# BMW Hit & Run



## Arjimlad (2 May 2019)

Smashed-up cyclist made to do his own detective work after a BMW driver appears to try to kill him.

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/swai...-injured-archway-cyclist-speaks-out-1-6027987


----------



## lane (2 May 2019)

Crikey that's nasty. Unfortunately this is the third report I have seen this week of people having to do their own investigations and obtain CCTV evidence themselves after a serious collision before the police will do anything and even then it is very limited. It seems like unless someone is killed the police do not take it seriously enough.


----------



## swee'pea99 (2 May 2019)

"The police are investigating but at this time have not made any arrests. *After being told to obtain the CCTV himself,* Thonmoy immediately passed it to investigating officers."
Why, in God's name? What are the frigging police/authorities _for_ if not to identify, pursue and bang up scumbags like this? I'm genuinely astonished.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 May 2019)

Assuming that the witnesses stayed around to talk to the authorities it, should have been very clear that this was not just a case of someone falling off a bike of their own volition. Looking to secure CCTV should have been a priority before the evidence is lost. It is also a bit strange that the video has surfaced before any prosecution.


----------



## lane (2 May 2019)

As I said above third similar issue I have seen reported this week. See below I have copied a post from the local cycling group Facebook page:

"Police still not got back to me with any progress with the chap that knocked me off my bike last Saturday even though we have photo of his van and with his personal details being on Facebook (he’s now taken this down). Been told by consultant it’ll be 4 months until I’m back to full fitness. It looks like cyclists being badly injured by hit and run drivers is not a priority for police in Derby. I seem to have got more response and information from this cycling group than the police and even had to go into the pub myself to get a decent copy of CCTV as police say their copy was too poor quality to identify van. It then took a minute for me to get a positive ID for van from people in this group. Doesn’t give me much confidence in cycling again in Derby. Thanks to everyone for helping so far."

Many responses on Facebook sympathetic to police being under resources. I am not sure that sympathy to the police for doing a piss poor job is necessarily appropriate myself.


----------



## swee'pea99 (2 May 2019)

lane said:


> Many responses on Facebook sympathetic to police being under resources. I am not sure that sympathy to the police for doing a piss poor job is necessarily appropriate myself.



Absolutely. It's not a resource issue. They have the database, they have the technology. All they lack is any conviction that 'this kind of incident' is worth pursuing.


----------



## fossyant (2 May 2019)

No surprise to me that the cops did nothing.


----------



## Slick (2 May 2019)

Can't believe that they haven't identified the driver yet despite the pictures and a full index number. 

Unbelievable


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2019)

DVLA and get the owners details. It's then down to the owner to provide the driver details. 

Owner fails to provide the driver details, go after them.


----------



## mustang1 (3 May 2019)

Slick said:


> Can't believe that they haven't identified the driver yet despite the pictures and a full index number.
> 
> Unbelievable



In other news, cyclists need to get registration plates for their bikes so they can be hunted down in case they shout abuse at any driver who got too close.

Mind boggling stuff going on here. I think it's probably easier to send Neil Armstrong to the moon than it is to figure out why the guy needed to obtain cctv footage himself.

Edit: since posting this, I have come across a separate article about the police bing underfunded. That could possibly be a reason so no offence to any cops here.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (3 May 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48146525


> The Met said it had sent a form to the registered owner of the BMW to ask who was driving at the time.



If true that he swerved across the road then that's attempted murder.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 May 2019)

It astounds me that the police are treating this like a parking bump. They should be kicking doors in to get this guy off the street.


----------



## viniga (3 May 2019)

I just seen the shocking footage of this on the BBC. Though it is not possible to see what happened before the car veered across the road it looks deliberate. Perhaps the police did not have any evidence to suggest anything other than an accident before this - which is still no excuse for the guy having to do his own detective work - but they certainly do now. These people are dangerous and need to be taken off the street!


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 May 2019)

Diogenes said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48146525
> 
> "The Met said it had sent a form to the registered owner of the BMW to ask who was driving at the time."
> 
> If true that he swerved across the road then that's attempted murder.



They sent a form. Wow. Steady on lads. Doughnut anyone?


----------



## Phaeton (3 May 2019)

viniga said:


> Though it is not possible to see what happened before the car veered across the road it looks deliberate.


I have no defence for the driver, but what do you see in that video that make you think it was deliberate?


----------



## boydj (3 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> I have no defence for the driver, but what do you see in that video that make you think it was deliberate?



The driver has swerved onto the wrong side of the road , hit the cyclist, failed to stop and driven off with a badly damaged car. If the swerve and collision were not deliberate, the failure to stop certainly was. Clearly something caused the swerve as well, possibly drink or phone use or some other form of impairment.


----------



## Phaeton (3 May 2019)

boydj said:


> The driver has swerved onto the wrong side of the road , hit the cyclist, failed to stop and driven off with a badly damaged car. If the swerve and collision were not deliberate, the failure to stop certainly was. Clearly something caused the swerve as well, possibly drink or phone use or some other form of impairment.


Can't disagree with any of that but again you have also failed to address the question what are you seeing in the video that makes you think it was deliberate


----------



## T4tomo (3 May 2019)

Can't tell if he swerved onto wrong side of the road or was just driving down wrong side of road. He was coming at a fair lick and prop saw cyclist too late.

Massively stupid driving, but doesn't appear to be attempted murder. 

Deserves a custodial but won't get one


----------



## Zanelad (3 May 2019)

Probably distracted, phone or something, drifted across tbe road and saw the cyclist and panicked. 

No excuse for not stopping. I doubt the punishment will be much worse than if they'd done the right thing, should the driver be brought to court and a decent chance of getting away with it. 

Just seen the cyclist on BBC London news. He was a lucky lad. He's not yet complained formally about the effort put in by the police. Time to do so, I think.


----------



## Dommo (4 May 2019)

There is possibly CCTV from another angle somewhere which would show if he was already on the wrong side of the road for any other reason than to deliberately take out the cyclist. That said, if the police can't even be arsed to get the first piece of footage or basically do anything, then there's little chance of any further investigation. 

Which got me thinking, is there some form of fund setup somewhere for private investigation of these types of incidents whereby plod's work is privately funded and then handed to them on a plate? I'd happily chuck money into such a fund.


----------



## Phaeton (4 May 2019)

Dommo said:


> Which got me thinking, is there some form of fund setup somewhere for private investigation of these types of incidents whereby plod's work is privately funded and then handed to them on a plate? I'd happily chuck money into such a fund.


I think that is a great idea but unfortunately huge can of worms I think, if you go frame by frame as slow as possible the BMW is already over the white line when you first see it.


----------



## Dommo (4 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> huge can of worms I think



Hmm, probably true. I guess it would be probably end up being inadmissible or something.


----------



## cyberknight (4 May 2019)

lane said:


> As I said above third similar issue I have seen reported this week. See below I have copied a post from the local cycling group Facebook page:
> 
> "Police still not got back to me with any progress with the chap that knocked me off my bike last Saturday even though we have photo of his van and with his personal details being on Facebook (he’s now taken this down). Been told by consultant it’ll be 4 months until I’m back to full fitness. It looks like cyclists being badly injured by hit and run drivers is not a priority for police in Derby. I seem to have got more response and information from this cycling group than the police and even had to go into the pub myself to get a decent copy of CCTV as police say their copy was too poor quality to identify van. It then took a minute for me to get a positive ID for van from people in this group. Doesn’t give me much confidence in cycling again in Derby. Thanks to everyone for helping so far."
> 
> Many responses on Facebook sympathetic to police being under resources. I am not sure that sympathy to the police for doing a piss poor job is necessarily appropriate myself.


Ihave to agree with regards our local plod,when i was knocked off they were not that interested and a month or so back i tried to report a driver on his phone i had seen outside the school at coming out time with time,, date, phone number , van reg etc ( number on the van ) and they replied telling me as they hadnt seen it they would not pursue the matter.


----------



## classic33 (4 May 2019)

I'm wondering what the police response will be, if he gets hold of CCTV footage and the registered keepers details.

Both should, in theory, be now easy to obtain. Request in for CCTV footage, where the cyclist is visible, under the "new rules". £12.50 to get the registered keepers/owners details.


----------



## Phaeton (4 May 2019)

classic33 said:


> under the "new rules". £12.50 to get the registered keepers/owners details.


Which "new rules" are these?


----------



## classic33 (4 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Which "new rules" are these?


If you feel there's a chance that you were caught on CCTV, public or private, it's a written request to find out. 

"New rules" was the change in data protection last year.


----------



## viniga (5 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Can't disagree with any of that but again you have also failed to address the question what are you seeing in the video that makes you think it was deliberate



As I said I do not know what happened on the road before this. I acknowledge that perception and fact can be two different things and I hope that this was not a deliberate act but this was my perception when I watched it. So I watched it again.

Why? Well it looks deliberate due to the chosen trajectory of the car, it comes round the corner at speed on the RH side of the road with no obstacle on the LH side to avoid, in the short period of time in the video where (if he was looking) the cyclist was visible to the driver there seems to be no attempt made to swerve or emergency brake. The car correcting course after hitting the cyclist almost seeming like it was a perfectly timed hit. Finally, no attempt is made to give any aid afterwards.

Now perhaps the driver did not see the cyclist until too late, perhaps they were to scared of the consequences and so didn't stop. _But they chose their speed and line - that was a deliberate choice and makes the subsequent collision look deliberate._


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2019)

I didn't know this bastard, namely Sean Fagan, 29, (1.12.89) of Regina Road, Crouch Hill, had been caught and has already pled guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to stop and failing to report. http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/bmw-driver-faces-jail-mowing-down-cyclist/

He is bailed until 2 July and will hopefully get a proper jail sentence.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Jun 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I didn't know this bastard, namely Sean Fagan, 29, (1.12.89) of Regina Road, Crouch Hill, had been caught and has already pled guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to stop and failing to report. http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/bmw-driver-faces-jail-mowing-down-cyclist/
> 
> He is bailed until 2 July and will hopefully get a proper jail sentence.



I was wondering what happened in this case - it is a bit worrying that the judge is hinting that a custodial sentence may not be appropriate.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> I was wondering what happened in this case - it is a bit worrying that the judge is hinting that a custodial sentence may not be appropriate.


_"‘This is a serious matter which would normally attract an immediate prison sentence."_ So, what's 'abnormal' about this case of a driver ploughing into a cyclist and doing a runner?


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

Not really. there are strict sentencing guidelines. 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging

So the maximum sentence is 5 years with 2 years disqualification plus fine. The defendant pled guilty at the earliest stage which would usually carry a mitigation of a third off the sentence (so 3.5 years). However, a custodial sentence can be suspended.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/

In the custodial guidelines here it suggests that if there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation or strong personal circumstances then that leans towards suspension. however if there is a prior conviction, this leans towards a custodial. There will also be submissions about the plaintiff's health and mental state as these may also influence whether a stay in prison is appropriate.

In this case the Judge is just acknowledging the fact that the platiff pled guilty straight away and whilst that attracts credit he also warns that this sort of offence usually carries prison time. I think it is likely the plaintiff will spend some time in prison, but probably not as much as some people would like. It's Judge speak for " you might think that pleading guilty straight off will keep you out of prison, but that may not be the case".


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Jun 2019)

He did not plead guilty at the earliest stage. He 'no commented' himself in the Police and plead 'Not Guilty' at the Magistrates court.


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

He has mitigation for the no comment as he was unrepresented. He indicated to the court that he wished to plead guilty at that point but did not know what to do. Lack of representation is a big legal issue at the moment. It is for the sentencing judge to decide whether he accepts that though.


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2019)

"No Comment" to me, is worse than choosing to say nothing. 

It indicates some thought has been given prior to being questioned, to any questions that may be asked about the incident.


----------



## flake99please (5 Jun 2019)

I’m assuming that legal representation would have been offered, and declined by the defendant in this instance.

If that’s correct. How would a judge make allowances for lack of representation?


----------



## DaveReading (5 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> The defendant pled guilty at the earliest stage which would usually carry a mitigation of a third off the sentence (so 3.5 years).



I read the judge's comments as suggesting that there may also be aggravating factors which would increase the possible sentence.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> it is a bit worrying that the judge is hinting that a custodial sentence may not be appropriate.



These days nothing would surprise me. 

Not when there are drivers being given paltry sentences for horribly violent deaths like this one: drunk driver doing 112mph in a 60mph zone drives on wrong side of the road, hits another car head on, killing its two occupants instantly and seriously injuring a passenger in his own car. 

Sentence? Just five years.


----------



## icowden (5 Jun 2019)

i think these days everyone sees people saying "no comment" in TV dramas and some assume this is the best thing to do.
Dave - yes I agree with you. It's kind of a boilerplate speech.

Glasgowcyclist - Sentencing guidelines are given by the Sentencing Council and the Judge will have followed these in determining the sentence. A lot of consideration will have been given to aggravating and mitigating factors. the level of blood alcohol is taken into account. If he was only just above the limit this carries a lower starting point that if he is massively over the limit (for example). If his blood alcohol was 35-51 the sentencing range is 3 to 6 years. 51-70 is 6 to 9 years. 71 or over - 7 years to 14 years The design of sentencing is to balance punishment with rehabilitation, so reductions could have been made for remorse, first offence etc. 

Personally I 'd rather have a reasonably well thought out system that tries to keep the punishment commensurate with the crime and the likelihood of re offending than the ludicrous system that say the USA has. That driver was an idiot but he has to live with what he has done as much as the family of the victims. Would there be benefit in keeping him in prison for longer? I've always thought that a system of resitution would be worthwhile such as once an offender has completed their sentence, having them contribute a percentage of earnings to the families of the victims or their nominated charities for example.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Glasgowcyclist - Sentencing guidelines are given by the Sentencing Council and the Judge will have followed these in determining the sentence. A lot of consideration will have been given to aggravating and mitigating factors.



I understand all that. My criticism is not of the judge but the sentencing limitations placed upon him.


----------



## icowden (5 Jun 2019)

Then we agree


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Then we agree



There's a first time for everything!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jul 2019)

Fagan has been sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment, disqualified for 34 months and a deprivation order in respect of the BMW.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

icowden said:


> He has mitigation for the no comment as he was unrepresented. He indicated to the court that he wished to plead guilty at that point but did not know what to do. Lack of representation is a big legal issue at the moment. It is for the sentencing judge to decide whether he accepts that though.



He'll have gone NC as he'll have been interviewed before and that's what the solicitor told him to do. He's thought, "that's easy, I don't need a solicitor to tell me that" so gone without this time. No one but no one ever goes no comment unless a solicitor tells them, or unless they have been well handled and know that this is what the solicitor will tell them.

What he didn't know is that solicitors advise NC, even when a simple denial might end the case there, to make it more likely their client gets to court and thus earn a second pay day for their firm. Legal aid solicitors are often as dodgy are their clients in the way they manipulate the system to suit their own ends.


----------



## Slick (2 Jul 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Fagan has been sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment, disqualified for 34 months and a deprivation order in respect of the BMW.


Sounds light to me, but better than nothing.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jul 2019)

Slick said:


> Sounds light to me, but better than nothing.



Yes, although I do like the imposition of a deprivation order. This should be used more widely.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

The court don't pull those orders out of their behinds. Some bobby was switched on when they built the case file and applied for that on the MG5 form. Nice little flourish.


----------

