Sobering moment - hopefully not someone from on here..

ride_whenever

dilema that's a terribly flippant response.

The gun's aren't weapons thing has a point, i don't agree with it but it none-the less is a sensible point.

I do however agree with the suggestion that using a car as a weapon should carry the same legal penalty as using a knife or a gun.

hoolio

Hmm, my knowledge of the law isn't exhaustive... but if you drive at someone with a car, with the intention of killing them, and you do indeed kill them, then murder is what you'll be charged with... right?

Are you suggesting that regardless of evidence of intent, it should be assumed that upon involvement in an accident where you are deemed responsible, malicious intent is a given?
Seems a bit harsh!

Having said that, I've been hit a couple of times, and both times the police have been less than keen to press charges against the careless drivers. I don't think the law needs changing, enforcing it would be a start.

pinno

Response to 'dilemna'.

First of all I do not believe we can bring about a change in attitude - how?

Therefore without a change in attitude you are left with little alternative and we need to change the law or even the procedure following serious injury or death.

To say that I do not know what law to change is both rather simplistic and it is not taking in to consideration many points that have been raised thus far - have a look at the Shoot Clarson Campaign post in the Campaign forum. Actually isolating a law that needs to be changed is very dificult.

The suggestion given by Adrian Lawson, press secretary of Reading Cycle club following the tragic death of Anthony Ward was that what needs to happen is for a court to assess whether or not a case of gross negligence, reckless driving (existing laws) could or should be brought against a driver involved in one of these incidents.
The court can balance up the evidence and make a decision. If this was mandatory in every case where there was seriuos injury or death at least then a prosecuting lawyer could have their say as well as the lawyer for the defence.

This would not be a change in the law per say but a guarantee that at least judicial time would be given to listen to any arguments that would possibly lead to prosecution.
The driver can defend himself and the injured party (ies)/relatives could place the argument for a prosecution.
After this point in the process, if a case is going to proceed, there will be time for both parties to gather as much information and witnesses perhaps as possible before a trial.
The benefits to us in what I am now calling the Fair Guarantee will in itself be disuasive.
In the case of seriuos injury or death, I believe that a driver should have his/her license taken away immediatly until it can (or sometimes cannot) be proven that there is any negligence. Again, another disuasive factor.
Please look at the website for the Reading Chronicle - type in Adrian Lawson in the search bar and read the article. It is compelling and his ideas have a lot of common sense.

Porgy

Police traced him through eye-witness descriptions of the vehicle and when arrested, he said he knew nothing about it.

Whatever the change in the law - it needs to be such that this is no longer an acceptable defence when a lorry driver runs over a cyclist.

Cumulonimbus

Had a quick look and couldnt find anything, maybe thankfully.

However, i did find this story

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/c ... -23432533/

Unbelievable

Red Rock

hoolio wrote:

Having said that, I've been hit a couple of times, and both times the police have been less than keen to press charges against the careless drivers. I don't think the law needs changing, enforcing it would be a start.

I agree with that. It's about time the Police/CPS got their act together and started enforcing traffic laws.

tebbit

The trouble with the way the law stands at the moment it is considered negligence a tort, a civil wrong and the consequences covered by insurance, the French methodology is that it is the motorist's fault unless they can proove innocence. For once I'm with the French.

The lorry driver should be hung, he deliberately killed a man just because he missed a turning and was on his way back to the depot, scum, hangings too good, I'm with the wood chipper, a domestic one lacking in power, so it takes a long long time.

fatblokefromwarwick

Was just reading this in one of our free papers this evening,

http://www.stratford-herald.com/mainstory.php?ID=2046

Hit & run has to be the lowest form of cowardice, bloody despicable.

Soreknees

Police traced him through eye-witness descriptions of the vehicle and when arrested, he said he knew nothing about it.

Absolutely no defence at all. If you are driving a vehicle of any size, you are responsible for anything/everything that vehicle does.

Please don't tar all truck drivers with the same brush. We're not all bad. (Plenty are though)

pepelepew

Red Rock wrote:

hoolio wrote:

Having said that, I've been hit a couple of times, and both times the police have been less than keen to press charges against the careless drivers. I don't think the law needs changing, enforcing it would be a start.

I agree with that. It's about time the Police/CPS got their act together and started enforcing traffic laws.

In an ideal world we (Police) would. Firstly, the number of people who complain about driving offences then don't want to follow that up when the reality of their complaint dawns on them (statement, attend court and give evidence, etc).

Secondly, the number of officers sat on their @rses making more work for the limited number of frontline officers, endlessly persuing target driven policing picking off the 'low hanging fruit' (hate that expression). Dealing with the people who ring us because they have too much time on their hands (i.e. live off the state with no intention of working) and lack the skills to live a peaceful existence. :twisted: :twisted: There are even officers who ring people up to carry out 'customer satisfaction surveys' for crying out loud.

Thirdly, you have to get a decision to prosecute from the CPS (Can't Prosecute Service) who again are target driven and will only take on dead certs. They are unlikely to take on a driving complaint where there is one word against another with no independant witnesses. Frustrating, but that's the reality. :evil:

Gazzaputt

Problem is cyclists aren't seen as human on the roads.

It seems in this land you can take the life of another human being who just happens to cycle and get a fine or at worst community service.

Even when you leave the human being lying injured or at worst dying at the scene of the accident at worst you may get 4-5 years in prison which you serve 2 of.

As a society attitudes need to change but in this land car is king so it'll be a slow process.

As for the guy in Wakefield it is one of the most horrendous reports I have read. How callous the driver is. He deserves life imprisonment as he is not fit for society if that is the way he views human life.

drewfromrisca

pepelepew, what force you in and how much service you got? you sound just like me!?!?!

The amount of times I have dealt with traffic offences to be told by the complainant that they can't be bothered to go to court is unbelievable! Also I've been given bad decisions by CPS who won't prosecute. I've even made complaints about CPS solicitors who have made decisions when it's quite obvious that a prosecution should go ahead!

Richard_D

Like anything some times not going ahead is not a simple case of black and white. Luckily when I decided not to proceed it was at the scene so the copper did not have to do the paperwork.
In some cases explaining what it would meant to both the victim and the accused would prevent needless paperwork. It did in my case. It was explained at the scene that both of us would need to spend the day at court and then he might be fined.

pepelepew

drewfromrisca wrote:

pepelepew, what force you in and how much service you got? you sound just like me!?!?!

The amount of times I have dealt with traffic offences to be told by the complainant that they can't be bothered to go to court is unbelievable! Also I've been given bad decisions by CPS who won't prosecute. I've even made complaints about CPS solicitors who have made decisions when it's quite obvious that a prosecution should go ahead!

South Wales, mate. 8 years but joined at 33 so consider myself a bit more realistic/cynical/worldly wise! Don't mention the CPS. I had a drunk in charge bang to rights - CPS decision NFA. But that's a matter for another forum.

What about you?

On a wider matter, I can appreciate that the public may feel let down sometimes. Trouble is I see the realities of these complaints where it is one word against the other. With no supporting evidence (CCTV, injury, etc) I know where it is likely to go. Regrettably, nowhere in our statistic driven culture. I'll happily take a statement and interview the other party, that's what I get paid to do. However, I feel it is only fair to explain the likely outcome to the complainant.

Edit - Doh! Just read your location. Met I take it?

drewfromrisca

Spent 6 years in Gwent, now done a month short with the Met.

Joined at 20 so I was all rose tinted glasses and going out there to "Make A Difference"

How that changed as soon as I left the training school.

I agree with the explanation on the likely outcome. It makes people realise that that's all will happen. It's not us (well some) trying to shirk the work it's just previous experience and being honest with the victim.

I myself have been a victim of the NFA system so don't worry I know how you public feel.

God I sound bitter & twisted...hmm that's cos I am :twisted: