Pressing Charges

Headhuunter

Seeing as I'm stuck on public transport now, I've got time to mull things over. It seems that the police, although they attended the scene of my accident, took statements etc are not pressing any charges for dangerous driving. So the guy is already out and about driving whilst I nurse my bruises for a couple of weeks.

The police were very friendly at the scene and I appreciated their presence but it just seemed ironic to me that the police spend so much time an effort manning junctions, stopping RLJ-ing cyclists (a minor offence) yet in a case like this in which a death could well have been caused, they do not take things any further!

Anyone else who's been in an accident which wasn't there fault found that the police have not bothered to press charges?

prawny

They won't bother, accidents happen.

I know it's frustrating, i get the impression that unless the rozzers want to make an example of someone, or they think the papers might get hold of it and kick up a stink they won't bother prosecuting anyone for an incident where there was no 'serious' injury.

My mom was once in a crash with a guy going he wrong way up a one way street, no action taken, what can you do

If the guy stopped and wasn't a massive d!ick about it, he's probably learned a valuable lesson, and had the shoot scared out of him too.

If he was then KArma will get him, ask Danny Wallace.

Wooliferkins

Yep. Taken off by an inconsiderate truck driver a couple of years back. Helicopter casevac to hospital, bike trashed. Allowed the copper to talk me out of pressing charges as I was on holiday from out of the county, haulage owner was known to be difficult etc. Fell for it.

Don't let it lie!

snailracer

Turning right does not count as dangerous driving. The police might make a charge of "careless driving" stick, at most, resulting a few points and a small fine - so not worth their time.

You would get better satisfaction, and actually "punish" the driver more heavily in real terms, by pursuing a civil action through solicitors.

Headhuunter

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

il_principe

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver - so prosecute, sent on a course etc etc. I don't know how much notice they take of these, but I requested the driver that hit me was sent on a driving course but the case officer let slip that she may well be prosecuted. I guess it depends on the quality of the witnesses although I got the impression from the police that they do tend to suspect cyclists of poor road behaviour in general...

gabriel959

Coriander posted a really interesting blog entry from a solicitor about how the law is made to be very lenient for motorised vehicle drivers. Really recommended and infuriating if you know what I mean.

Even if you are killed it is likely he will walk out with a driving ban for a few months, may be a year and if very lucky he will get something like 6 months in jail.

Basically a big joke.

jonginge

Il Principe wrote:

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver - so prosecute, sent on a course etc etc. I don't know how much notice they take of these, but I requested the driver that hit me was sent on a driving course but the case officer let slip that she may well be prosecuted. I guess it depends on the quality of the witnesses although I got the impression from the police that they do tend to suspect cyclists of poor road behaviour in general...

This is what happened for me when I was left-hooked. I also went with the send on a course option but, in the end, no further action was taken due to poor witness statements... (FWIW he was overtaking and then started turning left when I was alongside his passenger door)

Splottboy

Got slow-motioned crushed against a small wall. Rear end of bike ruined, pulled ankle.
Used BC insurance, and eventually got £800 compo.
Witnesses helped a lot with their statements.

bd12mz

this is quite interesting but does make a little sceptical about m own problems.

have tried any of the 'no win no fee' people?
might be worth a phone call.

at least you could bit some £££ out of your problem...

snailracer

Il Principe wrote:

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver ...

I did not receive any letters after my accident, despite getting hit from behind by a bus (full of passengers) on a clear stretch of road.

il_principe

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver ...

I did not receive any letters after my accident, despite getting hit from behind by a bus (full of passengers) on a clear stretch of road.

Then you need to chase the police - I'm assuming they attended and should have given you a CAD reference...

snailracer

Headhuunter wrote:

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

Rather bleakly, this is when you realize you are not protected by the law, you reject the law and do whatever it takes to look after yourself. And they wonder why cyclists ride on pavements and RLJ...

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

Seeing as I'm stuck on public transport now, I've got time to mull things over. It seems that the police, although they attended the scene of my accident, took statements etc are not pressing any charges for dangerous driving. So the guy is already out and about driving whilst I nurse my bruises for a couple of weeks.

Even if police did bring charges, the driver would still be driving now.

Remember, its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty simply because the aggrieved says so. There would need to be the appropriate court case before any punishment can be imposed

The police were very friendly at the scene and I appreciated their presence but it just seemed ironic to me that the police spend so much time an effort manning junctions, stopping RLJ-ing cyclists (a minor offence) yet in a case like this in which a death could well have been caused, they do not take things any further!

Anyone else who's been in an accident which wasn't there fault found that the police have not bothered to press charges?

I was involved in an accident on Sunday- I was ok, but 14 yr old child with us came off. Driver left hooked us. 3 witnesses to the incident. Police did no more than exchange details and told us they were not able to bring charges- instructions from above. The 2 PCs were also cyclists,.

What hope is there when with 3 witnesses to a clear careless driving, no action is even considered

il_principe

snailracer wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

Rather bleakly, this is when you realize you are not protected by the law, you reject the law and do whatever it takes to look after yourself. And they wonder why cyclists ride on pavements and RLJ...

Which has the opposite effect of helping our cause!

snailracer

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver ...

I did not receive any letters after my accident, despite getting hit from behind by a bus (full of passengers) on a clear stretch of road.

Then you need to chase the police - I'm assuming they attended and should have given you a CAD reference...

I reported the accident to the local cop shop, heard no more and frankly had better things to do afterwards. Not sure if the police attended, my recollection was a bit fuzzy after the impact.

spen666

snailracer wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

Rather bleakly, this is when you realize you are not protected by the law, you reject the law and do whatever it takes to look after yourself. And they wonder why cyclists ride on pavements and RLJ...

2 wrongs don't make a right. All you are doing if you RLJ or cycle on the pavements is making the image of cyclists worse and reducing any sympathy towards us

spen666

snailracer wrote:

Turning right does not count as dangerous driving. The police might make a charge of "careless driving" stick, at most, resulting a few points and a small fine - so not worth their time.

You would get better satisfaction, and actually "punish" the driver more heavily in real terms, by pursuing a civil action through solicitors.

no you don't as its simply the insurers who end up paying out and all motorists face increased premiums. So individual driver is not punished by a civil case. In any event the aim of a civil case is NOT to punish but to put the parties in the position they were in before the accident took place

spen666

a potential answer?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -case.html

snailracer

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

Rather bleakly, this is when you realize you are not protected by the law, you reject the law and do whatever it takes to look after yourself. And they wonder why cyclists ride on pavements and RLJ...

Which has the opposite effect of helping our cause!

We are stuck in a vicious circle.

Rich158

Yep, in my case the excuse for the guy turning right across my path and hitting me was that the sun was in his eyes and it would have been difficult for him to see what was coming. You might think that being able to see the road was clear from on-coming traffic was a pre-requisite for starting the manouver but evidently not according to Kent Police

il_principe

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

Rather bleakly, this is when you realize you are not protected by the law, you reject the law and do whatever it takes to look after yourself. And they wonder why cyclists ride on pavements and RLJ...

Which has the opposite effect of helping our cause!

We are stuck in a vicious circle.

I'm sorry but we're not. I don't ride on the pavement, never have, never will, there is no need. My GF took up cycle commuting this year. Her route takes her into the City of London via some very busy roads - Edgeware Rd, Hyde Park corner, Embankment. She's never even driven in the Uk, is used to driving on the right and has still not seen the need to pavement ride or RLJ. Any adult cyclist that "needs" to pavement ride or RLJ should either MTFU, go on a cycling proficiency course or not cycle at all, there's no need and no excuse.

il_principe

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver ...

I did not receive any letters after my accident, despite getting hit from behind by a bus (full of passengers) on a clear stretch of road.

Then you need to chase the police - I'm assuming they attended and should have given you a CAD reference...

I reported the accident to the local cop shop, heard no more and frankly had better things to do afterwards. Not sure if the police attended, my recollection was a bit fuzzy after the impact.

Hang on, you were hit by a bus and the cops did not attend? There's something very, very wrong with that. You might think you have better things to do but I'd imagine these things are worth pursuing.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Turning right does not count as dangerous driving. The police might make a charge of "careless driving" stick, at most, resulting a few points and a small fine - so not worth their time.

You would get better satisfaction, and actually "punish" the driver more heavily in real terms, by pursuing a civil action through solicitors.

no you don't as its simply the insurers who end up paying out and all motorists face increased premiums. So individual driver is not punished by a civil case. In any event the aim of a civil case is NOT to punish but to put the parties in the position they were in before the accident took place

My understanding is that bad drivers have more claims and pay more for insurance than good drivers.

As far as "punishment" is concerned, does it make any practical difference if a bad driver pays a higher insurance bill or the nominal punishment of a fine? It's still money out of their pocket, either way. The main difference is that poor Mr Headhuunter will likely see more money pursuing the civil case.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It just seems a bit ridiculous that the only punishment this guy will get is a slightly higher insurance premium after lengthy battles with his insurance company. Not a fine, no points, no nothing....

Rather bleakly, this is when you realize you are not protected by the law, you reject the law and do whatever it takes to look after yourself. And they wonder why cyclists ride on pavements and RLJ...

2 wrongs don't make a right. All you are doing if you RLJ or cycle on the pavements is making the image of cyclists worse and reducing any sympathy towards us

I agree with you. However, I understand why some people do, and it's not simply because they are evil and bad.

spen666

snailracer wrote:

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Turning right does not count as dangerous driving. The police might make a charge of "careless driving" stick, at most, resulting a few points and a small fine - so not worth their time.

You would get better satisfaction, and actually "punish" the driver more heavily in real terms, by pursuing a civil action through solicitors.

no you don't as its simply the insurers who end up paying out and all motorists face increased premiums. So individual driver is not punished by a civil case. In any event the aim of a civil case is NOT to punish but to put the parties in the position they were in before the accident took place

My understanding is that bad drivers have more claims and pay more for insurance than good drivers.

As far as "punishment" is concerned, does it make any practical difference if a bad driver pays a higher insurance bill or the nominal punishment of a fine? It's still money out of their pocket, either way. The main difference is that poor Mr Headhuunter will likely see more money pursuing the civil case.

you are missing the point. It is not either civil or criminal proceedings. There can be both.

civil proceedings would recompense the injured party.
Criminal proceedings would punish the guilty party. Points as well as a fine and or a ban

snailracer

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

You should receive a letter from the MET soon. All accidents are referred to a central office, they will assign a case officer and ask you to fill in a questionnaire about the event, in that you will have a list of options asking what you would like done to the driver ...

I did not receive any letters after my accident, despite getting hit from behind by a bus (full of passengers) on a clear stretch of road.

Then you need to chase the police - I'm assuming they attended and should have given you a CAD reference...

I reported the accident to the local cop shop, heard no more and frankly had better things to do afterwards. Not sure if the police attended, my recollection was a bit fuzzy after the impact.

Hang on, you were hit by a bus and the cops did not attend? There's something very, very wrong with that. You might think you have better things to do but I'd imagine these things are worth pursuing.

I don't remember if the cops did or did not attend, 'cos I was knocked out. And I started a new job the following week, so I really had more fruitful things to do at the time.
The point to note is that I was hit by a bus, and bus operators are crafty foxes when it comes to avoiding liability. This is far from an ideal world where the police are always in control and justice is always done.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Turning right does not count as dangerous driving. The police might make a charge of "careless driving" stick, at most, resulting a few points and a small fine - so not worth their time.

You would get better satisfaction, and actually "punish" the driver more heavily in real terms, by pursuing a civil action through solicitors.

no you don't as its simply the insurers who end up paying out and all motorists face increased premiums. So individual driver is not punished by a civil case. In any event the aim of a civil case is NOT to punish but to put the parties in the position they were in before the accident took place

My understanding is that bad drivers have more claims and pay more for insurance than good drivers.

As far as "punishment" is concerned, does it make any practical difference if a bad driver pays a higher insurance bill or the nominal punishment of a fine? It's still money out of their pocket, either way. The main difference is that poor Mr Headhuunter will likely see more money pursuing the civil case.

you are missing the point. It is not either civil or criminal proceedings. There can be both.

civil proceedings would recompense the injured party.
Criminal proceedings would punish the guilty party. Points as well as a fine and or a ban

I never said there couldn't be both. It's just that criminal proceedings are in the hands of the police, Headhuunter can't "pursue" it himself, whereas he can pursue the civil case.

dommccabe17

I was hit by a woman turning right. I was in the cycle lane going in the opposite direction. She was busy chatting to her passenger and didn't look. I had 3 independant witnesses, 1 of whom called the police and ambulance. The driver kept trying to pull me off the floor, ignoring the fact I was in pain and my back was hurt whilst repeating that it was my fault.
When the police arrive they were actually very pleasant. They called an ambulance crew who checked me over. While they were monitoring my heart rate and blood pressure they insinuated it must have been my fault because they nearly hit a cyclist earlier that morning. My blood pressure and heart rate rocketed up at that point as the red mist descended!
Unfortunately that is the attitude we face everyday. In the end the police never contacted me back with a crime number, acknowledgement or anything else. I was not seriously hurt just bruised with a bit of whiplash but it is sad that because I choose to cycle to work my life means so little to others.

snailracer

Il Principe wrote:

...
Any adult cyclist that "needs" to pavement ride or RLJ should either MTFU, go on a cycling proficiency course or not cycle at all, there's no need and no excuse.

That's very principled of you, but I am curious why you hold a harder line on pavement riding than the police, who presumably are looking at it from a broader perspective?

il_principe

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

...
Any adult cyclist that "needs" to pavement ride or RLJ should either MTFU, go on a cycling proficiency course or not cycle at all, there's no need and no excuse.

That's very principled of you, but I am curious why you hold a harder line on pavement riding than the police, who presumably are looking at it from a broader perspective?

Eh? Surely the police position is that it's illegal? It's not a case of principle though, it's a case of not being a tw@t. Local councils offer free cycle training, so if you're too scared to cycle on the road then go on a course or buy cyclecraft - basically do something constructive. It's not hard.