to be seen as an "organiser" if it resulted in negative actions taken against me because of someone driving like a twat. Something I'll think about for future meets.

I'm always a fan of smaller groups (max of 7-8 cars) setting off 5-10min apart but even now I'm wondering if that's too many? Perhaps it's best to just follow your own route with your own instructions...

Mods/site owners: would someone mind PM'ing me an email address so that I can have a chat about this? I've got a document I've got in mind that I can email (obviously not possible with PMing).

Unfortunately I've had the misfortune of witnessing a serious accident while on an organised drive with another forum (not with z4-forum I might add) around 3 years ago. Running at the tail end of a group of 5 (3 the same make/model but me and another person in different makes). Sunday afternoon, return leg of a 2-day driving trip up north. Approaching a straight approx 1 mile long, NSL, no junctions, perfect visibility. Order of vehicles: LandRover with empty flatbed trailer, car 1 (our group), car 2 (our group), then me, all travelling approx 40-45mph (2 others from our group were already well past the LR). Car 1 makes no effort to overtake. Car 2 waits for approx 15secs then takes a look, indicates, pulls out, accelerates. As car 2 almost level with car 1, car 1 pulls out without checking mirrors. Car 2 instinctively moves right onto grass verge to avoid collison, fishtails a bit, loses it, veers back across road (with car 1 ahead already) and smacks into side of flatbed trailer. Trailer jack-knifes and drags LR over with it. Barrel rolls 1.5 times landing upside down in ditch. Luckily all 5 occupants from LR had only minor injuries, most serious being a nasty head cut (would hate to think of the result if it was a smaller vehicle). I was called to court as a witness for the PF against car 1 driver. Car 2 driver not charged at all (rightly so) and also called as witness. In the end I wasn't needed as car 1 was charged with dangerous driving without needing my presence in court, but it was a shite experience to be involved in. It's one of the reasons I never have a forum sticker on my car (even my PH symbol is going as soon as I remember).
 
I wonder if this applies more to the motorbike groups as they seem to be "aggressive" when in a group, i.e. you are surrounded by them left, right, anywhere when they are a group (not all rallies are like that of course, but more of an observation point as there are quite a few of those around my area).
 
I think it is more of an issue with biker groups, and given the number of runs that must go one every year - this example hitting the press must be pretty rare.

I don't want everyone having to sign a document before setting off on runs, but might be worth having something to limit liability? Could always have route details / contact details on reverse to make it more useful to the recipient.

Any budding solicitors on the forum?
 
The original article was a bike one where the group had been hooning around all day pissing folk off and had been noted everywhere they went riding too fast,agressively, and doing stupid overtakes etc. I think the guy who got killed had been doing wheelies all over the place and generally riding like a knob.I don't think we've got too much to worry about. :thumbsup:
 
bigshurv said:
The original article was a bike one where the group had been hooning around all day pissing folk off and had been noted everywhere they went riding too fast,agressively, and doing stupid overtakes etc. I think the guy who got killed had been doing wheelies all over the place and generally riding like a knob.I don't think we've got too much to worry about. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Oh really? I saw a comment on here, prior to a meet saying "it would be good to see a drag race between a 35 DCT and a Z4M."

I don't know if it actually happened - but that's the sort of thing that gets car clubs a bad name. :(
 
Hmm, interesting article...

The other riders have been charged (nb, not gone to court) for 'joint enterprise', but I'm not sure exactly HOW that would be...

Even if the whole group were driving recklessly, the couple killed were hit by a car which caused their death.

The driver of the car will almost certainly have been arrested, but potentially not charged with manslaughter as (assuming he was driving 'normally' and couldn't take any action) he didn't fall below the care of duty he owed to other drivers - it sounds like the couple on the bike caused the accident.

OK, so that suggests that the couple killed caused their own death via dangerous driving - but that doesn't mean that the other bikers could be charged with manslaughter through joint enterprise...

Even if they were egging the couple of to go faster, etc, they did not "aid, abet, counsel or procure" the couple into the accident (it has to be at least one of these for Joint Enterprise in English law, eg, procuring a knife as a murder weapon, or counselling someone on how to commit murder).

There is perhaps an argument that they abetted them, they encouraged them to go fast/be reckless, but they didn't encourage them to cause an accident that caused their deaths.

The only thing I can see is this:

- Bikers could be charged with abetting the victims to drive recklessly.
- The 'accident' was a 'novus actus interveniens', an unforeseeable intervention.

BUT - WAS it? Driving/riding recklessly can cause accidents...
So, did the other riders recklessly encourage the victims to ride dangerously...?

I can't see what they can be found guilty of - charged, yes, but most of the time multiple charges are pinned to someone 'shotgun style' in the hope that one of them works.

Most likely scenario - they get found guilty of reckless/dangerous driving and are made to feel guilt/sadness for the death of their freinds for the rest of their lives...

Si
(ex-criminal Barrister) :poke:
 
With all due respect, until someone points me at the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act or other pertinent legislation, I will be parking this in the 'bullshit' slot. :)

I don't doubt these guys were arrested but its more likely that it was because the entire group as driving inappropriately and their actions contributed to the accident in question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom