MCN Law January round-up | "I was apparently recorded pulling wheelies... should I accept guilt?"
Paid partnership with BikeLawyer
![Triumph Street Triple 765RS wheelie on runway](https://mcn-images.bauersecure.com/wp-images/314450/822x548/wheelie.jpg)
Each month, we take a look at the questions that were sent to the MCN Law column, which is written by Andrew Campbell from BikeLawyer.
In January, Andrew was asked about the best way to deal with appearing in court for pulling wheelies, what to do if a council denies responsibility for a pothole that caused a crash, why child pillions don’t usually win compensation and much more besides.
If you need representation or legal advice with a biking matter, visit www.bikelawyer.co.uk or email andrew@bikelawyer.co.uk or call 01446 794169.
A wheelie bad idea
I have received court proceedings summonsing me to court for “not being in proper control of my motorcycle” and “driving without due care and attention”. I was apparently recorded pulling two wheelies on the same road by a police van parked in a lay-by. The summons refers to two counts of each offence, presumably one for each wheelie. Is there anything I can do to defend the charges or should I just accept guilt? I accept that I did do it.
Alex, email
You are fortunate that you are being charged with driving without due care and attention. A wheelie is a specified example of the offence of “dangerous driving”. That is a more serious offence and the consequences can be severe.
An early guilty plea could reduce the penalty. You could also try to persuade them that you will plead guilty to just one of the offences as they were so close in time it is arguable they constituted the same act. This is known as a “same occasion offence” defence. This defence can be found at section 28 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The court may or may not agree with you but it is worth arguing.
If you have anything to argue in mitigation, for example that is was a dry, quiet road then this would be worth doing.
Pothole crash claim
I unfortunately came off my bike when my front wheel hit a pothole. I damaged my clavicle and ribs and had two weeks off work. I submitted a complaint to the local council but they denied any liability. In my opinion the pothole was very dangerous. What can I do to get compensated for my injuries and other losses?
Chris Jones, email
The council has a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain roads at the public expense and to take reasonable steps to ensure that road users have safe passage along those roads.
The council will have a statutory defence to your claim under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 if they can establish that they have taken such care as was, in all the circumstances, required to ensure that the part of the highway involved was not dangerous for traffic. It will come down to whether the council has a reasonable method of inspecting roads and dealing with issues and, importantly, whether or not they followed that method for the road in question.
You will need to establish that either that the council’s method of inspecting and maintaining roads was not reasonable; or that if their method of inspecting and maintaining roads was reasonable, that they did not follow their own policy.
In order to establish either of these you may need to obtain expert evidence from a Civil Engineer. You should instruct a specialist solicitor to look into your case.
The kids aren’t profitable
I had an accident in October. I was out with my just-turned 17-year-old son riding pillion when a car pulled across our path without indicating. I managed to avoid a collision but I did lose control and we both bumped across the road sustaining some injuries. My son’s shoulder was dislocated and he had bruising to his ribs. I have been provided with a solicitor but they won’t act for my son as they say they cannot due to the limited costs available. Why is this?
Ryan, Swansea, email
Acting for children with fairly modest injuries has become unprofitable in most cases because of the very low legal costs available. Additionally, the courts require an infant settlement approval hearing to approve the compensation, which further cuts any fees a firm of solicitors would receive for pursuing the case.
This is compounded by the fact that the courts have often been refusing to allow a success fee to be paid to a solicitor out of a child’s compensation. The result of all this is that children who are not badly injured in road accidents are finding it tricky to find a solicitor to take on the case.
I suggest that your son waits a year until he is 18 and he can then bring his claim himself as an adult (within three years of reaching 18) because he will then be able to find legal representation.
What happens if you commute on the wrong policy?
Back in September I was riding to work when a car I was overtaking knocked me off. I agreed to accept half the blame due to my speed perhaps being a bit excessive. My insurer is refusing to pay the other driver for repairs to her car. They say that my insurance policy was third party and social only, so it did not cover commuting. My insurer is telling me that I have to pay the other driver’s vehicle repairs as I misled them. Is this correct?
Jean, London, email
Motor insurance policies are agreements made in good faith, meaning both parties to the contract have to disclose the correct information.
Even though you were commuting on a non-commuting policy your insurer should still deal with the car driver’s claim rather than cancelling your policy as if it never existed at all. This can happen in very serious cases, e.g. not disclosing a drink/drug driving offence which had it been disclosed would have led to them declining to offer insurance.
In your case, had you disclosed that you wanted commuting cover, the difference would likely have just been a higher premium.
Your insurers should compensate the other driver but they are within their rights to make you repay them for a share of the other party’s repairs.
Guessing life expectancy
I was knocked off my Multistrada two years ago and am involved in a claim for compensation. I was in the Navy for eight years and was regularly getting promoted, but because of my injuries I have been discharged and I am now looking at alternative careers. Because of this, I will lose a lot of my pension. The solicitor for the other driver is asking for a life expectancy report. Why is this needed?
Lance, email
In order to calculate future financial losses, such as for loss of pension, the solicitor will need to know how long someone is likely to survive. This is usually done by reference to a book of tables called the Ogden tables. This is a book that uses statistical data to provide what we call a ‘multiplier’ which is how many years they need to multiply the annual pension loss by. The tables take into account everyday health issues that the general population will encounter.
In cases where someone has a pre-existing medical condition that is unrelated to the accident and which could have a impact on life expectancy and the claim is of a high value, the court will often allow a life expectancy report to ensure a fair and just result. I recommend that you discuss all this with your solicitor who will have access to your medical records.