Disgusting.

Snakebite the 2nd

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/driver ... on-camera/

I'm posting the above because it really struck home with me.
Reading what he wrote at the end, for me anyway, is exactly how I feel and what I believe we are up against.

Luckily this is very rare, and those cases that do occur are instantly spread the world over by the internet, but still, once is enough.

I was originally going to post it in the other video thread, but to be honest I though it deserved its own topic.


Stay safe.

rick_chasey

Link doesn't work on my mobile.

rick_chasey

Ok saw it.

Christ.

wolfsbane2k

Wow. That is just unbelievable.
I wonder if they have a "group fund" or similar - if the police can't do it, get a civil case on it!

I can make an assessment as to how they got off, but as that post says:
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”

Rigga

B#stards! Would the police have done nothing if this was a straight forward hit and run on a pedestrian? No! This makes me sick.

bendertherobot

If I had to guess, I guess they didn't get off. They stuck to the failure to name, got hit with that, walked away.

Watched it last night. It beggars belief but, ultimately, you can't see who it is. That's the issue, and the problem.

imatfaal

according to one website it was a courtesy car that was not supposed to have been booked out that day - no proof whatsoever of who was driving. the garage manager will, of course, have an idea - but I guess everyone stayed schtum. Brutal and nasty.

I am not sure why we cannot have a vicarious liability for registered owner of a car - unless it is TWOC then the owner is liable unless someone else fesses up or the owner dobs them in

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Shocking how there can be camera footage like that and no prosecution!

Even if it was a company car with the driver not identified, the poor cyclist should be able to get compensation from the company, albeit the person driving still worrying gets to keep their licence. Not to mention the company should have a log book to identify who has signed out a company vehicle.

wolfsbane2k

If the police had done their job properly, they would have checked the area, found the CCTV cameras covering the too and from area, asked for it to be made available, then analysed afterwards. One of those would have probably identified the driver. If it's a courtesy car, there was probably evidence at the garage where the car was driven away from of the driver at the time! But it's too late, the CCTV recordings will all have been over written, and therefore no evidence remains.

How the lawyer could have stood by him and provided this recommendation of a defence is beyond me - where is your moral compass?

The only way to guarantee that these things done is to do it yourself, which is hard to do when your in hospital for 4 months, and you'd assume that the cops had done this anyway, surely?

I wonder if any insurance company would agree to hiring a personal detective to do all this work the moment an accident appeared, on the basis that they could claim the costs of the detective back from the party in the wrong. That way the PD could provide a list of all the CCTV's that might have covered the area in question, the costs of accessing that data if CCTV owner is willing and able (who wouldn't be?) to make available, or if the CCTV owner refuses to provide the list to the coppers for the warrant), and hand it to the coppers.

DeVlaeminck

Anyone know the company the car belongs to - I am localish if as it says in the comments that was in Nottm - wouldn't want to spend any of my money with them.

bendertherobot

Let's clear a few things up. There's a lot of mixing up here of the criminal and civil law. Compensation is deal with by the civil law. Punishment, for want of a better word, by the criminal law.

Vicarious liability is a civil law concept. Ditto things like presumed liability.

Here the CPS hasn't prosecuted because it didn't have the evidence to do so (it seems) and it didn't meet the CPS code.

I don't know if he's pursued compensation in relation to the civil law. He should have much less of a difficulty in that respect.

wolfsbane2k

bendertherobot wrote:

Let's clear a few things up. There's a lot of mixing up here of the criminal and civil law. Compensation is deal with by the civil law. Punishment, for want of a better word, by the criminal law.

Vicarious liability is a civil law concept. Ditto things like presumed liability.

Here the CPS hasn't prosecuted because it didn't have the evidence to do so (it seems) and it didn't meet the CPS code.

I don't know if he's pursued compensation in relation to the civil law. He should have much less of a difficulty in that respect.

Yes, sorry about that! I was thinking a pd to get evidence for a civil court that could also be used in a criminal court as well.

martincroxall

This did indeed happen in Nottingham, right outside BBC East Midlands (you can see the BBC logo just after impact). I'm fairly sure that roundabout would be covered by a fair bit of CCTV as it's always very busy. Although the rider may not have got a prosecution I certainly hope he gets compensation. As for the driver, well, I'm sure karma will follow him.

bendertherobot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35472617

As I suspected the person who owned the car was fined £150 for failing to provide details. So, it's not a loophole per se, not a new one anyway. And not really a loophole in the sense that you "get away with it." But it's something that needs to be addressed.

bendertherobot

It saves my typing it out but, if anyone is interested, on Road.cc, Dan S's 11 point explanation is bang on. (2nd page comments)

http://road.cc/content/news/177519-vide ... nt-1206954

wolfsbane2k

bendertherobot wrote:

It saves my typing it out but, if anyone is interested, on Road.cc, Dan S's 11 point explanation is bang on. (2nd page comments)

http://road.cc/content/news/177519-vide ... nt-1206954

I'd just read that as well. As you say, good write up.
Link to actual comment/explanation:
http://road.cc/content/news/177519-vide ... nt-1206786

wolfsbane2k

There is a now a petition (from road.cc) to change the law to close this loophole that needs some support
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623
Will be live in the next few days.

I believe it's proposing the following,

Dan S
11. Personally I feel that the penalty for willfully failing to provide details should be the same as the penalty for whatever offence the unidentified driver committed. It isn't. If those who are talking about writing to MPs want to put something useful in their letters, leave aside calls for expensive infrastructure and education that will probably be ignored. Write and suggest an amendment to make wilfully failing to supply driver details punishable with the same penalty as the offence that the driver committed. That's the actual lesson from this case.

This is not a case, as far as the reports show, where the police have been lazy, incompetent or uncaring about cyclists. Nor have the CPS. The only reprehensible behaviour has been by the driver and possibly by the other eligible driver (I say possibly because it may be that each said it was the other, in which case the non-driver has done nothing wrong). And possibly the court sentenced too low but really would a £1000 fine have reduced the justifiable sense of injustice here?

It is also a case that highlights a problem with the current legislation. That is not something that can be fixed by the police, the CPS or the courts. It needs a Bill in Parliament.

[Edited to point to "formal" petition 120623 rather than 120620]

bendertherobot

It's not a loophole per se.

What I would say is that you could look at failing to provide a specimen and its relationship with drunk driving. The penalty for failing to provide is 12 months mandatory disqualification and could be up to 3 years. The Court treats it more seriously than the offence of drink driving, for good reasons.

You could have a sliding scale where the failure to name gets worse according to the offence that it relates to.

wolfsbane2k

bendertherobot wrote:

It's not a loophole per se.

What I would say is that you could look at failing to provide a specimen and its relationship with drunk driving. The penalty for failing to provide is 12 months mandatory disqualification and could be up to 3 years. The Court treats it more seriously than the offence of drink driving, for good reasons.

You could have a sliding scale where the failure to name gets worse according to the offence that it relates to.

Yep. I've already got an appointment to see my MP on something else, will add this to the list!

wolfsbane2k

Petition now live
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623

Also follow up interview with the cyclist, and more details on how they got out.
Nottingham hit-and-run cyclist speaks of 'injustice' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35486855

[Edited to point to "formal" petition 120623 rather than 120620]

chrisaonabike

Horrendous. I felt physically sick watching that and reading the report. The complete injustice of it makes it so much worse.

I thought that when groups of people are charged with assault or worse, it was no longer a defence to claim that you weren't the one that struck the fatal blow? It would be incredibly easy for the whole group to get off, if that couldn't be proved.

So 'joint and several' culpability should be the name of the game. If neither of the authorised drivers will own up to driving, they should both be charged with the offence.

You can bet that if they were both going down, the one that wasn't driving would probably grass up the other. It's only if they can both get off that there's an advantage in lying.

Evil bastards, and the fuck1ng lawyer.

bendertherobot

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Horrendous. I felt physically sick watching that and reading the report. The complete injustice of it makes it so much worse.

I thought that when groups of people are charged with assault or worse, it was no longer a defence to claim that you weren't the one that struck the fatal blow? It would be incredibly easy for the whole group to get off, if that couldn't be proved.

So 'joint and several' culpability should be the name of the game. If neither of the authorised drivers will own up to driving, they should both be charged with the offence.

You can bet that if they were both going down, the one that wasn't driving would probably grass up the other. It's only if they can both get off that there's an advantage in lying.

Evil bastards, and the fuck1ng lawyer.

If they were both charged and maintained their I don't know, how would a jury, who need to be sure, convict either?

chrisaonabike

bendertherobot wrote:

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Horrendous. I felt physically sick watching that and reading the report. The complete injustice of it makes it so much worse.

I thought that when groups of people are charged with assault or worse, it was no longer a defence to claim that you weren't the one that struck the fatal blow? It would be incredibly easy for the whole group to get off, if that couldn't be proved.

So 'joint and several' culpability should be the name of the game. If neither of the authorised drivers will own up to driving, they should both be charged with the offence.

You can bet that if they were both going down, the one that wasn't driving would probably grass up the other. It's only if they can both get off that there's an advantage in lying.

Evil bastards, and the fuck1ng lawyer.

If they were both charged and maintained their I don't know, how would a jury, who need to be sure, convict either?

Because they're both lying, and therefore both complicit.

Here you go, this is what I was remembering:

Joint enterprise.

Look it up. You can't get off just because you were in a group and they can't prove you were the one that did the crucial bit of the deed.

chrisaonabike

Oh, and the jury does NOT need to be 'sure' as in mathematical certainty.

They need to be sure 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

It is not reasonable, either that neither of the authorised drivers knew which one was driving at the time of the incident, nor that the one that was driving was unaware of the impact.

bendertherobot

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Oh, and the jury does NOT need to be 'sure' as in mathematical certainty.

They need to be sure 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

It is not reasonable, either that neither of the authorised drivers knew which one was driving at the time of the incident, nor that the one that was driving was unaware of the impact.

Where was the intention of both drivers to commit the offence?

This is not joint enterprise. This is about who did what. It's not for cases where you need to decide which party did a thing. It's for cases where you don't need to decide which party did a thing.

bendertherobot

cyd190468 wrote:

Wow that's bizarre. Over here the registered owner of the car would be charged as you are legally responsible for anything your car does unless you can identify the driver or report the car stolen.

Australia? Do you have a link? Unusual if that's the case in the criminal law given it's a common law system.

apreading

Surely both parties guilty of conspiracy and perverting the course of justice?

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

Surely both parties guilty of conspiracy and perverting the course of justice?

Neither party are guilty of offences they've not been charged with. Whether they have is a matter for the Court.

But succeeding here requires evidence that they have lied. Where is that evidence on which to base a charge?

jds_1981

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Petition now live
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120620

Also follow up interview with the cyclist, and more details on how they got out.
Nottingham hit-and-run cyclist speaks of 'injustice' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35486855

Are you sure that's the correct petition? I think two were raised.

bendertherobot

cyd190468 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

cyd190468 wrote:

Wow that's bizarre. Over here the registered owner of the car would be charged as you are legally responsible for anything your car does unless you can identify the driver or report the car stolen.

Australia? Do you have a link? Unusual if that's the case in the criminal law given it's a common law system.

Experienced it first hand. My car was stolen from out the front of my house, it wasn't until the forensic guys had someone else's finger prints off the smashed steering column, plus a pic from a speeding camera with "not me" in the drivers seat that the police finally stopped hinting that maybe I had crashed my own car and walked home. It even covers the little things. If you are in the passenger seat while I drive and you aren't wearing a seat belt I get charged. If I lend you my car and it turns out that you haven't got a license than I get charged unless I accuse you of stealing my car.

Which state?

wolfsbane2k

jds_1981 wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Petition now live
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623

Also follow up interview with the cyclist, and more details on how they got out.
Nottingham hit-and-run cyclist speaks of 'injustice' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35486855

Are you sure that's the correct petition? I think two were raised.

That's the one I saw raised on the road.cc forum. If there is another, please share.
We need one petition,not a fragmented mix that doesn't meet the 10k signature need
[Edited to form correct link]