# Brutal hit and run, Nottingham



## glenn forger (31 Jan 2016)

and nothing happened. Uploader unwilling to explain as it exposes a major hole in road traffic law:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ua92cASvgw&feature=youtu.be


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Jan 2016)

If he is unwilling to explain why nothing was done it appears to be a pointless excercise posting the clip.

The clip is from 2014 and I didnt see the vehicle make off. Just saying.

I cannot see anything the cyclist did wrong.


----------



## RoubaixCube (31 Jan 2016)

Terrible. People like this dont deserve to live.

absolutely amazing how the driver managed to get away with attempted murder.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Feb 2016)

I have every sympathy for the person who got knocked off his bike. I just wish he described what happened after the event. We only have half of his story, and that is a shame.


----------



## raleighnut (1 Feb 2016)

Why did I know at the start that it was gonna be that Volvo that hit him. Driver wants locking up.


----------



## growingvegetables (1 Feb 2016)

The chilling part in the video desc is 


> The problem is I have a moral dilemma in that if I tell the world how the driver got away with this crime, apart from making our police and justice system look totally stupid, it might also encourage dangerous drivers to copy the incident and hurt more cyclists. A combination of factors came together to create a legal loophole and I don’t want someone to use that information to do evil.



BTGTT-S (not in a cycling incident). Speculation is useless. But I sure as hell hope he's following up the legal options.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Feb 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> The chilling part in the video desc is
> 
> 
> BTGTT-S (not in a cycling incident). Speculation is useless. But I sure as hell hope he's following up the legal options.


 I missed that bit. Thanks for drawing attention to it. It sounds pretty sinister.


----------



## Lonestar (1 Feb 2016)

The message in his text at the end of the video...with all the bs and the bias anticycling crap forgetting the lawbreaking that the car drivers do I'm thinking he is right.The car rules.On parts of my commute I don't want to be in the newly made roadworks pinchpoint with some car driving clown because I do not trust them at all.



raleighnut said:


> Why did I know at the start that it was gonna be that Volvo that hit him. Driver wants locking up.



I've got a particular affection for BMW's but in reality what vehicle they were driving is immaterial.


----------



## subaqua (1 Feb 2016)

Lonestar said:


> The message in his text at the end of the video...with all the bs and the bias anticycling crap forgetting the lawbreaking that the car drivers do I'm thinking he is right.The car rules.On parts of my commute I don't want to be in the newly made roadworks pinchpoint with some car driving clown because I do not trust them at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a particular affection for BMW's but in reality what vehicle they were driving is immaterial.



I find its bus drivers on the 25 and 205 that are the ones that forget about the pinch points created with the construction of CS2 segregation . Especially up by QMUL heading east. Several times they have caused me to have to enter the safe a for the construction crews to avoid being squished. Some professional drivers need to be re educated .


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Feb 2016)

Without two halves of the story I am struggling to work out how the driver got away with it. The cyclists needs to explain, regardless of the consequences.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (1 Feb 2016)

No clue why the driver was not prosecuted, the very least is fail to stop. From reading the comments it looks like a file went to the CPS who then declined to prosecute. 
All very odd.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Feb 2016)

It certainly doesn't make sense.
@gaz , I would be interested in your thoughts on this.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

Something seems odd about this.

I am unsure how the police can not have the finances to investigate it. It seems pretty clear, and would require very little investigation.

I looked through his other videos, and nothing seems odd there too. I have no idea why it doesn't feel right, but I am interested on seeing more information.


----------



## Origamist (1 Feb 2016)

From the comments, it looks like it was a courtesy car - presumably they had problems identifying the driver or they were unable to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time? Thoroughly piss poor...


----------



## Lonestar (1 Feb 2016)

subaqua said:


> I find its bus drivers on the 25 and 205 that are the ones that forget about the pinch points created with the construction of CS2 segregation . Especially up by QMUL heading east. Several times they have caused me to have to enter the safe a for the construction crews to avoid being squished. Some professional drivers need to be re educated .



True,you can't really trust anyone.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

Origamist said:


> From the comments, it looks like it was a courtesy car - presumably they had problems identifying the driver or they were unable to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time? Thoroughly piss poor...



Surely the courtesy car company have records of who the insured driver is at the time? Although, if the driver isn't visible in any of the image, they can only prove who SHOULD have been driving


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Feb 2016)

I wonder if hiring a private investigator would make any difference. Sometimes the police are just incompetent and the good people who have done no wrong suffer while the folks who partake in criminal activities get away.

I would as least get a private investigator to do some digging to find out who the driver is insured with so i could forward the video to them if not keep on digging to get more details for a private prosecution.


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Feb 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Surely the courtesy car company have records of who the insured driver is at the time? Although, if the driver isn't visible in any of the image, they can only prove who SHOULD have been driving



Sometimes folks who hire cars leave fake details, which is probably what happened here.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Feb 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> I wonder if hiring a private investigator would make any difference. Sometimes the police are just incompetent and the good people who have done no wrong suffer while the folks who partake in criminal activities get away.
> 
> I would as least get a private investigator to do some digging to find out who the driver is insured with so i could forward the video to them if not keep on digging to get more details for a private prosecution.


 
well ok, but by the time you've paid a couple of grand for the PI's time you may be on to a loser


----------



## fossyant (1 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4134321, member: 9609"]from the cyclists comments under the youtube clip

"Despite the evidence, the police and CPS failed to bring the driver in this savage attack to justice… 
The driver is still out on UK roads."

does this mean that the police have never even bothered to speak to the driver ? sadly the police seem to have given up on road crime.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't surprise me. They aren't interested as the civil side of the law will 'sort it' - that's effectively what the police officer said to me - 'your insurance/solicitor will sort it out, despite the severity of your injury'. CBA !


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> Sometimes folks who hire cars leave fake details, which is probably what happened here.



Just clicked.

They can prove who SHOULD be, but not who WAS. If the video can't identify the driver, then it would be difficult to prove he was driving beyond doubt. I believe in a criminal case, the accused has the right not to self-incriminate. Which could mean not having to name the person who was driving. So although he could be guilty of allowing a vehicle to be used illegally, it would be very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case that he WAS driving.

The insurance should still pay out I believe.


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Feb 2016)

Profpointy said:


> well ok, but by the time you've paid a couple of grand for the PI's time you may be on to a loser



thats something to take into a account - But at least if you do managed to get the purps details and find out who he's insured with, you can f**k him good by making sure he has to pay over the odds for car insurance or get charged a massive premium if you file a claim with them for compensation after emailing them the correct details.

If i had the money to pursue it then i would out of principle. If the police wont act or refuse to act then I will find other legal avenues which can be used to (A) make life possibly a lot harder for said person or (B) Bring them to justice via private prosecution.

If it means that idiots like these are off the roads where they can no longer harm others then the job would be complete.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Feb 2016)

I just don't get it. The case is clear cut. The car driver did a hit and run. The number plate is very clear to read. There's no reason why the cops or CPS seeing the video wouldn't see it as a crime.
There's more to this then meet's the eye. As some one else has said, the OP of the video needs to be a bit more open about what has happened and why.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

ianrauk said:


> I just don't get it. The case is clear cut. The car driver did a hit and run.* The number plate is very clear to read.* There's no reason why the cops or CPS seeing the video wouldn't see it as a crime.
> There's more to this then meet's the eye. As some one else has said, the OP of the video needs to be a bit more open about what has happened and why.



Realise though, the number plate identifies the vehicle, not the driver. The person given use of the courtesy car, or the registered keeper is not necessarily the person driving.


----------



## benb (1 Feb 2016)

Legally, the police can issue a S172, which requires the registered keeper of the vehicle to supply details of who was driving at a given time and place.
Failure to reply with an unequivocal response in time will see 6 points on the licence and £500 fine, unless the recipient can show that with reasonable diligence they could not work out who was driving.

For this to be valid, the S172 must be served on the RK of the vehicle within 14 days of the incident. In the case of a chain (hire car, not the RK driving) only the first S172 need be served within 2 weeks.

It's possible that the hire company didn't have decent records for the driver, or it's possible that the driver didn't reply and for some reason the CPS didn't prosecute the failure to supply details offence. Or else the S172 was properly returned and there is another reason why this didn't proceed.


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Feb 2016)

If they cant see who they driver was, They should be able to go after the person who hired the car - whose details are on the hire documentation.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> Legally, the police can issue a S172, which requires the registered keeper of the vehicle to supply details of who was driving at a given time and place.
> Failure to reply with an unequivocal response in time will see 6 points on the licence and £500 fine, unless the recipient can show that with reasonable diligence they could not work out who was driving.
> 
> For this to be valid, the S172 must be served on the RK of the vehicle within 14 days of the incident. In the case of a chain (hire car, not the RK driving) only the first S172 need be served within 2 weeks.
> ...



Even still, 6 points, and £500 for failure to supply details is better than (from the drivers POV) than an attempted murder charge!


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> If they cant see who they driver was, They should be able to go after the person who hired the car - whose details are on the hire documentation.



But you can't PROVE them GUILTY of a crime to the standard required in a criminal court. It's an important standard for us to have, although it is open to exploit.


----------



## benborp (1 Feb 2016)

Having been through the experience of having a family member involved in a serious RTC that they were not expected to survive, I can say that it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that the victim's account of the prosecution doesn't make sense, that there is something missing, something odd.

My family's experience was awful and we desperately wanted to know what had happened that night. Later, we wanted to know why the criminal case had evaporated (also involving a failure to stop). Our solicitor wanted to know why the police were particularly evasive and obstructive, more so than in any case in her twenty years of specialising in RTC resulting in serious brain injury.
But when you have to fight every inch of the way for a settlement in a civil claim against the driver's insurers, a claim that the Police threaten to withdraw any assistance from if you pursue a complaint, your need to get on with life as best you can starts to outweigh the need for answers (not that any contribution the Police had made could be considered assistance - despite closing the road for several hours as part of a fatal accident investigation the only paperwork that generated was apparently a hand scrawled sheet of A5 - the threat was that to that stage they hadn't yet chosen to be 'difficult').

The civil claim against the insurers was settled after six years for a six figure sum - the only interim payment that had been made was a paltry amount to cover the immediate expenses of the events of the evening. The fact that I contributed over ten thousand pounds for time critical maxio-facial/dental work (through their specialist) was actually used by the insurers to justify that sufficient support existed without the need for interim payments. Everything is a battle, eventually you'll most likely just want to walk away from it all and the insurers use that to beat you down.
When our solicitor said that now that the civil claim was settled she was prepared to pursue the Police for the inadequacies of their investigation we declined.
She wasn't ambulance chasing, she had been appalled by their behaviour. Their actions had severely compromised the level of compensation awarded and she believed that they should be made accountable. The evidence she had accrued was insurmountable and she believed compensation in the order of multiples of the insurance payout was in order. We had no more fight left, not even for millions. In fact, during the midst of this I was deliberately hit by a driver while cycling and suffered a shattered collarbone requiring two operations. I had video of the incident but couldn't face even more of the same trauma that was overwhelming the entire family, I didn't pursue a claim.

I mention all this not just as a rant (and I know I go on about it) but to point out that the system is stacked massively against non-motorised RTC victims - police, courts, insurance industry, even public opinion (making an appeal for information results in some very unpleasant responses). It's hard enough when the processes of justice and restitution run 'smoothly'. If someone within the system goes about making things difficult it is horrendous. It's also pretty opaque.
I still have no idea what exactly led to the experiences my family had in dealing with the courts and police being so difficult. Ingrained bias? Corruption? Cover up? I can't discern where the problem arose but I know that deliberate actions obstructed justice, I'm just not equipped with the resources to accurately point a finger or if I did, deal with the consequences of doing so.

I also have a fair amount of experience as a witness of matters being pursued through the magistrates' courts.
Justice at this level is not a well resourced principle. Competence in prosecution and defence is hugely variable for various reasons. Legal argument generally isn't as robust and incisive as drama and reportage might lead one to expect.
In one case I was involved with, a driver was aquitted of assault but found guilty of a driving offence. The evidence objectively showed him punching me in the head but driving in accordance with the specific traffic regulation that he was convicted of breaking - it was the right result though. The punch was rubbish but so was his general standard of driving and it was his driving that posed the greater danger.

Basically, if anyone is dissatisfied that the cyclist hasn't provided the complete picture, there may not be a great deal he can do about that in this specific case. All he might be able to manage at this point is show that this happened, no one was held accountable and that that is wrong.
Once justice has supposedly been seen to be done a victim is limited in the accusations they can continue to make, both legally and in avoiding compromising recovery and compensation. All we can do is look at the bigger picture and question how our society allows this to happen.


----------



## gaz (1 Feb 2016)

This is an interesting case, clear cut as many have said but for some reason the police and CPS have decided not to go further into it.

As some have mentioned, it seems to be a hire car. There should be a paper trail of who is allowed to drive on such. If there isn't or if the company doesn't want to state who was driving, then they can be taken to court for not providing the information. As someone said around £500 fine and 6 points.

I'm not quite sure what this loophole is. I've got a feeling it is just bad police / CPS work and he has been fobbed off. I've got a similar one that I just reported where I driver drove into the back of me, on what looked like purpose. Time will tell how they will deal with it.


----------



## growingvegetables (1 Feb 2016)

benborp said:


> ... All we can do is look at the bigger picture and *question* how our society allows this to happen.


Reading between the lines - there was a *lot* more grief, anguish, and "frustration" at dead-ended enquiries and attempts at a just resolution.

Kinda horrifying that you're left with that "All we can do ........"


----------



## classic33 (1 Feb 2016)

Another payment channel. Money received for every viewing.
Happened on his estates anyway.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (1 Feb 2016)

classic33 said:


> Another payment channel. Money received for every viewing.
> Happened on his estates anyway.
> View attachment 117692



His videos aren't monetised.


----------



## mickle (1 Feb 2016)

I had a RTC in the eighties which sent me head first backwards through a windscreen and put me in a wheelchair for two months. The driver slammed the brakes on, I slid off the bonnet and then he tried to drive over my legs as I lay in the road. I was only saved by my bike jammed under the front bumper. He was too pissed to get out of the car or even stand up. The polis attended and then later every record of the event disappeared. It was like it had never happened. But what we did find out was that the driver was a copper.


----------



## Origamist (1 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4135722, member: 9609"]I don't get the impression from the video that it is a road rage incident, may be the driver was temporarily blinded by the sun and reflection from wet road surface (although the camera obviously isn't). But if it was purely an accident then why didn't they stop? and why won't the police track them down ? The whole incident seems a little odd.

Autonomous cars ?
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+autonomous+cars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLnrjQ1dfKAhUH_w4KHQ4EDj4Q_AUICSgD&biw=1286&bih=742#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CUSw3lFRsd79Ijg1TV9gaat5vuWo76R6RqovRebPQT0UabSgz_1wrsh2yqkVqoQj7gQAPNnACXTy9NiEdoB3GkLTY1yoSCTVNX2Bpq3m-EdiWknQrth0pKhIJ5ajvpHpGqi8RocobMHuX89EqEglF5s9BPRRptBEbblxK1QgMUCoSCaDP_1CuyHbKqEUPGi1D92qzzKhIJRWqhCPuBAA8RLpNaYemBXdwqEgk2cAJdPL02IRG41fdhs0-xOioSCR2gHcaQtNjXEbOqQtkkfWBT&q=google autonomous cars volvo&imgrc=RebPQT0UabTfBM:[/QUOTE]

It doesn't seem odd, but all too typical - terrible driving (v likely deliberate) resulting in a collision, the driver then leaves the scene and evades justice. Plus ça change.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (2 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4135707, member: 9609"]how do you know that ?[/QUOTE]

They have no adverts on them. You only get money from ad views. No monetisation = no adverts on videos.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Feb 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> His videos aren't monetised.



But possibly not for the want of trying.

Less than thorough coppering is the most likely - and depressing - explanation.

But does anyone think the roadside groans have something of the ham actor about them?

I wonder if it was set-up in a bid to promote, and ultimately monetise, the channel.


----------



## slowmotion (2 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> But possibly not for the want of trying.
> 
> Less than thorough coppering is the most likely - and depressing - explanation.
> 
> ...


 That's a bit of a stretch, but I admire your "sliding in sideways" analysis.


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> But possibly not for the want of trying.
> 
> Less than thorough coppering is the most likely - and depressing - explanation.
> 
> ...



Have you been drinking?


----------



## benb (2 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> But possibly not for the want of trying.
> 
> Less than thorough coppering is the most likely - and depressing - explanation.
> 
> ...



You're suggesting he deliberately got run over to make a couple of quid on YouTube?
Are you high?


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4135944, member: 9609"]No, it is a very very long way from normal, the whole incident is just odd, hence my suggestion that it could be an autonomous car; road rage stuff invariably involves horns, shouting, swerving, wheel spinning. This to me just looks like a well driven car that failed to see the cyclist and then failed to acknowledge the collision - the autonomous software will simply not accept it was at fault, the government and the media are so scared of the big G that they will just pretend it never happened.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4135722, member: 9609"]I The whole incident seems a little odd.
[/QUOTE]

It certainly does, particularly the driving of the Volvo.

It follows the cyclist around the roundabout at a distance, allows a longer gap to open on exit, then on a clear stretch of lane one decides to accelerate into the back of the cyclist.

The driver must have been aware of the cyclist, he/she stopped behind the cyclist at the entrance to the roundabout and the rest of the driving surely indicates a driver aware of a cyclist in front.

The style of driving also indicates a patient driver, so why decide to accelerate into the back of the cyclist?

If more speed was suddenly required, the driver could have overtaken, either a close pass in lane one, or by moving into lane two.


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> It certainly does, particularly the driving of the Volvo.
> 
> It follows the cyclist around the roundabout at a distance, allows a longer gap to open on exit, then on a clear stretch of lane one decides to accelerate into the back of the cyclist.
> 
> ...




I think we are either dealing with a distracted driver or a vindictive, impatient driver. The former are far more common, but the latter are not exactly hens teeth either. Call me naive, but I'm ruling out the autonomous car theory and the idea that the cyclist has stage-managed the collision and is feigning injury.


----------



## benborp (2 Feb 2016)

Adaptive cruise control. With queue assistance. Just putting that out there.

Cruise control needs to be used intelligently and in my opinion isn't particularly suited to the UK driving environment. But Volvo drivers tend to be sensible about the technology they purchase.


----------



## benborp (2 Feb 2016)

Oh!


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2016)

benborp said:


> Adaptive cruise control. With queue assistance. Just putting that out there.
> 
> Cruise control needs to be used intelligently and in my opinion isn't particularly suited to the UK driving environment. But Volvo drivers tend to be sensible about the technology they purchase.



That's more plausible - but even if the ACC was deployed (possibly inadvertently - it was a courtesy car after all) by the driver - they are still, ultimately, responsible for maintaining the correct distance and speed. The driver abjectly failed in his duty of care towards other road users, ACC or no ACC, but I suspect we agree on that...

However, I suppose the driver _could_ argue that it was a technical fault and he could not override the ACC - this could be checked though.


----------



## benborp (2 Feb 2016)

Yup. I think for many cruise control is a distraction rather than an aid.


----------



## CopperCyclist (2 Feb 2016)

I have my guess (and I stress GUESS) based on 

The video 
The fact (?) its a hire car 
Experience with the CPS. 

Police identify car. Company identify person it was hired to. That person says "oh, I run a business and let any of these 10 employees drive it. I don't keep records on who has it - its outside the office now, any of them could just take it or any of the other pool cars if they need it. You can go ask them if you like". 

Ten versions of Shaggy's "wasn't me" follow. 

Charge the business owner with failing to report who the driver was. However he's a) not the registered keeper and b) has an excuse which CPS would believe a court would find reasonable as to why he hasn't. 

Case dropped as no other evidence as to who the driver actually was.


----------



## subaqua (2 Feb 2016)

benborp said:


> Adaptive cruise control. With queue assistance. Just putting that out there.
> 
> Cruise control needs to be used intelligently and in my opinion isn't particularly suited to the UK driving environment. But Volvo drivers tend to be sensible about the technology they purchase.




it isn't adaptive cruise control on the one in the vid. the pic below shows the grill with adaptive cruise. its low for a reason 

i would suggest the driver has hit resume and not LOOKED and the Volvo has accelerated. that doesnt excuse hitting anything. stamp on the brake . 







City safety is not bad, but it is not be all and end all. i find the mk 1 eyeball works just as well. 
cruise is great for motorways , but rubbish in the city . ( to be honest cars are rubbish for city use) .


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2016)

More from the uploader of the film "Reginald Scot": 

“I was hit right in the small of my back, I received a severe back injury and internal haemorrhaging from the impact. It took 4 months for me to recover from my injuries with a further month of physiotherapy to reach normality.”

”I found out a lot about the way the justice system works in the UK last year… I saw a prosecutor who could not get Hitler convicted and a defence lawyer get all evidence dismissed in court by the magistrates in about 3mins… the police plan was to hope the accused would just admit it… funny thing is the plan did not work.”


----------



## benborp (2 Feb 2016)

My oblique reference to the YouTube video in relation to sensible use of driver aids points to one of the possible failures of new safety technology - drivers assuming that the technology is fitted when it isn't, let alone understanding under what circumstances it works or how driver behaviour will override its function.

The ridicule I've faced for looking up drivers' manuals for hire cars on-line before driving away suggests that many people don't worry too much about understanding how their vehicle behaves.

By the way, nothing I suggest precludes the possibility of maliciousness, incompetence or distraction on the part of the driver. I'm just pointing out that there are now new avenues for drivers to remove themselves and others from the road with the flair and élan that new technology provides.


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Feb 2016)

This one has really got me annoyed. What can be done. How about a private prosecution ?
If the guy needs money for legal aid, I'd pay. He should start a Kickstarter.


----------



## benb (3 Feb 2016)

Bit more info.
As suspected above, the registered keeper, or someone further down the chain, refused to give details of who was driving. They got 6 points, but only a £150 fine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617


----------



## Poacher (3 Feb 2016)

Now national news, then, but still being studiously ignored by the Nottingham Post.
If it had been a cyclist in the wrong, they'd have been on it like a pack of hounds!


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Feb 2016)

subaqua said:


> it isn't adaptive cruise control on the one in the vid. the pic below shows the grill with adaptive cruise. its low for a reason
> 
> i would suggest the driver has hit resume and not LOOKED and the Volvo has accelerated. that doesnt excuse hitting anything. stamp on the brake .
> 
> ...




The car involved (involvoed) does not seem to have this particular device on the grille, FYI.


----------



## Rooster1 (3 Feb 2016)

I'm just looking for the records now.

I'm just looking *through* the records now.


----------



## benb (3 Feb 2016)

My hunch is that they thought 6 points and a fine would be preferable to whatever they would have got charged with had they identified the driver.
Still, at least this will hurt them financially for quite a while, as insurance companies will load their premiums for this offence.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Feb 2016)

However many lease companies were involved, someone at a lease company finally handed a set of keys to someone.
Whoever was given those keys and walked out the door should be prosecuted for attempted murder.

Sit that person in a cell until they come up with the next name in the chain, then lock that one up.


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> The identity of the person who paid that fine would be an accessible public record?


For what reason? They have been dealt with for what they have done. They cannot be convicted fr something of which there is no evidence. Publishing his details would only serve the purpous of encouraging attacks on a person who has been dealt with by the courts.


----------



## CopperCyclist (3 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> My hunch is that they thought 6 points and a fine would be preferable to whatever they would have got charged with had they identified the driver.



Unless they were disqualified from driving, I suspect they were wrong about that. 

I presumed from the video uploaders comments that everyone had got away completely scot free. Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2016)

It's an interesting discussion, and I see the CpS position, but society needs protecting from people who are willing to flee and hide from the law after doing this. More effort is required.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> Unless they were disqualified from driving, I suspect they were wrong about that.
> 
> I presumed from the video uploaders comments that everyone had got away completely scot free. Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.


Really - a trivial fine and a small number of points is '/not too bad a result' for smashing someone with a few tonnes of metal? I've heard of lowered expectations, but this seems a bit extreme.


----------



## DaveReading (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> The identity of the person who paid that fine would be an accessible public record?



According to the BBC report, both of the two individuals who were eligible to drive the car were summonsed to court for failing to stop or report the accident, though the CPS subsequently dropped those charges. So both their identities will be in the public domain.


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

oldstrath said:


> Really - a trivial fine and a small number of points is '/not too bad a result' for smashing someone with a few tonnes of metal? I've heard of lowered expectations, but this seems a bit extreme.


That's not what the punishment was for though. It would have been greater had it been. But there is no evidence who it was.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> Still, at least this will hurt them financially for quite a while, as insurance companies will load their premiums for this offence.



Assuming they have a car and that they even tell the insurance company.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Feb 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.



What is worrying is that our system allows this. IMO willfully not disclosing who was driving should be equal in punishment to the worst offence that is possible in the vehicle.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Feb 2016)

DaveReading said:


> According to the BBC report, both of the two individuals who were eligible to drive the car were summonsed to court for failing to stop or report the accident, though the CPS subsequently dropped those charges. So both their identities will be in the public domain.



Our society can do without those two people.


----------



## benborp (3 Feb 2016)

Markymark said:


> That's not what the punishment was for though. It would have been greater had it been. But there is no evidence who it was.


Sorry to point it out again, but people regularly receive paltry fines and moderate endorsements when convicted of driving offences that cause injury. The same goes for causing death. It's possible to receive as few as 3 points for killing someone and fines are frequently less than a moderate weekly wage. We're also depressingly familiar with the arguments that are successfully used to absolve drivers of some or all blame when such cases come to trial.

Depressingly, a moderate fine and some penalty points is a good result for a careless driving case resulting in injury.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Feb 2016)

Markymark said:


> That's not what the punishment was for though. It would have been greater had it been. But there is no evidence who it was.


Avoiding, if we can, the legal doublethink, one of the two people concerned is likely to have caused a significant injury. This injury has gone unpunished, except by a trifling fine levied for a technical offence.


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

oldstrath said:


> Avoiding, if we can, the legal doublethink, one of the two people concerned is likely to have caused a significant injury. This injury has gone unpunished, except by a trifling fine levied for a technical offence.


Do you think it fair if you were punished because either you or your neighbour definitely hurt someone but nobody knows which?


----------



## Spinney (3 Feb 2016)

Markymark said:


> Do you think it fair if you were punished because either you or your neighbour definitely hurt someone but nobody knows which?


That's not quite the case here though, is it? One of them must know they ran over the cyclist. The 'innocent' one must know the other did it. For neither to say anything is actually conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...


----------



## benb (3 Feb 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> Unless they were disqualified from driving, I suspect they were wrong about that.
> 
> I presumed from the video uploaders comments that everyone had got away completely scot free. Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.



6 points is standard for failing to disclose, but the fine seems odd. I thought it was £500 as standard.


----------



## benborp (3 Feb 2016)

But such a situation shouldn't result in the punishment of an innocent. An innocent might face the prospect of facing a charge whereby the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt their guilt. Instead we have to settle for the fact that on the balance of probabilities the CPS will fail to get a prosecution and the widespread recognition that conspiracy with or coercion of a witness is an effective method of sidestepping justice.


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

Spinney said:


> That's not quite the case here though, is it? One of them must know they ran over the cyclist. The 'innocent' one must know the other did it. For neither to say anything is actually conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...


That is true. Then the punishment must be for the crime of perverting the course of justice, not running over a cyclist.....whcih it was.

Now, if you tink the punishment for that should be higher, then I agree. But they cannot be punished for something that have not been convicted of.


----------



## Spinney (3 Feb 2016)

I agree that the punishment was totally inadequate.


----------



## benborp (3 Feb 2016)

Grim, I know, but does anyone remember details of the case of the two adults convicted of the death of the child in their care? I seem to remember that they faced a reduced charge as their common assertion that the other was responsible effectively thwarted a prosecution for murder. I know there are huge disparities between murder and RTC investigations but the use of an alternative charge to the one most relevant is pretty much a constant in RTC prosecutions.


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> There is that risk.


Is that something you'd like to see? A person who has no evidence against him of injuring anyone, possibly punished beyond what the courts have already done?


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> I would like a scumbag identified as such.


Why would you want that?


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> So that decent people can shun them.


Ah, shun them. No secret desire that they're punished by vigilantes? No doubt an acceptable risk?


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> I am not in favour of vigilantism. On the other hand I am not particularly keen on sharing roads with psychopaths. I don't see why their friends, colleagues, family, neighbours, etc should not know about the sort of person they appear to be.


Which psychopath is that because there's no evidence he's the person who did anything to harm that cyclist? Maybe he should get a kicking just in case?


----------



## benb (3 Feb 2016)

Unpalatable as it is, we cannot and should not want someone convicted where the evidence is lacking.
A fair justice system, which is what we strive for even if we don not have one, unfortunately means that some guilty people will go unpunished. (or in this case not punished enough)


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

User said:


> We don't know which psychopath, or even whether or not there is one. The whole thing might have been a ghastly accident.
> Until someone choses to step forward and explain themself though, I am going with the assumption that the person who was fined, was responsible, and is a psychopath. It is their choice to leave that perception as the most reasonable on offer.
> As for the kicking part, you are looking to put words in my mouth here. Kindly desist.


So Adrian in the court of one has convicted this person. I am very pleased for you. And now you wish to punish them for the crime and conviction you have decided? hmmmm

I reckon those bloody foreign looking types up the road are up to all the local mischief. It's obvious. That's my assumption. I've also convicted them in my mind. They ran away when the police came so it's their fault really, they could have answered their questions. They chose to leave their guilt hanging. I think it's best I name and shame them.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> Unpalatable as it is, we cannot and should not want someone convicted where the evidence is lacking.
> A fair justice system, which is what we strive for even if we don not have one, unfortunately means that some guilty people will go unpunished. (or in this case not punished enough)



It's worth remembering that "evidence is lacking" because the police have neither the time or financial/staff resources to pursue the matter in more depth, given the nature of the crime. The injured party was essentially told as much.

Failure to disclose, whilst not exactly a loophole, often allows people to get off with a lighter punishment - that is clearly not right and the legislation should be tightened.


----------



## benb (3 Feb 2016)

Origamist said:


> It's worth remembering that "evidence is lacking" because the police have neither the time or financial/staff resources to pursue the matter in more depth, given the nature of the crime. The injured party was essentially told as much.
> 
> Failure to disclose, whilst not exactly a loophole, often allows people to get off with a lighter punishment - that is clearly not right and the legislation should be tightened.



They should change the legislation so that the punishment for failure to disclose is the same as the underlying offence that generated it.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Feb 2016)

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this legal website:

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/failing_to_identify_driver.php

But the following is interesting, lifted from the FAQ which concerns responsibilities with informing te police of who is driving:

"Are the obligations on a company any different to that of an individual Keeper?

Yes. The Company is required to keep accurate records of who was driving the vehicle on any given day. For all intents and purposes, the Court will expect an on going log to be maintained detailing the identity of all users of the vehicle at any specific time. Failure to be able to supply this information will probably result in conviction. It is not a defence to say that it is a "pool" car and that anybody could have been driving it at the time, unless you have an exceptional case."

I'm not sure wat conviction means though here?


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Feb 2016)

I have to sit on the fence on this one, I don't have both sides of the story. Let's just say theoretically, that the cyclist had to slow down suddenly, and that the Volvo driver hadn't realised the cyclist was slowing down. It makes the Volvo driver an inattentive prat, not an attempted murderer. I really dislike it when someone posts 'dashcam' type footage, then bleats on the Internet about the intent of the driver, without hearing the other side of the story. There was a cracking case in point on a T.V. show about car crashes that was on last night. A bike rider ( with obligatory helmet cam) had a coming together with a car, emerging from his left. Despite the riders admission, that the car wasn't doing what he thought it should ( that is to say, he thought there was something odd in the drivers behaviour) he continued to ride, at the same speed, and in the same position, then when the accident happened, it was all the drivers fault. It was the drivers fault ( legally speaking), but if the rider had any common sense, he would have at least slowed down a bit, and / or slightly changed his position. Sometimes ( not always) the rider could have done more than they did, to prevent the accident.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> They should change the legislation so that the punishment for failure to disclose is the same as the underlying offence that generated it.



Sign the petition to that effect:



> Increase the penalty for failing to provide driver details under s172 RTA 1988
> 
> Failing to provide details of a driver involved in an offence is 6pts and £1000. This can be exploited where the offence alleged carries a higher penalty than that above (e.g. dangerous driving). The penalty for failing to provide should match that of the offence allegedly committed by the driver.
> 
> An example is this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617(link is external). A driver deliberately hit a cyclist and drive off. There were two possible drivers and they simply refused to say who was driving. This is not uncommon but it is effectively The penalty was 6pts and £150. If the s172 penalty matched the index offence then witholding driver details would cease to be an attractive option. Alternatively, s172 could carry custody where it is wilfully committed."


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623/sponsors/5IZdXnonAMrQNsH6WK6


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> I have to sit on the fence on this one, I don't have both sides of the story. Let's just say theoretically, that the cyclist had to slow down suddenly, and that the Volvo driver hadn't realised the cyclist was slowing down. It makes the Volvo driver an inattentive prat, not an attempted murderer. I really dislike it when someone posts 'dashcam' type footage, then bleats on the Internet about the intent of the driver, without hearing the other side of the story. There was a cracking case in point on a T.V. show about car crashes that was on last night. A bike rider ( with obligatory helmet cam) had a coming together with a car, emerging from his left. Despite the riders admission, that the car wasn't doing what he thought it should ( that is to say, he thought there was something odd in the drivers behaviour) he continued to ride, at the same speed, and in the same position, then when the accident happened, it was all the drivers fault. It was the drivers fault ( legally speaking), but if the rider had any common sense, he would have at least slowed down a bit, and / or slightly changed his position. Sometimes ( not always) the rider could have done more than they did, to prevent the accident.



You don't have both sides of the story because the two occupants of the car failed to disclose who was driving and thereby avoided being charged with failing to stop and failing to report. They sound like the type of folk who are going to provide a truthful account of events to help you make up your mind though...


----------



## Spinney (3 Feb 2016)

That link goes straight to the signature page - have you got a link to the page where the petition is described? I know you quoted it above, but I'd just like to be sure I'm signing the correct one!


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

Spinney said:


> That link goes straight to the signature page - have you got a link to the page where the petition is described? I know you quoted it above, but I'd just like to be sure I'm signing the correct one!



Sorry, I don't. I found it via the comments on the RoadCC article. Does it need more signatories before it goes live?


----------



## Spinney (3 Feb 2016)

Ah - searching on 120623 got me this:






So the thing itself is not yet ready for the public to sign.


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Feb 2016)

Origamist said:


> You don't have both sides of the story because the two occupants of the car failed to disclose who was driving and thereby avoided being charged with failing to stop and failing to report. They sound like the type of folk who are going to provide a truthful account of events to help you make up your mind though...


I guess we'll never know.


----------



## Sara_H (3 Feb 2016)

Surely it should be fairly simple to legislate to close this loophole. So if the person responsible for the car fails to disclose who was driving they get whacked with the maximum sentence/fine/points of whatever offence has been committed. So in this case Dangerous driving, failure to stop at the scene.


----------



## Markymark (3 Feb 2016)

Don't you get the same penalty for refusing to take a breath test as if you were caught drink driving?


----------



## Sara_H (3 Feb 2016)

Markymark said:


> Is that something you'd like to see? A person who has no evidence against him of injuring anyone, possibly punished beyond what the courts have already done?


If you have responsibility for a car, then you have responsibility for knowing who is driving it. If you don't know who is driving a car that you're responsible for then you are negligent and thats your problem, not the problem of everyone else in society.
As it is I suspect its very unlikely that the people responsible don't know who was driving, but if they don't, then that's their fault. Its about time car owners were made to start taking responsibility.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> I guess we'll never know.



Oh, I think some journos will be sniffing around and more details/names will follow...


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

Spinney said:


> Ah - searching on 120623 got me this:
> View attachment 117819
> 
> 
> So the thing itself is not yet ready for the public to sign.



It needed the 5 supporters, then it gets checked. Hopefully it will be approved.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Feb 2016)

Sara_H said:


> Surely it should be fairly simple to legislate to close this loophole. So if the person responsible for the car fails to disclose who was driving they get whacked with the maximum sentence/fine/points of whatever offence has been committed. So in this case Dangerous driving, failure to stop at the scene.



Doesn't that simply mean that horrible, indecent human beings like this driver will simply use a stooge as the person responsible for the car? That's pretty much what happens already, criminals routinely exploit DOC cover and the car's registered to Mr Homer Simpson.


----------



## Sara_H (3 Feb 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Doesn't that simply mean that horrible, indecent human beings like this driver will simply use a stooge as the person responsible for the car? That's pretty much what happens already, criminals routinely exploit DOC cover and the car's registered to Mr Homer Simpson.


Maybe, but the stiffer the sentence the less likely someone is to take the wrap. And I suspect some proper investigation by police could unpick most false stories quite quickly.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Feb 2016)

It's truly mad, the penalty for hit and run is less than that for serious driving offences. So if you are a horrible indecent human being OF COURSE YOU WILL RUN! Same with this, refusing to identify makes loads of sense if you're a worthless person. The penalty is less. Of course they won't identify the driver. Never going to happen as long as scum like this can drive a horse and cart through the law.


----------



## gaz (3 Feb 2016)

As someone with knowledge of how the Police, CPS and the Court system deal with such cases I've written a post on my blog about how the Police, CPS and the Court System have done what they were meant to, the problem is with the legislation.
http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/cyclist-gets-hit-from-behind-police-do-nothing/


----------



## 400bhp (3 Feb 2016)

why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?


----------



## mjr (3 Feb 2016)

It's horrendous and I agree with many points above but I wonder if the victim feels that the government treats motorists "as lepers" by building motorways?


----------



## CaadX (3 Feb 2016)

fossyant said:


> It doesn't surprise me. They aren't interested as the civil side of the law will 'sort it' - that's effectively what the police officer said to me - 'your insurance/solicitor will sort it out, despite the severity of your injury'. CBA !


'In cases of momentary lapses of concentration it is not police policy to prosecute drivers !' You may like to check with your local force .


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Feb 2016)

Gaz, thanks for that. We had a similar case in Denmark recently. It was not a hire car but both parties in the car were insured to drive it.

A new bill needs to go through which in cases like this allows both parties to be charged for the same offence. Obviously one of them was driving and they are using the system to accept lesser charges.


----------



## Spinney (3 Feb 2016)

The problem with all of this is that if X was driving (in a general case, not specifically this one) - if both people were in the car:

X says that Y was driving
Y says that X was driving

Y is telling the truth and has done nothing wrong - they were not driving, and they have said who _was _driving - so it would be unjust to prosecute them.

But the police have no way of knowing which of the two is telling the truth.

Although I suppose you could say that Y _has_ done something wrong by not reporting X for doing a hit and run as soon as it happened. Although if there were no witnesses, X could turn around and say that Y was actually driving, and had only got their story in first because they thought they stood a better chance of being believed.

But if neither of them will say at all - then yes, both should be prosecuted. But the threat of that will probably turn it into the situation I've just outlined.


----------



## benborp (3 Feb 2016)

100%. And if the insurers suggest that they are anything but 100% liable that's where this footage should finally pay dividends.


----------



## CaadX (3 Feb 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Gaz, thanks for that. We had a similar case in Denmark recently. It was not a hire car but both parties in the car were insured to drive it.
> 
> A new bill needs to go through which in cases like this allows both parties to be charged for the same offence. Obviously one of them was driving and they are using the system to accept lesser charges.


That will never happen though, the law can never convict an innocent party and proving compliance would be a little tricky.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

Unsurprisingly, husband and wife:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35486855

Not long untill they're named, I should think.


----------



## DaveReading (3 Feb 2016)

Interesting shift of emphasis from the initial assertion that neither would say who was driving on the day, to both of them saying that they did drive on that day but neither can recollect hitting the cyclist.

Given that the video, which is presumably undisputed, shows where the collision took place, is it too much to expect that the police could ask the couple which one was driving at that point?


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Feb 2016)

oldstrath said:


> Really - a trivial fine and a small number of points is '/not too bad a result' for smashing someone with a few tonnes of metal? I've heard of lowered expectations, but this seems a bit extreme.



It's not a bad result on the evidence available. Our courts only work on evidence - and the burden of proof needs solid, reliable evidence at that. So yes, it's a good result to get something out of this. 

It doesn't equate to justice for what the victim suffered - but that's the system we have.


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Feb 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> What is worrying is that our system allows this. IMO willfully not disclosing who was driving should be equal in punishment to the worst offence that is possible in the vehicle.



Gets my vote!


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Feb 2016)

DaveReading said:


> Given that the video, which is presumably undisputed, shows where the collision took place, is it too much to expect that the police could ask the couple which one was driving at that point?



I'm imagining they probably did, and both of them frowned, put their best puzzled face on and said "No, I just can't remember". 

When that petition mentioned above is ok'd, if someone posts it again I'm signing straight away.


----------



## subaqua (4 Feb 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> The car involved (involvoed) does not seem to have this particular device on the grille, FYI.


i know. thats what i said in the first line of my post.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Feb 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'm imagining they probably did, and both of them frowned, put their best puzzled face on and said "No, I just can't remember".
> 
> When that petition mentioned above is ok'd, if someone posts it again I'm signing straight away.



So would the next step be - who has an alibi at the time, or does it just get dropped? If it does get dropped, who decides that - the PC, Sergeant, Inspector, CPS?


----------



## DaveReading (4 Feb 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So would the next step be - who has an alibi at the time?



Presumably both parties, if asked what they were doing at the time, would have another convenient lapse of memory. So hard to see how that would help.

A bit more background from the local rag here:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Shock...list-hit-run/story-28664954-detail/story.html

Incidentally, the conviction for failing to provide driver details was in September of last year.


----------



## Subotai72 (4 Feb 2016)

I saw a post on another forum saying that Police have basically given anyone an "_Out" _to commit murder/manslaughter by motor vehicle if they can't (_be bothered?_) prove who was driving the car. It defies belief really when you consider that the cyclist could just have easily ended up in a coma or been killed: what would the Police have done then? Why not check the CCTV footage that they keep banging on about being vital to solving/preventing crime? They just can't be arsed.


----------



## Markymark (4 Feb 2016)

User said:


> I blame the Hamiltons


The Pryce/Huhnes?


----------



## Cubist (4 Feb 2016)

Markymark said:


> Don't you get the same penalty for refusing to take a breath test as if you were caught drink driving?


Sort of. There is an assumption that the driver will be banned automatically for at least 12 months, and fined. I've seen a recent case where thee ban was for 16 months reduced to 12 if an extended test is taken, and a £600 fine. The lenght of a ban in the case of a positive sample grows with the percentage over the limit, so drivers blowing in the 100s face a longer ban than someone blowing 40. We commonly see folk blowing a huge first sample, then failing ornrefusing to blow a second.


----------



## Subotai72 (4 Feb 2016)

Markymark said:


> The Pryce/Huhnes?


 When it suits them then. Publicity whores.


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Feb 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So would the next step be - who has an alibi at the time, or does it just get dropped? If it does get dropped, who decides that - the PC, Sergeant, Inspector, CPS?



The next steps vary from case to case, but simply put, yes - if there is a way to try and prove who was driving by questioning, then those questions will be asked. The problem is that it's very easy to give an untruthful answer which is impossible to disprove to the burden required by the court. 

Different forces will have different policies as to who chooses to drop it, but a usual approach would be for a PC to write up the report explaining everything they've done, and why they think they can't go any further. A sergeant would then check the report and agree, or suggest further lines of enquiry if they spot something that was missed. 

In this instance, it would appear PC and PS decided to actually report the driver to court, hoping that a court would choose to believe they are lying. Once the matter is at court in this way, it's then CPS that make the choice to discontinue as they were certain that the drivers excuse would result in a not guilty.


----------



## andyoxon (4 Feb 2016)

So is the _law an ass_ on this, or is it a failure of procedural will power - 'more hassle than it's worth' for police/CPS..? Either way it seems obvious that a £150 fine is wholly inadequate, and justice does has not seen to have been done.


----------



## Subotai72 (4 Feb 2016)

andyoxon said:


> So is the _law an ass_ on this, or is it a failure of procedural will power - 'more hassle than it's worth' for police/CPS..? Either way it seems obvious that a £150 fine is wholley inadequate, and justice does has not seen to have been done.


 I suppose it would depend on whether the car is registered to Chris Huhne or not


----------



## CaadX (4 Feb 2016)

Justice in lots of cases is based on finance it seems, be it the lack of resources to prosecute or the ability and means to pay fines. In a cases like this the ideal would be to make the car hire firm liable no argument it was their car. Whack the max penalty up to say £25 000 of course no court will find to the max but it would probably be a few grand. Ability to pay ? I think so, and watch them get the cash out of the low lives, precedent set then civil for damages. No custodial sentence but its the next best thing.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Feb 2016)

CaadX said:


> Justice in lots of cases is based on finance it seems, be it the lack of resources to prosecute or the ability and means to pay fines. In a cases like this the ideal would be to make the car hire firm liable no argument it was their car. Whack the max penalty up to say £25 000 of course no court will find to the max but it would probably be a few grand. Ability to pay ? I think so, and watch them get the cash out of the low lives, precedent set then civil for damages. No custodial sentence but its the next best thing.



When you allow a mechanism for this person to be punished, you allow the mechanism for abuse too.

Your car was stolen through the night, the thief used it in a hit and run but was never found. Fair to prosecute the owner of the vehicle?


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Feb 2016)

andyoxon said:


> So is the _law an ass_ on this, or is it a failure of procedural will power - 'more hassle than it's worth' for police/CPS..? Either way it seems obvious that a £150 fine is wholly inadequate, and justice does has not seen to have been done.


Its a loophole, it needs closing.

Otherwise we see vigilante justice.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Feb 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> When you allow a mechanism for this person to be punished, you allow the mechanism for abuse too.
> 
> Your car was stolen through the night, the thief used it in a hit and run but was never found. Fair to prosecute the owner of the vehicle?


You restrict it to written agreements between 2 parties.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Feb 2016)

Maybe my first post was missed but why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?


----------



## DaveReading (4 Feb 2016)

400bhp said:


> Maybe my first post was missed but why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?



Because, as the law stands, such a charge wouldn't stick.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Feb 2016)

400bhp said:


> Maybe my first post was missed but why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?


Only one of them is actually perverting the course of justice, which one do you choose?


----------



## CaadX (4 Feb 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> When you allow a mechanism for this person to be punished, you allow the mechanism for abuse too.
> 
> Your car was stolen through the night, the thief used it in a hit and run but was never found. Fair to prosecute the owner of the vehicle?





User said:


> Why one? The driver knew they were driving and the non-driver knew that they were not. Both have, presumably, said they cannot remember. Seems that both are lying to me.


Indeed the problem is proving it.


----------



## CaadX (4 Feb 2016)

oops not got the hang of this did not mean to include the first quote sorry.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Feb 2016)

400bhp said:


> You restrict it to written agreements between 2 parties.



What if a hire car gets stolen? What IF the one in the video was driven after being stolen and the owner couldn't identify?

Obviously this is unlikely to be the case, but we cannot have a justice system that punishes people without proving guilt, finding an innocent person guilty is far worse than finding a guilty person not guilty.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Why one? The driver knew they were driving and the non-driver knew that they were not. Both have, presumably, said they cannot remember. Seems that both are lying to me.


And if they both say neither of them were driving, which one do you pick?


----------



## CaadX (4 Feb 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What if a hire car gets stolen? What IF the one in the video was driven after being stolen and the owner couldn't identify?
> 
> Obviously this is unlikely to be the case, but we cannot have a justice system that punishes people without proving guilt, finding an innocent person guilty is far worse than finding a guilty person not guilty.


There are a lot of what ifs. The thing is none are being tested because the police and CPS are acting as judge and jury instead of law enforcement agencies


----------



## CaadX (4 Feb 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> And if they both say neither of them were driving, which one do you pick?


You do not have to pick either if you use a different mechanism as I outlined earlier.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Feb 2016)

CaadX said:


> You do not have to pick either if you use a different mechanism as I outlined earlier.



Well 6 pages ago I suggested this https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/brutal-hit-and-run-nottingham.195351/post-4137775

I personally think it is a better option, whoever owns/rents the car is responsible for those driving it.


----------



## CaadX (4 Feb 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> Well 6 pages ago I suggested this https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/brutal-hit-and-run-nottingham.195351/post-4137775
> 
> I personally think it is a better option, whoever owns/rents the car is responsible for those driving it.


In an ideal world I might agree however the willfully part and proving it would be the stumbling block. You need to remove the burden of proof.


----------



## mjr (4 Feb 2016)

CaadX said:


> There are a lot of what ifs. The thing is none are being tested because the police and CPS are acting as judge and jury instead of law enforcement agencies


Maybe there's precedent? Surely this has been tried by now? If so, few would thank the CPS for throwing money away on hopeless cases.


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Feb 2016)

You are correct. Both the police and CPS can only work with the law available. They all seem frustrated by this and the law needs to be changed.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Feb 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What if a hire car gets stolen? What IF the one in the video was driven after being stolen and the owner couldn't identify?
> 
> Obviously this is unlikely to be the case, but we cannot have a justice system that punishes people without proving guilt, finding an innocent person guilty is far worse than finding a guilty person not guilty.



Nothing. It's stolen. The same principle applies for any vehicle that's stolen.

It's very easy to point to extreme scenarios as a basis for doing nothing. That isn't good enough in my view.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Two different criminal offences. The perverting the course of justice one is demonstrated on the fact that both are lying about something both know full well, in order to duck the primary offence.



And why can't you use the "balance of probabilities" here, i.e. on balance of probailiities you would know if you hit the cyclist in the circumstance described and reported, and hence if, on the balance of probabilities, you would also know if you didn't hit the cyclist.

Roughly translated as "FFS, it's so bl00dy obvious that you'd know if you had hit a cyclist"


----------



## DaveReading (4 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4140573, member: 9609"]As far as the very serious offence of failing to stop, perverting the course of justice, and perjury, can they both not be charged with "Joint Enterprise"[/QUOTE]

You can't convict someone for claiming that they don't recall something, even if it's bleeding obvious that they are being disingenuous.

In the absence of any other evidence, that is.


----------



## mjr (5 Feb 2016)

400bhp said:


> And why can't you use the "balance of probabilities" here, i.e. on balance of probailiities you would know if you hit the cyclist ...


That's not what balance of probabilities usually means.

And that's usually the standard of proof for civil disputes, not criminal trials which usually seek proof beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## DaveReading (5 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4140616, member: 9609"]the evidence is overwhelming, charge both of them under 'joint enterprise' it makes no difference who was driving.[/QUOTE]

We're going round in circles here. 

If the CPS thought a Joint Enterprise charge would stick, then the pair would be in court. But JE would require that the person in the passenger seat had agreed and planned in advance with the driver that they were going to run down a cyclist. 

Are you suggesting that's what they did?



> And yes you can convict someone even if they claim not to remember.



Of course you can. But not, as I said, in the absence of any evidence that identifies the offender.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Feb 2016)

mjray said:


> That's not what balance of probabilities usually means.
> 
> And that's usually the standard of proof for civil disputes, not criminal trials which usually seek proof beyond reasonable doubt.



Well, it means, more likely than not. So it's the same?

Yes, understand about civil & criminal but I don't know enough about the law to know when it's possible not to use beyond reasonable doubt? I'm interested in this because all this seems like a massive gap in the law.

Edit, actually FFS surely this is "beyond reasonable doubt" here?


----------



## Raa (5 Feb 2016)

Well they seem to have sucessfully avoided justice, they probably had some loophle lawyer tell them exactly what to say.

Personally I think a good public shaming would go some way towards a a suitable punishment. How about crowdfunding a reward for the person who makes thier identities public?

I'll start with £100

Anyone else?


----------



## TheJDog (5 Feb 2016)

The £150 fine as opposed to the maximum is a real kick in the teeth here. I hope the insurance company gets stuck to the wall.


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2016)

Trouble with JE in this case is that if they are both saying it was the other one driving, only one of them is lying. The other is innocent.


----------



## Spinney (5 Feb 2016)

I think they are both saying they can't remember.


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2016)

User13710 said:


> No, the other one knows who was driving and is lying about it.



X and Y.
X was driving.
X says Y was driving.
Y says X was driving.

Only X is lying. Y is innocent.

Not saying that's what they said in this case (there has been some suggestion they both said they couldn't remember) but you couldn't prosecute both of them in the scenario I just described.


----------



## Spinney (5 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> X and Y.
> X was driving.
> X says Y was driving.
> Y says X was driving.
> ...


TMN to me!
(you even 'liked' my post, benb!)


----------



## benb (5 Feb 2016)

Spinney said:


> TMN to me!
> (you even 'liked' my post, benb!)



They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.


----------



## mjr (5 Feb 2016)

User said:


> Actually it's not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but 'so that you are sure'. There is a subtle but substantive difference.


My experience of criminal law is blissfully limited, so I defer to you, but that's still stronger than a balance of probabilities.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> X and Y.
> X was driving.
> X says Y was driving.
> Y says X was driving.
> ...



X is lying. Y is lying to save X. Hang em both.


----------



## Raa (6 Feb 2016)

Reginald Scott has posted a youtube update; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTkscGs ... e=youtu.be


----------



## oldstrath (7 Feb 2016)

Raa said:


> Reginald Scott has posted a youtube update; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTkscGs ... e=youtu.be


Watched it, sort of wished I hadn't - just a reminder that the fecks got away with it, which will probably encourage others to do the same, and nothing done to stop them.

Remind me again why vigilante action is wrong?

Edit 
ok, I do know why vigilante action is wrong really, but the implications of this case seem terrifying, given the casual way in which almost every driver treats the law and their responsibilities.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2016)

There is an assumption the bloke who pleaded guilty or was convicted of failure to furnish driver details is the driver.

But I wonder if he was genuinely unable to name the driver, and/or had an apparently unbreakable alibi for the time of the accident: "I was abroad at the time and the keys and the car were left at work."

The appropriate charge could be causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

There is no need for a formal admission of who was driving for that charge to be laid.

If there is good evidence he was driving, there is no reason not to charge him with the causing injury offence.

His only defence could be 'I wasn't driving', so any trial would turn on that issue.

That is good in one respect, because the serious injury and dangerous driving would have to be accepted - he can give no evidence otherwise because he wasn't there.

The prosecution would only need to prove he was driving.

We don't know what evidence there is to prove he was driving, but part of it would be the footage showing a male.

If there is no other evidence he was the driver, and some evidence he was not - see alibi paragraph above - I can understand why the police/CPS were left with failure to furnish.

That might also explain the unusually small fine - the magistrates accepted he had genuine difficulties complying with the statutory request to furnish the driver details.


----------



## toffee (7 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> - the magistrates accepted he had genuine difficulties complying with the statutory request to furnish the driver details.



Surely if he was in no position to say who was driving, such as if he was out of the country, then he would have been found not guilty as he would not be in a position to do so.

Derek


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2016)

toffee said:


> Surely if he was in no position to say who was driving, such as if he was out of the country, then he would have been found not guilty as he would not be in a position to do so.
> 
> Derek



There is a statutory obligation to name the driver of your car when required to do so.

Once charged, there is a defence along the lines of you've taken all reasonable steps to comply, but the onus on you is to take a lot of those steps - you have to convince the magistrates you've tried awfully hard to comply.

In most cases, if you don't come up with a name, it's an automatic guilty verdict.

As you might imagine, there may be a handful of people who have genuinely ended up on the wrong end of that statute.

This bloke may not be one of those people, but if the police have good evidence he was the driver, there is no need or point in pratting around with failure to furnish - charge him straight away with causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and let a jury pick the bones out of whether he was driving or not.

There could be evidence he was the driver which has not been uncovered due to useless coppering.

But to be fair to Notts Police, we do not know the extent and range of their inquiries, only the result.


----------



## growingvegetables (7 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> But to be fair to Notts Police, we do not know the extent and range of their inquiries, only the result.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGG8fGnlD1o
- an account.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGG8fGnlD1o
> - an account.




From that second video, it appears the officer did not treat the crash with appropriate seriousness - she suggests to Reg a few points and a fine is a decent result for him.

Many CPS prosecutors are useless, but to be fair to this one he proved the only charge he was prosecuting - failure to furnish - because the magistrates found the defendant guilty of it.

Reg is correct when he ventures if he had been killed, someone would have been charged with one of the death by driving offences.

That could have brought its own reward, because if she was charged, with prison a probability, it's likely she would have run the so-called cut throat defence: "I wasn't driving," so by extension it must be him.

The officer, if she's any good, may well now regret not getting more stuck into this investigation at the early stage.


----------



## oldstrath (7 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> From that second video, it appears the officer did not treat the crash with appropriate seriousness - she suggests to Reg a few points and a fine is a decent result for him.
> 
> Many CPS prosecutors are useless, but to be fair to this one he proved the only charge he was prosecuting - failure to furnish - because the magistrates found the defendant guilty of it.
> 
> ...





Pale Rider said:


> From that second video, it appears the officer did not treat the crash with appropriate seriousness - she suggests to Reg a few points and a fine is a decent result for him.
> 
> Many CPS prosecutors are useless, but to be fair to this one he proved the only charge he was prosecuting - failure to furnish - because the magistrates found the defendant guilty of it.
> 
> ...



It's not clear to me why the event that occurred should not have the risk of prison, or lifetime ban on the grounds the driver was either blind or has no short term memory.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Feb 2016)

oldstrath said:


> It's not clear to me why the event that occurred should not have the risk of prison, or lifetime ban on the grounds the driver was either blind or has no short term memory.



There is a risk of prison, but only if an imprisonable offence is charged.

For whatever reasons, the police seem to think failure to furnish is sufficient, which carries a maximum of a fine and licence points.

Only fair to point out the police may not have been assisted by the CPS, who are notoriously timid and prone to drop a case if it starts to look a bit difficult.


----------



## Nortones2 (7 Feb 2016)

A tendency to minimise the injuries, and blindness to the prima facie use of a vehicle to cause harm, because of an agenda? The police in this event seem to have little understanding that the outcome of an "event" is variable, even where the causal factors are very similar. They have resisted delving into motives and causes, and gathering witnesses. There were other vehicles nearby, possibly with sight of the driver, as well as CCT available. Perhaps the case was passed to a second rank investigator, as no death occurred, although clearly there was a very serious injury.


----------



## benb (7 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> X and Y.
> X was driving.
> X says Y was driving.
> Y says X was driving.
> ...





Tin Pot said:


> X is lying. Y is lying to save X. Hang em both.



How is Y lying? They said X was driving, which is the truth.


----------



## RoubaixCube (10 Feb 2016)

part 3 of 4



Utterly shocking. Its almost like the police & the CPS didnt even care that if he existed or not let alone that he was mowed down by driver who used his vehicle as a weapon and didnt stop.

If i was treated the same way then i would have went after all of them with a civil lawsuit. 

Suspect had multiple prior convictions regarding dangerous driving and even went to jail because of it but the prosecutor had the audacity to ask the judge to ignore all previous vehicle related convictions and "show leniency...."

I cannot even begin to believe the utter stupidity which took place inside that court.


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Feb 2016)

User13710 said:


> So it wasn't a staged incident with put-on loud groaning in order to increase traffic to a YouTube channel then? Amazing.



What idiot said that?...

Ah well, just goes to show 'one' can only comment/speculate on the information before 'one' at the time.

Which leads to Reg's trial video.

Shame he didn't give a list of charges, but it appears the only live one was failure to furnish.

That fits, because Reg wasn't called as a witness and the prosecutor knew nothing of the incident - he didn't have to because it's irrelevant to the matter in hand, failing to fill in a form.

Seems to me the charge does not adequately reflect the overall criminality in the case, so it looks like the police didn't gather sufficient evidence to charge something more serious.

The officer's remarks to Reg in court, and what we know of her investigation, indicate to me she wrongly decided at an early stage there wasn't much in the case, and even more wrongly stuck to that view.

Her suspect's dreadful driving record should have been a strong hint something serious could be afoot.

There seems to be difficulty identifying the driver, but Reg's video expert reckoned it was a male.

If the police got their own video expert - and he said the same thing, which they don't always - that expert evidence, and the male defendant's admission it must have been 'me or her' driving, ought to identify the driver to the high standard of proof required in a criminal court.

I'm no police basher, but the failure to get this driver before a court on a meaningful charge looks to me to be down to poor coppering.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Feb 2016)

Makes me wonder if the driver is a grass or is otherwise useful to the old bill and therefore untouchable. It might just be staggering ineptitude though.


----------



## Tim Hall (10 Feb 2016)

Of monetising YouTube videos:


Pale Rider said:


> What idiot said that?...
> .


Classic 33 in post #33


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Feb 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Of monetising YouTube videos:
> Classic 33 in post #33



Kind of you not to point out who said the other bit about theatrical moaning.

But just in case my post number 194 coughing the job wasn't clear, it was me.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Feb 2016)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/recreational-cycling/why-do-drivers-get-away-with-attempted-murder/


----------



## benb (11 Feb 2016)

Why does the Telegraph insist on putting cycling articles under "Men"?


----------



## Karlt (11 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> Why does the Telegraph insist on putting cycling articles under "Men"?



Because in Torygraph world only gentlemen cycle out in traffic or in any sporting manner. A lady, if she cycled at all, would cycle slowly around the park in order to take the air on a step through frame.


----------



## hatler (11 Feb 2016)

I'm not sure I want to watch Part 3 'cos I know it will make me angry and grumpy.


----------



## jarlrmai (11 Feb 2016)

A crime committed by a repeat offender seemingly for no other reason other than he could and get away with it.


----------



## oldstrath (22 Feb 2016)

Don't know if it will help, but the petition road.cc member Dan S constructed to increase the penalty for 'failing to identify the driver' (the onlyy offence with whioch the Nottingham vehicle keeper was charged) is finally live:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Feb 2016)

I really wish that the authors of petitions like these could at least proof read what they have written.


----------



## toffee (22 Feb 2016)

Mmm 21 signature's. Going well

Derek


----------

