# Pushy Bristol BMW driver



## Arjimlad (8 Mar 2016)

This has made the Evening Post so I expect a lot of "well done better luck next time" comments on their site.

I can't imagine he won't be identified soon.


----------



## rugby bloke (8 Mar 2016)

A pretty good shot of his reg number and his face. To be honest he does not look old enough to be driving but perhaps its my age. A child in the car as well, nice. Hopefully action will be taken but I suspect non of us will hold our breath.


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2016)

Not even a proper Bimmer, one of those boring 3 series things that are more common than Mondeos. Remember, you can't grow up to be a has-been if you're a never-was.


----------



## Jody (8 Mar 2016)

Drago said:


> Not even a proper Bimmer, one of those boring 3 series things that are more common than Mondeos. Remember, you can't grow up to be a has-been if you're a never-was.



It's a 520d M Sport according to its reg.


----------



## summerdays (8 Mar 2016)

Normal for Lockleaze. I get most of my worst passes at the top of that road! 

As for action, I'm hopeful, it had certainly reached police attention last night. Now we just need someone to identify him.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

If you look at his eyes he is not looking at the cyclist, he is looking at the wing mirror. He doesn't appear to be shouting or angry. He could actually be adjusting his wing mirror.

Either that or he is trying to grab the flag on the back of the bike. I don't think he is trying to push him off.

I think this would really struggle in court.

Is there any more to the story?


----------



## Origamist (8 Mar 2016)

Anyone would think BMWs didn't have electric mirror adjustment!


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> If you look at his eyes he is not looking at the cyclist, he is looking at the wing mirror. He doesn't appear to be shouting or angry. He could actually be adjusting his wing mirror.
> 
> Either that or he is trying to grab the flag on the back of the bike. I don't think he is trying to push him off.
> 
> ...


I think there's a good chance he's after the flag because he looks like he's concentrating really really hard and his hand is too far out for the mirror (as Origamist has just pointed out - almost certainly electric). Also he swerves out with no obstruction on his side. 

This might be serious enough that he gets a good talking to and reminded of his responsibilities as an otherwise law-abiding motorist.


----------



## Arjimlad (8 Mar 2016)

I think the theory that it is not his car and he was driving for a garage or similar is likely to be correct. Or he's a total scofflaw...


----------



## Mugshot (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> He could actually be adjusting his wing mirror.


Oh my, sometimes words just fail me, if you typed this with a straight face you need to take a good hard look at yourself.


----------



## Markymark (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Anyone would think BMWs didn't have electric mirror adjustment!


This. 64 reg BMW doesn't have manual door mirrors.


----------



## steve50 (8 Mar 2016)

definitely not reaching for his mirror, he is almost head and shoulders out of the window, palm of hand flat and reaching out beyond his mirror, utter, utter moron, and with a child or young woman in the car as well. If it can't be proven he was trying to push the cyclist off his bike he should at least be charged with driving with undue care and attention. How can he possibly be concentrating on the road when he is hanging out of his side window.


----------



## Origamist (8 Mar 2016)

Markymark said:


> This. 64 reg BMW doesn't have manual door mirrors.



You're shitting me!


----------



## Markymark (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> You're shitting me!


Sorry, I mean it doesn't have manual door mirrors, they're all electric as you suggested up thread.


----------



## Origamist (8 Mar 2016)

Mugshot said:


> Oh my, sometimes words just fail me, if you typed this with a straight face you need to take a good hard look at yourself.



Well, I expected Steve to say the driver was greeting the cyclist with a friendly wave or high 5 and a bonus "Hiya" close pass at speed...sort of like doffing your hat in Edwardian times to a neighbour.


----------



## rugby bloke (8 Mar 2016)

I had not thought about the possibility of the driver going for a flag. Certainly when you play it back it look like he is focusing on something behind the rider. Does not make it any less stupid or dangerous though.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Anyone would think BMWs didn't have electric mirror adjustment!



As do Kia but I often have to adjust mine after the car wash as it moves the entire housing. 

But after looking at this a few times I think it is the flag he is after. He certainly didnt try to push the rider.

What was the outcome, does anyone know?


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2016)

Jody said:


> It's a 520d M Sport according to its reg.


That's even worse. Superman trimmings with the beating heart of Clark Kent.


----------



## fossyant (8 Mar 2016)

BMW's don't have working indicators, so what makes you think the mirror is electric. 

It's obviously heated though, as the driver had cold hands and was warming his fingers up on the mirror glass, and by accident, the cyclist drifted over the road towards the car. So there !!


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Well, I expected Steve to say the driver was greeting the cyclist with a friendly wave or high 5 and a bonus "Hiya" close pass at speed...sort of like doffing your hat in Edwardian times to a neighbour.



Thanks Origamist. Im pleased you have realised that I dont have knee jerk reactions when it comes to vehicles and bikes like many people on here. It doesnt bother me when I upset people on here when I express the opinion that the cyclist is wrong (God forbid).

Cyclists can get it wrong on the road but in this case it is certainly the motorist.


----------



## Mile195 (8 Mar 2016)

That's weird. I've just put a thread on about Moped riders doing the same thing. Maybe this IS unfortunately a new "thing".


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

I'm now waiting for the thread where the recumbent riders start sticking tacks to their flags.


----------



## raleighnut (8 Mar 2016)

Mile195 said:


> That's weird. I've just put a thread on about Moped riders doing the same thing. Maybe this IS unfortunately a new "thing".


Not new at all, strangely another bmw involved

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...y.html&usg=AFQjCNGyJGjr3Z47ioXIV0IBOG8O-stwRA


----------



## Origamist (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> As do Kia but I often have to adjust mine after the car wash as it moves the entire housing.
> 
> But after looking at this a few times I think it is the flag he is after. He certainly didnt try to push the rider.
> 
> What was the outcome, does anyone know?



I prefer to wash my own car - it's the only upper-body work-out I get.

He shoves the cyclist in the hip (according to the cyclist) - if he's going for the mirror or flag, he's got poor spatial awareness and he's still a dagerous tool.

Outcome - press and social media shaming as far as I can see. More might follow...


----------



## Origamist (8 Mar 2016)

"A spokesman from Avon and Somerset Police said: "We have had a report of an incident between a cyclist and someone in a car in Horfield last night.

"The cyclist reported the incident, which happened in Wordsworth Road to us at about 9.15pm, advising that he had been pushed by someone in a white car which went past him earlier in the evening.

"We are treating the matter as common assault and police enquiries are continuing."



Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/moment...tory-28881017-detail/story.html#ixzz42JETtUMp
Follow us: @BristolPost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook


----------



## summerdays (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> If you look at his eyes he is not looking at the cyclist, he is looking at the wing mirror. He doesn't appear to be shouting or angry. He could actually be adjusting his wing mirror.
> 
> Either that or he is trying to grab the flag on the back of the bike. I don't think he is trying to push him off.
> 
> ...


If you need any insight into the area it happened, it is quite normal to see drivers and passengers not wearing their seatbelts. It is also not really somewhere that you go unless you live there as it's landlocked to the north and east, so he'll be local. And he has no reason to be on that side of the road other than to give the cyclist a fright. The bus managed to pass the cyclist without coming that close.

It's also an area that has quite a few cyclists in it, as there are a couple of useful cycle paths which cut across where the cars can't go.

But the local policeman there is often seen out on his bike, and is really nice. He also issues lots of tickets to cars parked obstructing pavements!


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Im pleased you have realised that I dont have knee jerk reactions when it comes to vehicles and bikes like many people on here.


I misread that because from past posts, it seems like you *do* have knee jerk reactions when it comes to vehicles and bikes, but usually kicking the cyclist while most kick the motorist.


----------



## Spinney (8 Mar 2016)

*Mod note*: please leave personalities out of it, @mjray and @steveindenmark - let's stick to moronic BMW drivers, please...


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

[QUOTE 4187397, member: 9609"]You seem to be the only person going on about this "flag" - can you account for your whereabouts last night ? did you happen to be in the Horfield area last night? do you happen to own a BMW sir ?[/QUOTE]

I originally thought it was a recumbent.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> "We are treating the matter as common assault and police enquiries are continuing."



So the police conveniently leave off the dangerous driving, driving without due care and a lack of seatbelt. Typical. Not to mention the car is untaxed.


----------



## Arjimlad (8 Mar 2016)

There is a lively discussion on Bristol Cyclists Facebook page about it. I expect/hope that he will be apprehended one way or another.


----------



## summerdays (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So the police conveniently leave off the dangerous driving, driving without due care and a lack of seatbelt. Typical. Not to mention the car is untaxed.


The bit on Twitter I saw said that they weren't going to say much during their investigation. I'd wait to see what happens in the end, first thing is to find him.... Hopefully it won't take long for someone to identify him.
Edit: hopefully it won't take long as it's the short of area where people know each other....


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> "....., which happened in Wordsworth Road to us at about 9.15pm, .....


9:15am shurely, or Bristol has a real light pollution problem.


----------



## fossyant (8 Mar 2016)

Its the Police. They wont do anything.

Cyclists aren't worth the effort.


----------



## Jody (8 Mar 2016)

Drago said:


> That's even worse. Superman trimmings with the beating heart of Clark Kent.



200BHP and 0-60 quicker than an old 205 1.9 GTi. Not my cup of tea but they are pretty decent figures.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So the police conveniently leave off the dangerous driving, driving without due care and a lack of seatbelt. Typical. Not to mention the car is untaxed.



You would not expect them to list all the offences that he can be charged with. They don't need to say anything more than what they have said.

I am not a big fan of cameras on bikes but it is nice to see one being used for what it was intended. Hopefully, by the publicity of this clip, it will send a message out to other motorists that they could be being filmed.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> You would not expect them to list all the offences that he can be charged with. They don't need to say anything more than what they have said.
> 
> I am not a big fan of cameras on bikes but it is nice to see one being used for what it was intended. Hopefully, by the publicity of this clip, it will send a message out to other motorists that they could be being filmed.



If they did go with a huge list of possible charges it would be even better publicity.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> If they did go with a huge list of possible charges it would be even better publicity.



Bad publicity!!! It would harm the image that cars as effective anti-cyclist weapons that keep you out of jail!


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> If they did go with a huge list of possible charges it would be even better publicity.



"Possible" charges sounds like a fishing expedition.

They need to speak to him to him to see what charges exist.

I arrested a shop demonstrator for giving away used demonstration sponges in a high street store. What A mean sod I am.

I rear rearrested him later in the day for 2 murders on the South coast. 

Who knows what else they can charge the driver with but only after they have had a chat,


----------



## glenn forger (8 Mar 2016)

I arrested a bloke for selling fire-damaged inflatable women. He turned out to be Hitler. Think on.


----------



## summerdays (8 Mar 2016)

Bollo said:


> 9:15am shurely, or Bristol has a real light pollution problem.


That's when it came to police attention not when it happened.


----------



## summerdays (8 Mar 2016)

fossyant said:


> Its the Police. They wont do anything.
> 
> Cyclists aren't worth the effort.


Honestly not the local guy he's great and hopefully they will push through with a prosecution.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Mar 2016)

The girlfriend looks embarrassed. I bet the bloke's mum will be cross when she finds out! Oh.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> "Possible" charges sounds like a fishing expedition.
> 
> They need to speak to him to him to see what charges exist.
> 
> ...



I understand all that - but the one thing the video does not show is common assault, so why quote that?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Mar 2016)

John, Newcastle-upon-Congo, United Kingdom, 57 minutes ago

_There's always two sides to every story and pictures do lie. He could have just been ensuring that the cyclist , riding too close to his car, didn't damage it._





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ans-window-tries-push-bike.html#ixzz42JcKLe8I


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I understand all that - but the one thing the video does not show is common assault, so why quote that?


I would like it if a car driven straight at someone would be treated as a criminal assault, rather than a driving offence. Because whatever he is doing with his hands, he swerves his car dangerously close to the cyclist


----------



## glenn forger (8 Mar 2016)

I'd be amazed in that neddie's insured for that car.


----------



## summerdays (8 Mar 2016)

Reading the comments from Glenn's link there is this gem:


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I understand all that - but the one thing the video does not show is common assault, so why quote that?



Because they are acting on what the rider has told them.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> Reading the comments from Glenn's link there is this gem:
> View attachment 121051



If he knows the words "Cycling proficiency test", he knows there is one.

So when we get into an argument with a motorist our reply must now be "I am allowed on the road because I have passed a cycling proficiency test".

What a Pratt.


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> That's when it came to police attention not when it happened.


<robert robinson>aaaahhhhh!</>


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So the police conveniently leave off the dangerous driving, driving without due care and a lack of seatbelt. Typical. Not to mention the car is untaxed.



Dangerous driving is not allowed to be recorded as a criminal offence until the CPS have authorised someone to be charged with it. Not the police's rule, the government's.

Driving without due care is not a crime recordable offence.

Not wearing a seatbelt is not a crime recordable offence.

Common assault is crime recordable as soon as the victim discloses it, and as the 'most serious' offence in this matter is the one that it recorded. It does not mean the other offences aren't also considered.



Milkfloat said:


> I understand all that - but the one thing the video does not show is common assault, so why quote that?



Because the rules placed on the police by the government (Home Office Criming Rules of you want to Google it) dictate that is the matter that is recorded in this case, so that is the accurate reply.

If the police had said "driving without due care and no seatbelt", someone would have complained "what about the assault?!!" - probably you!


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Mar 2016)

Bollo said:


> 9:15am shurely, or Bristol has a real light pollution problem.


Would explain the full beam headlights


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Mar 2016)

OT

Once had a van from a building company pull alongside, the van door open and someone pull the flag off

Luckily caught on video, so pointed out that I required as replacement from them

Pointing out that it was theft pure and simple resulted in a cheque

Didn't stop a Police report about carrying people in the back of a van with no seating, or them hanging out of the back

New flag and a warning from the Police ... Result


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (8 Mar 2016)

glenn forger said:


> John, Newcastle-upon-Congo, United Kingdom, 57 minutes ago
> 
> _There's always two sides to every story and pictures do lie. He could have just been ensuring that the cyclist , riding too close to his car, didn't damage it._
> 
> ...


Perhaps he was being friendly and just going for a high-five


----------



## steve50 (8 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> Reading the comments from Glenn's link there is this gem:
> View attachment 121051



Pmsl,the author of that gem can't even spell, I concur with the somewhat well thought out reply.....................please don't reproduce.


----------



## raleighnut (8 Mar 2016)

I always ride like a manic on the rode.


----------



## rugby bloke (8 Mar 2016)

raleighnut said:


> I always ride like a manic on the rode.


I sometimes like to listen to The Manics when I ride ... but that's a whole different argument.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Mar 2016)

raleighnut said:


> I always ride like a manic on the rode.


Don't you find that depressive?


----------



## steve50 (8 Mar 2016)

User said:


> It's easy to mock, especially people this moronic.



Meaning who exactly?


----------



## steve50 (8 Mar 2016)

User said:


> The moronic ones


........and you are in a position to judge


----------



## Drago (9 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So the police conveniently leave off the dangerous driving, driving without due care and a lack of seatbelt. Typical. Not to mention the car is untaxed.


He could be swerving everywhere deliberately mowing down nuns and orphans, and it still does not become 'dangerous driving' until the CPS designate it as such. Also you can't dangerous and careless driving at the same time (it isn't 'due care', that doesn't exist), so you yourself don't seem to know what it is... or isn't.

I recently put to bed a PWITS, but i hung the investigation on a drink driving hook until i got a charging decision from the cps, simply because that's what initiated the whole investigation.

The Feds are investigating an incident, and what anyone get charged with may bear seemingly little relation to the obvious, so don't go worrying yourself at this stage. In any case, common assault would be a criminal conviction, not a driving one, so the consequences for a criminal record and the repurcussions a VAP conviction brings are liable to be much more significant than a dangerous driving, not to mention probably much more likely to secure a conviction.

PS - lack of Vehicle License is the DVLAs problem, not the County Mounties.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Mar 2016)

Drago said:


> He .... not the County Mounties.


Pretty sound. 

As an example of the obfuscation, nitpicking insistence on obscure procedures, and general lack of honesty and transparence, that so frustrates a complainant in their dealings with the law; and which provides a safe haven for all sorts of law-breaking.


----------



## hatler (9 Mar 2016)

Has the twat not been identified yet ?


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Mar 2016)

Do my eyes deceive me ? A balanced & pro-cycling article in the Bristol Post.....

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Exclus...clist-caught/story-28884008-detail/story.html


----------



## Svendo (9 Mar 2016)

Drago said:


> He could be swerving everywhere deliberately mowing down nuns and orphans, and it still does not become 'dangerous driving' until the CPS designate it as such. Also you can't dangerous and careless driving at the same time (it isn't 'due care', that doesn't exist), so you yourself don't seem to know what it is... or isn't.
> 
> I recently put to bed a PWITS, but i hung the investigation on a drink driving hook until i got a charging decision from the cps, simply because that's what initiated the whole investigation.
> 
> ...



To make your life easier I've googled Drago's abbreviations as it's too early for my brain to be doing OBACs (Old Bill Acronym Conundrums):
PWITS = Possesion With a Intent To Supply
VAP = Vioence Against the Person


----------



## Markymark (9 Mar 2016)

Svendo said:


> To make your life easier I've googled Drago's abbreviations as it's too early for my brain to be doing OBACs (Old Bill Acronym Conundrums):
> PWITS = Possesion With a Intent To Supply
> VAP = Vioence Against the Person


EEEWATT


Spoiler



Ello Ello Ello What's All This Then


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> Do my eyes deceive me ? A balanced & pro-cycling article in the Bristol Post.....
> 
> http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Exclus...clist-caught/story-28884008-detail/story.html


Yeah, you obviously can't spot the made-to-look-like-an-outsider cyclist in the photo because they're wearing a fugly yellow coat.  The Bristol Pest also can't resist putting in a couple more digs at people who cycle in ordinary clothes or dare to overtake queues of motorists.


----------



## hatler (9 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> Yeah, you obviously can't spot the made-to-look-like-an-outsider cyclist in the photo because they're wearing a fugly yellow coat.  The Bristol Pest also can't resist putting in a couple more digs at people who cycle in ordinary clothes or dare to overtake queues of motorists.





> "I have experienced many cars who have driven too close to me or erratically, but equally I have seen cyclists who go through red lights, wend through traffic or don't ware reflective clothing. It definitely goes both ways.



Those 'digs' are directly quoted from the cyclist concerned. Or are you suggesting the BP put those words into his mouth ?


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2016)

hatler said:


> Those 'digs' are directly quoted from the cyclist concerned. Or are you suggesting the BP put those words into his mouth ?


I'm suggesting that the Pest chose which of his words to quote and also to reprint the awful "THINK!" campaign advice below it. I suspect they also chose the picture and probably asked him to get the camera and helmet in shot.

The cyclist doesn't help by equating wearing ordinary clothes with dangerous driving or even going through red lights, but he's probably inexperienced in dealing with the Pest.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Mar 2016)

I see his pretty face is now in the national press, whatever happens to the case, there will be a lot more in the background as relatives, employers and others become involved

Well and truly "pickeringed"


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Mar 2016)

Surely the articles comments on HiViz are misplaced

For once the problem here is that a BMW driver was looking and did see the cyclist


----------



## Spinney (9 Mar 2016)

But realising that requires the journalist to have actually_ thought_ about it...


----------



## summerdays (9 Mar 2016)

The only thing the journalist thought was.... This has the chance to be picked up and lots of readers to keep the advertising people happy!


----------



## User482 (9 Mar 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> Do my eyes deceive me ? A balanced & pro-cycling article in the Bristol Post.....
> 
> http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Exclus...clist-caught/story-28884008-detail/story.html



Blimey! Even the BTL comments are missing the usual mouth-breathers.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Mar 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> Do my eyes deceive me ? A balanced & pro-cycling article in the Bristol Post.....
> 
> http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Exclus...clist-caught/story-28884008-detail/story.html


Ummm - this,


> the Government's road safety campaign, THINK! the number cyclists killed or seriously injured on UK roads is rising.
> 
> Here are a few tips *the charity* ......


..... *the WHAAAAAAAAT?*


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Mar 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Ummm - this,
> ..... *the WHAAAAAAAAT?*


Oh well ...for the Post this reads a lot more pro than anti!


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Mar 2016)

I can't see why they haven't found this guy yet.


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Mar 2016)

He has been named on the Bristol Cyclist's FB page but quite how I don't know. Hope they get hold of him.


----------



## summerdays (9 Mar 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> He has been named on the Bristol Cyclist's FB page but quite how I don't know. Hope they get hold of him.


Oh I haven't seen that... Off to look!


----------



## jefmcg (9 Mar 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> He has been named on the Bristol Cyclist's FB page but quite how I don't know. Hope they get hold of him.


Someone recognised him, I suspect. I'm surprised it took this long. Generally, when something like this hits the press, the accused turns up pretty smartly at a police station. I had assumed because someone got in touch with them and said "xxxx police are looking for you"


----------



## mustang1 (9 Mar 2016)

Sicks mince ugo I can't even spelt manajor now I are won and got company bimmer.


----------



## Spinney (9 Mar 2016)

mustang1 said:


> Sicks mince ugo I can't even spelt manajor now I are won and got company bimmer.


----------



## dondare (11 Mar 2016)

Spinney said:


>


Six months ago I couldn't even spell "manager", now I am one and have use of company BMW.


----------



## hatler (15 Mar 2016)

No news on the identity of the driver ? Or the local plod's attempts at tracing him ?

It's gone very quiet.


----------



## Arjimlad (23 Mar 2016)

Latest is that he was spotted on ANPR heading out of Bristol never to be seen again .

The registered keeper (living in the South East) is not the man in question, is being asked who was driving, and the driver appears to have gone to ground. Suspect is likely to be a traveller and may have left the country (which I would call a result !).


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Mar 2016)

I have a big problem with this aspect of "car ownership"

The responsibility to ensure that the driver is insured, legitimate and responsible lies with the owner who lends the car

If they cannot name the driver, prove that the driver was legitimate and insured then it should be assumed that the car was NOT insured at the time of the incident and it should be impounded until such proof is provided


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> I have a big problem with this aspect of "car ownership"
> 
> The responsibility to ensure that the driver is insured, legitimate and responsible lies with the owner who lends the car
> 
> If they cannot name the driver, prove that the driver was legitimate and insured then it should be assumed that the car was NOT insured at the time of the incident and it should be impounded until such proof is provided



That sounds awfully like guilty till you prove yourself innocent. It's not a good situation, but that kind of thinking is the thin end of a very large wedge.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Or, alternatively, the owner could be held for a modest amount of time, to allow them to search their memory in a distraction free environment. A 28 day maximum say ought to do it.



Because somebody can't name a driver, it's right to do an action that will likely result in unemployment and loss of earnings, potentially putting a family, and children at risk. With no evidence that they are guilty of anything?


----------



## summerdays (23 Mar 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Because somebody can't name a driver, it's right to do an action that will likely result in unemployment and loss of earnings, potentially putting a family, and children at risk. With no evidence that they are guilty of anything?


Under what circumstances can you see yourself not knowing who was driving your car?


----------



## Markymark (23 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> Under what circumstances can you see yourself not knowing who was driving your car?


You were blind drunk at the time?


----------



## summerdays (23 Mar 2016)

Markymark said:


> You were blind drunk at the time?


If I'm that drunk I'm not going near my car..... I enjoy alcohol but have never seen the point in being blind drunk ... I prefer to enjoy it rather than pass out. In which case they have taken the keys without your permission and you should be asking questions such as how did my car change location etc .... it could have been you behind the wheel for a start.


----------



## Markymark (23 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> If I'm that drunk I'm not going near my car..... I enjoy alcohol but have never seen the point in being blind drunk ... I prefer to enjoy it rather than pass out. In which case they have taken the keys without your permission and you should be asking questions such as how did my car change location etc .... it could have been you behind the wheel for a start.


I wasn't being serious.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Mar 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Because somebody can't name a driver, it's right to do an action that will likely result in unemployment and loss of earnings, potentially putting a family, and children at risk. With no evidence that they are guilty of anything?



1. The car has been driven dangerously and in amanner that could have called serious injury
2. The owner has a legal obligation to ensure that at the time the vehicle was insured, driven by a licensed driver..... 
3. If they have not done this then they are guilty.... the evidence is simple that they lent their vehicle without these checks

The consequences are the price of stupidity


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Oh do stop overdramatising it. Nobody needs a car to work and it's high time we stopped trotting that tired old meme out.



No, but if you lock them up in a cell for a month so they can "think" as per the post I quoted, then you're likely not to have a job at the end of it. Please do actually read what I posted.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> 1. The car has been driven dangerously and in amanner that could have called serious injury
> 2. The owner has a legal obligation to ensure that at the time the vehicle was insured, driven by a licensed driver.....
> 3. If they have not done this then they are guilty.... the evidence is simple that they lent their vehicle without these checks
> 
> The consequences are the price of stupidity



And this is already a crime, It is 6-8 points for permitting an uninsured person to drive the vehicle. What is needed is for it to be enforced. Not, over the top reactions about locking people up because they try and dodge the law.

Whether we like it or not, there is a standard that our justice system follows, while it will be abused at times, and some people may get away with it. I wouldn't swap it for any of the alternatives that are mentioned in this thread.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2016)

I reckon it would only take 28 *MINUTES*!


----------



## uphillstruggler (23 Mar 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Because somebody can't name a driver, it's right to do an action that will likely result in unemployment and loss of earnings, potentially putting a family, and children at risk. With no evidence that they are guilty of anything?



would you lend your new BMW to a driver you cant identify? its sounds like obstruction to me.

but that's ok, because he cant remember his name.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

uphillstruggler said:


> would you lend your new BMW to a driver you cant identify? its sounds like obstruction to me.
> 
> but that's ok, because he cant remember his name.



No, and it's not something I agree with. It's certainly not 'ok'.

It is still a crime. The onus is still on the prosecution to provide the proof, and/or for a jury to find him guilty. That is the part I don't think we should ever change.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Perhaps we can settle on it being a legal requirement to keep a record of who you allow to drive a car then? On the very rare occasions I use a work car, I have to sign for it, so there is no getting away from responsibility.



An even easier way would be to ban insurance companies providing an "other vehicles under 3rd party clause". That way, if the person isn't specifically named on the certificate with that reg, they're not insured.

There's no additional paperwork, and it's black and white. None of this, "He said he was insured with his own insurer". That way, at the very least if you can't name the driver (and you should, as it would be named on the insurance certificate), then you could be charged with permitting no insurance.


----------



## sanddancer (23 Mar 2016)

summerdays said:


> Reading the comments from Glenn's link there is this gem:
> View attachment 121051




LoL illiterate Audi driver defends moron bmw driver. How ironic 

i like the response from lien .
short and to the point


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Nobody was suggesting that.



That is what various suggestions in this thread are.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Really? Where?



"the owner could be held for a modest amount of time, to allow them to search their memory in a distraction free environment."

Lock people up till they remember the information Police want?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Mar 2016)

So the police can use that option if they want for those that are non-compliant.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2016)

They already do.


----------



## mjr (23 Mar 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> An even easier way would be to ban insurance companies providing an "other vehicles under 3rd party clause". That way, if the person isn't specifically named on the certificate with that reg, they're not insured.


That would be a bit of a nuisance and unnecessary: just require anyone lending a car to hold valid insurance details for the person they lent it to. So if you want to borrow my car, either I add you to my insurance or you need to hand me a copy of your certificate or I don't give you the keys.

But I'm sure banning "all vehicle" policies would generate lots of more chargeable admin work for insurance companies as people had to add/remove drivers, so they'd be all in favour of it


----------



## mr_cellophane (23 Mar 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> 1. The car has been driven dangerously and in amanner that could have called serious injury
> 2. The owner has a legal obligation to ensure that at the time the vehicle was insured, driven by a licensed driver.....
> 3. If they have not done this then they are guilty.... the evidence is simple that they lent their vehicle without these checks
> 
> The consequences are the price of stupidity


Unless the car was "stolen". I think from reading posts on other sites, the car hasn't been found either.


----------



## jarlrmai (24 Mar 2016)

You can always just hire a car register it for 2 people, knock a cyclist off and drive away then both of you get amnesia about who was driving and you'll pretty much get away with it.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Mar 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> You can always just hire a car register it for 2 people, knock a cyclist off and drive away then both of you get amnesia about who was driving and you'll pretty much get away with it.


hell, if you don't do something as blatant as lean out the window and push, you don't need any subterfuge. "I didn't seem him, officer" is all you need to say.

(also true in the US, sadly http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-a-freakonomics-radio-rebroadcast/)


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Mar 2016)

mr_cellophane said:


> Unless the car was "stolen". I think from reading posts on other sites, the car hasn't been found either.



Car missing for several weeks...

Either you lent it to a very dodgy mate and are now hiding it or it was stolen in which case reporting it was the sensible option


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Mar 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> You can always just hire a car register it for 2 people, knock a cyclist off and drive away then both of you get amnesia about who was driving and you'll pretty much get away with it.



Again there should be a solution

One is guilty, one is perverting the course of justice (as an example) do both for the latter offence


----------



## sanddancer (24 Mar 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> You can always just hire a car register it for 2 people, knock a cyclist off and drive away then both of you get amnesia about who was driving and you'll pretty much get away with it.




Its not just car drivers getting away with intimidating or assaulting cyclists.
a few years ago i took a friend and his family to Liverpool airport. On my return journey I was intentionally rammed by some chav idiot probably high on drugs.
I couldn't give chase as he veered off the carriageway and gone.
Two others stopped to say he had tried to ram them off the road but they drove off as it was on a dual carriageway. 
I phoned the police and as the road was covered by cctv it went to court.
when I turned up at court I learned that he had been tried earlier that day but I hadn't been informed 
Also he was up for something like 13 other offences but had got off scot free 

It really is a sad state of affairs when people like that can drive the roads putting others lives at risk and get away with it


----------

