Brutal hit and run, Nottingham

[benborp]

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]

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]

I would like a scumbag identified as such.

Why would you want that?

 

[Markymark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?