Legal aid for bike crash - how?

[CookMySock]

No it aint... the cops numbers suggest VERY junior staff. They have come to the wrong conclusion.

Ok, if he has a meeting with her boss, maybe they can all kiss and make up.

Steve

[Patrick]

Ok, if he has a meeting with her boss, maybe they can all kiss and make up.

Steve

Maybe. Most S/Sgts are old and crusty.

[CookMySock]

He called the S/Sgt up who refused to meet him in person. The S/Sgt was convinced from the time he said hello on the phone that it was 100% his fault.

He has also spoken to klingon (KB member) who was a pillion in circumstances identical to his situation except for the location. He finds it intriguing that both patrick and the officer who attended klingon's crash came to a different conclusion regarding who was at fault.

Steve

[klingon]

Yep, after talking to him about both crashes, the similarities are remarkable - except for the outcome!

Why won't the S/Sgt talk to him?

I think he needs an advocate who is a bit older, knows the law, and can talk to the police as an 'equal' rather than what seems to be happening... Whether they are dismissing him because of his age or some other factor, at least they should do him the courtesy of sitting down with him and hearing him out!

[CookMySock]

Why won't the S/Sgt talk to him?

He says;

Because he says he stands by the actions of his officers 100%, and that he's at fault, and that the only reason he's trying to get out of this is because otherwise he will have to pay for damages to other vehicles.

I think he needs an advocate who is a bit older, knows the law, and can talk to the police as an 'equal' rather than what seems to be happening... Whether they are dismissing him because of his age or some other factor, at least they should do him the courtesy of sitting down with him and hearing him out!

I agree. Usually that is a lawyer.


Steve

[Coldrider]

I hope your friend has not listened to your advise of not having insurance.
Otherwise the car opener's insurance company will ream your mate no matter who is at fault, lawyers fees in lou of premiums and all.

[Katman]

I hope your friend has not listened to your advise of not having insurance.
Otherwise the car opener's insurance company will ream your mate no matter who is at fault, lawyers fees in lou of premiums and all.

Isn't it funny how diametrically opposed his opinion can be between two different threads?

[MadDuck]

Isn't it funny how diametrically opposed his opinion can be between two different threads?

Are you referring to this or something else?

Insurance is a waste of time - you don't need it. Cunts like me who aren't insured will just rip you off. See thats a good example of a couple of sentences that will cause a massive fallout.

[Patrick]

Yep, after talking to him about both crashes, the similarities are remarkable - except for the outcome!

Why won't the S/Sgt talk to him?

I think he needs an advocate who is a bit older, knows the law, and can talk to the police as an 'equal' rather than what seems to be happening... Whether they are dismissing him because of his age or some other factor, at least they should do him the courtesy of sitting down with him and hearing him out!

Have PM'ed him. Take up the offer of "discussing" the crash with the crash unit. After that, I will make some phone calls myself......

He says;

Because he says he stands by the actions of his officers 100%, and that he's at fault, and that the only reason he's trying to get out of this is because otherwise he will have to pay for damages to other vehicles.

I agree. Usually that is a lawyer.


Steve

That's a rare trait these days... or perhaps in these parts...???

Of course its the only reason he is trying to get out of it. That, and the fact that he did nothing wrong........

[Patrick]

Update:

Heard from S/Sgt. File on way to be "reviewed" by Crash Office.

Tis a difficult one, with possibly no real winner, which is why it was "filed" once the earlier ticket was canned.

Unfortunately, others have been pushing and playing dodgy cards...... hence the review.

Could be that both end up charged. 6R on 1000cc and car door opener.......

Insurers, his or hers, "could" both try and argue that bike shouldn't have been there as one rule was in fact being broken? Cars will definitely be fixed, no problem......

Not the flashest result, but out of my hands now......

Hate to think a wrong button was pushed needlessly, but it wasn't from me......

[Indoo]

I know of a situation where a drunk driver has been in a crash, he was prosecuted but that was a seperate matter from the crash itself which was caused by the other sober driver failing to giveway and being found at fault and liable in regard to the crash. Exactly the same applies when people pull out in front of speeding drivers and cause a crash, the fault and liability for the accident is still on them even if the other driver is also breaking the law by speeding.

I would imagine the same principle would apply in this circumstance, taking due car and diligence opening your car door to ensure no other vehicle or cyclist, runner etc is going to hit it, the onus is always on the door opener, just like the onus is always on you to ensure on you to stop short of the vehicle infront.

In this instance even if he wasn't overtaking in a legal manner, what caused the crash and hence liability was the careless actions of the car door opener. Any offences committed by the biker should be dealt with seperately and only listed if necessary as contributing not causative factor on the traffic crash report. I would imagine the door opener will be trying something along the lines of that she carefully looked behind her, slowly opened the door and suddenly this motorbike swerved dangerously from behing a stationary car and plowed right into the door, thats pretty much the only defence she can use, that she did take due care and diligence as expected from a prudent motorist.

[CookMySock]

Any offences committed by the biker should be dealt with seperately and only listed if necessary as contributing not causative factor on the traffic crash report.

Yeah but what the fuzz is doing, is only charging him if he makes a noise. This is "be quiet, or it will go bad for you."

I would imagine the door opener will be trying something along the lines of that she carefully looked behind her, slowly opened the door and suddenly this motorbike swerved dangerously from behing a stationary car and plowed right into the door, thats pretty much the only defence she can use, that she did take due care and diligence as expected from a prudent motorist.

The door opener is not in a position to make any representations about what he did or did not do. She could not possibly have know he was there, or else she would have not opened the door. She has already lied about the door being "ripped right off" and stated other things like "rider was in a hurry" and "rider was speeding" when she is not remotely in such a position to say so. Because she is a PO her word is taken as fact and our mate is treated as a criminal, and forced into a position where he has to PAY for the whole incident.

All that has happened lately is now possibly faces even more charges. Charges he would not have faced if he kept his mouth shut.

Steve

[Indoo]

Its irrelevant as to the cause whether the biker was speeding in a hurry or whatever, so unless shes able to prove that she did exercise the same care as a prudent motorist would then your mate is pretty safe. Presumably as they didn't see the biker they can't make any claims to his behaviour, unless they are suggesting that they saw the bike coming and opened the door regardless. Patricks already cleared up that what the biker was doing was legal, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me, even if they elect not to ticket or charge the car driver, 'fault' and liability for the crash will still be determined and reflect the outcome insurance wise.

Your mate shouldn't be facing any additional charges, if its only the crash file being reviewed then non-causative factors such as breaching his 1R should not be addressed, they are for the officers who attended and obviously either warned him or overlooked the breach. If he receives a ticket at this date he would have strong grounds for a complaint and it certainly wouldn't look good given the previous ticketing error.

The most important fact is to get the TCR ammended to state the other party is at fault which is what the insurance companies work off, ticket or no ticket. I would imagine any prospects of your mate getting a pay out from his own insurance would be limited given his license situation if they can't determine fault or its deem mutual liability which is pretty rare.

[Coldrider]

The pigs have written two contradicting letters, what is the next one going to say, how fucked up they really are?

[CookMySock]

The police have 'reviewed' the file, and as a result have given him a $400 ticket for restricted licence on 1000cc bike, and have also issued the car door opener a $150 ticket for "carelessly opened car door".

Sounds fair dunnit?

Steve