Brutal hit and run, Nottingham

[Spinney]

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]

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

 

[CaadX]

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]

Unsurprisingly, husband and wife:

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

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

 

[DaveReading]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I blame the Hamiltons

The Pryce/Huhnes?

 

[Cubist]

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]

The Pryce/Huhnes?

When it suits them then. Publicity whores.