Oldfart 0 Posted July 3, 2012 A CAR DRIVER who killed a motorcyclist after pulling out into his path, has been cleared in court.Ian Duncan MacIntyre, 58, of Shepreth Road, Foxton, Cambridgeshire, pulled out of a junction at the A155 at Hagnaby in his Jaguar XF car into the path of David Blackburn, 53, from the nearby village of West Keal. Mr Blackburn was riding his Ducati and died as a result of the crash.The prosecution alleged Mr MacIntyre was driving carelessly when he pulled out of a staggered junction into the path of Mr Blackburn's motorcycle. The jury heard how Mr Blackburn's front headlight would have been automatically on. Mr MacIntyre denied the charge of causing death by careless driving.The 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 Blackburn leaves behind his wife and five children.Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/smidsy-biker-killer-cleared/20957.html#ixzz1zb80rJYx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Macie_UK 0 Posted July 3, 2012 Wonder if that defence will work if you get nabbed by a speed trap?Must be more to it I reckon - a lack of intent does not mitigate the 'careless' bit - did they drop it to 'due care and attention'? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BanditMike 0 Posted July 3, 2012 Just read the article, and still can't see how this makes sense I'm sure it'll be a great comfort to the family Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madsod 0 Posted July 4, 2012 well i don.t like that at all the law is a fu**ING ASS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dick65 0 Posted July 4, 2012 does'nt make sense at all,i doubt his family will let it lie, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kenb 0 Posted July 4, 2012 Must be in the silly handshake group.Did not see the bike is no defence. I note the bike was running with lights which makes not seeing even harder to believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stantheman 0 Posted July 4, 2012 @Kenb wrote:Must be in the silly handshake group.Did not see the bike is no defence. I note the bike was running with lights which makes not seeing even harder to believe.i agree Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lee1 1 Posted July 4, 2012 Doesn't surprise me its the family I feel for cant imagine what there going through Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chadatious 0 Posted July 4, 2012 Seen this its terrible. Like bloke who hit me said sorry I didn't see you. They all say it. I think they should open their flaming eyes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Neill 0 Posted July 4, 2012 Cant say Im suprised Lincoln court is a joke, I done jury service therethe judges are buffoons who have misdirected the jury Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oldfart 0 Posted July 4, 2012 @Kenb wrote:Must be in the silly handshake group.Did not see the bike is no defence. I note the bike was running with lights which makes not seeing even harder to believe. I agree. Cant print what I think of the legal system when this happens. Seems lately its open season on bikers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BanditMike 0 Posted July 5, 2012 Talking to a lad at work yesterday who's mate was hit by a woman in a car as he was getting into his transit van. He was parked up, in a 40 zone, about 100m or so from the womans home. She hit the van, put the guy in a cast for about 7 months and he, apparently, will never drive again and also managed to write off the transit van She claimed that the low sun obscured her vision and she didn't/couldn't see the van/driver. She escaped any substantial form of prosecution Don't know how the claim for damages/compensation went, but nothing for the actual incident itself. Looks like it's a valid claim should the need arise.To me, that is I always thought that if you couldn't see or had the sun in your eyes you were supposed to slow down and take extra care? I will also point out that this woman was married to a Policeman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oldfart 0 Posted July 5, 2012 @BanditMike wrote:Talking to a lad at work yesterday who's mate was hit by a woman in a car as he was getting into his transit van. He was parked up, in a 40 zone, about 100m or so from the womans home. She hit the van, put the guy in a cast for about 7 months and he, apparently, will never drive again and also managed to write off the transit van She claimed that the low sun obscured her vision and she didn't/couldn't see the van/driver. She escaped any substantial form of prosecution Don't know how the claim for damages/compensation went, but nothing for the actual incident itself. Looks like it's a valid claim should the need arise.To me, that is I always thought that if you couldn't see or had the sun in your eyes you were supposed to slow down and take extra care? I will also point out that this woman was married to a Policeman Sounds like the funny handshake club at work again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trebor4460 0 Posted July 5, 2012 absolutely beggars belief... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites