Disgusting.

bendertherobot

The other was Dan S's. But it's awaiting moderation and not live yet.

chrisaonabike

bendertherobot wrote:

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?

If both authorised drivers deny knowledge of who was driving, they are both lying.

But if only two people were entitled to drive the car at all, it would be surprising if the driver couldn't be established, based on where they each were on that day. It seems more that the required investigation wasn't done.

If you can't do them both for such an obvious conspiracy to pervert the course of justice under the law, then the law is an ass.

bendertherobot

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

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?

If both authorised drivers deny knowledge of who was driving, they are both lying.

But if only two people were entitled to drive the car at all, it would be surprising if the driver couldn't be established, based on where they each were on that day. It seems more that the required investigation wasn't done.

If you can't do them both for such an obvious conspiracy to pervert the course of justice under the law, then the law is an ass.

Where's the evidence?

jds_1981

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

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

From road.cc this is the preferred one. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623
Not live yet, but perhaps you can update your link anyway so as to not create a split as you say..

edit: updated.

fatsmoker

Feeling as disgusted as everyone else I wrote to Notts police about this. I got the following response this morning.

COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE


I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email dated 3rd February 2016

Unfortunately I am not able to record your complaint as a Complaint Against Police under the Police Reform Act 2002. I have included an extract from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) guidance to help explain my decision.

The regulations on complaints against the police as stated in the IPCC statutory guidance, set out guidance as to who can make a complaint.
A complaint can be made by any of the following:

• A member of the public who claims that the conduct took place in relation to him or her,
• A member of the public who claims to have been adversely affected by the conduct, even though it did not take place in relation to him or her,
• A member of the public who claims to have witnessed the conduct,
• A person acting on behalf of someone who falls within any of the three categories above.

In relation to the incident involving the cyclist, the incident was reported to Nottinghamshire Police and was investigated thoroughly. The investigating officer established that the car was a hire vehicle which had been sub-leased through a number of different companies. The officer identified and traced a man and woman who were eligible to drive the vehicle, so could have been driving on that day. They were issued with a formal request to provide the driver’s details, but did not respond.
They were interviewed and summonsed to court for failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to report an accident and failing to respond to a legal request for driver details. The evidence was reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service and a decision was made that there was not enough evidence to prove who was driving the vehicle at the moment of the collision. As a result, the prosecution for failing to stop and failing to report was discontinued.

The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details.

Your concerns have been logged and I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.


Yours sincerely



DS 2309 SHORE
Professional Standards Directorate

apreading

It's not the police you want to complain about - it's the CPS who make the decisions.

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

It's not the police you want to complain about - it's the CPS who make the decisions.

Based on the evidence the police collect and taking into account, as they are legally bound to do, the Code for Crown Prosecutors. On the basis of what we know this case would have failed the evidential stage.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

So far, in my opinion, this whole incident sets a very worrying precedent for each and every one of us that cycle around cars on the road. It shows a way for car drivers with a real hatred for road cyclists to cause life threatening injuries with consequences of a warning, small fine and some points on their license.

Rather than an instant driving ban for life, community service, prison time etc.

itboffin

Is anyone really surprised?
I kid you not but I have at least one person drive at me daily at high speed, out here our main roads people drive in excess of the speed limit as a matter of course.

This morning I had a 4x4 kia touched me as it came past them moved back out, seriously what is going on in that drivers mind?

I've been run off the road several nights in a row by lorries from the big green parcel co in the end I complained to there HQ, they didn't even respond even though I gave them license numbers times and dates

pblakeney

NitrousOxide wrote:

So far, in my opinion, this whole incident sets a very worrying precedent for each and every one of us that cycle around cars on the road. It shows a way for car drivers with a real hatred for road cyclists to cause life threatening injuries with consequences of a warning, small fine and some points on their license.

Rather than an instant driving ban for life, community service, prison time etc.

A bit of well needed balance towards what should happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35422419

wolfsbane2k

PBlakeney wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

So far, in my opinion, this whole incident sets a very worrying precedent for each and every one of us that cycle around cars on the road. It shows a way for car drivers with a real hatred for road cyclists to cause life threatening injuries with consequences of a warning, small fine and some points on their license.

Rather than an instant driving ban for life, community service, prison time etc.

A bit of well needed balance towards what should happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35422419

Indeed. And in that one, they also tried the 'it was someone else" approach, but it still stuck.

awavey

bendertherobot wrote:

It's not a loophole per se.

ok technically so,but it still feels like a loophole because I thought like Im sure most others did after those several high profile speeding ticket cases involving premiership footballers, company/loan cars and Mr loophole the lawyer, the law was changed in a high profile way, and everyone assumed not identifying a driver was no longer an option,.

so to hear its still perfectly legally possible to just ignore the police request to identify the driver, and the penalty for that is no worse than a stiff speeding fine & penalty, yeah that feels like a loophole, or at the very least an unintended consequence of the way that revised law was drafted.

bendertherobot

cyd190468 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

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?

NSW. Some years ago a girlfriend of mine borrowed a friends car and crashed it. As she was unlicensed at the time the friend was fined $500 for allowing an unlicensed driver to use his car. My girlfriend was also fined of course.

Which is fine. You have an additional offence. But, matters like Dangerous Driving and, certainly Death by Dangerous Driving, still require the person driving to be charged as far as I can see.

The Rookie

The law in question is section 172 of the road traffic act and requires people to give information about who was driving a car.

We had a local case a few years ago where an elderly person was knocked over and killed by a stolen car, two brothers were in it, both said the other was driving. Both drove the car at some point after it was stolen and before it was dumped.

There was outcry at the time as neither could be convicted of anything (other than the theft of the car), one was telling the truth and one was lying, but which one?

While it's easy to rant about it, many proposed solutions are simply unworkable and unreasonable and probably unlawful anyway.

The best logic is to apply the penalty for not identifying as the penalty for the offence committed with say a 50% increase, but in this case, if the person asked genuinely has no idea, would 2 years in prison be reasonable, put yourself in his shoes...... if you were the innocent party being prosecuted for something someone else did and genuinely d=couldn't ID them, would you think 2 years was justice?

If the Police could prove information was being deliberately withheld due to a collusion it would be perverting the course of justice, a very serious offence, but it appears there wasn't enough to show that happened either.

bendertherobot

cyd190468 wrote:

That's the thing though. They will assume the registered owner was driving unless he/she can identify the actual driver. In this particular case which as far as I can tell we know the driver was one of two people, they would be compelled to give evidence against each other.

Will they? On causing death by which carries a long prison sentence? There''s nothing in the code to suggest that. I can see why, on minor causes, that sort of assumption is ok, but on imprisonment?

surrey_commuter

surely in this case they must both be claiming to be in the car? if not it would be too easy to prove one of them definitely was not there... therefore they both know who was driving when they mowed down the cyclist. This would make it entirely reasonable to prosecute the fella as he either did it or is covering up for his missus.

This is all written on the assumption of a civil case or a change in the law

The Rookie

Given the reports we had, we simply don't know enough about the situation to say for certain who did what, there is not enough there to know whether the person fined genuinely couldn't give details or was using it as a loophole for example.

You can never assume the registered keeper was driving (there being no such thing as a registered owner), in this case the registered keeper was a hire company (or it can be a finance company supplying the hire co.) and a company can't drive a car, only a person can, showing how far from any form of reality cyd's comment is.

There is case law for assuming a registered keeper was driving, but in that case the registered keeper had other circumstantial evidence against him. http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%2 ... R%2036.pdf

dhope

The Rookie wrote:

Given the reports we had, we simply don't know enough about the situation to say for certain who did what, there is not enough there to know whether the person fined genuinely couldn't give details or was using it as a loophole for example.

You can never assume the registered keeper was driving (there being no such thing as a registered owner), in this case the registered keeper was a hire company (or it can be a finance company supplying the hire co.) and a company can't drive a car, only a person can, showing how far from any form of reality cyd's comment is.

There is case law for assuming a registered keeper was driving, but in that case the registered keeper had other circumstantial evidence against him. http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%2 ... R%2036.pdf

I thought in this case the car had been rented to a couple. They were both allowed to drive it and acknowledged that it was in their possession that day, then both declined to say who was driving at the time.

The Rookie

That is what it may look like, but not what has been categorically shown to be the case from what information we have. I know enough from other cases where I have more informatiuon that what is reported can be very different from what actually happened!

rolf_f

dhope wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Given the reports we had, we simply don't know enough about the situation to say for certain who did what, there is not enough there to know whether the person fined genuinely couldn't give details or was using it as a loophole for example.

You can never assume the registered keeper was driving (there being no such thing as a registered owner), in this case the registered keeper was a hire company (or it can be a finance company supplying the hire co.) and a company can't drive a car, only a person can, showing how far from any form of reality cyd's comment is.

There is case law for assuming a registered keeper was driving, but in that case the registered keeper had other circumstantial evidence against him. http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%2 ... R%2036.pdf

I thought in this case the car had been rented to a couple. They were both allowed to drive it and acknowledged that it was in their possession that day, then both declined to say who was driving at the time.

So they are acknowledging guilt in a way. If both said it was the other then you could say one is innocent and one is guilty but you don't know which is which (though, if I was in that position, I would be calling the ambulance and taking photographs of the driver to confirm my role as passenger). If both refuse to say who was driving then both really ought to be held equally to account.

What can be done to stop it happening again?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Give them both ~75% of a typical punishment for being guilty as an individual?

The Rookie

Seeing as how one wasn't found guilty of any offence at all, that seems a bit misguided!

bendertherobot

Quite. We have a good system but it's not perfect. What is perfect about it is that it demands that the right people get prosecuted. And that there's evidence of an offence. It's a methodological approach and tries to avoid passion and emotion, quite rightly. We can leave those for sentencing, to an extent.

The Police here investigated. They presented the CPS with what they had. This isn't 24. We can't call on satellite surveillance, stake outs, agent provocateurs or water board confessions. You interview people and charge someone. Or not. I've seen many posts elsewhere about how the actions of the police and CPS constitute misconduct in a public office. They are following the law and the codes set out for them.

What's clear here is that the "alternate offence" lacks any real deterrent factor. That part is imperfect and needs to be changed.

DeVlaeminck

Going back to the video - I doubt the driver deliberately rammed the cyclist - there is nothing in there to suggest it was anything other than an extreme lack of attention on behalf of the driver. I was rear ended on a wide clear road a couple of weeks ago - guy just drove straight through me without braking - at least bad in terms of not paying attention as this case but it happens although in my case the guy stopped and was mortified by what he'd done.

I'm surprised that in the case under discussion though the name of the guy fined doesn't seem very easy to track down. It seems routine for the local press to publish names of people convicted of the most minor offences yet google has not come to my aid trying to find who this was. Why would I want to know - idle curiosity - I might know him/her or they may hold some position of note in the local area.

The Rookie

bendertherobot wrote:

What's clear here is that the "alternate offence" lacks any real deterrent factor. That part is imperfect and needs to be changed.

Agreed....what limits you apply though can be an issue, jailing someone would almost certainly be found to contravene ECHR.

bendertherobot

The Rookie wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

What's clear here is that the "alternate offence" lacks any real deterrent factor. That part is imperfect and needs to be changed.

Agreed....what limits you apply though can be an issue, jailing someone would almost certainly be found to contravene ECHR.

Absolutely. I'd be very interested to know how the mitigation was worded here that reduced a big fine to such a small one.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

The Rookie wrote:

Seeing as how one wasn't found guilty of any offence at all, that seems a bit misguided!

Well perhaps the real guilty party should admit their guilt, take the standard conviction for the offence and let their co-worker keep a clearer criminal record? It might be harsh to give them both the standard conviction, at the very least it should be split 50-50 of a typical sentence, but there should also be extra punishment for both for concealing who was driving at the time.

Isn't one or both of the people who are listed as being allowed to drive the hire car perverting the course of justice, unless the hire car was stolen earlier that day and there is a record of reporting the theft to the police earlier that day?

Maybe both should face a lifetime driving ban, there is then on the face of it, reasonable certainty that the person responsible for this filmed incident never legally drives on the road again?

Just because the hire car has smoked windows, it should not allow the occupants to "protect" each other by not disclosing who was driving at the time of the incident.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Going back to the video - I doubt the driver deliberately rammed the cyclist - there is nothing in there to suggest it was anything other than an extreme lack of attention on behalf of the driver. I was rear ended on a wide clear road a couple of weeks ago - guy just drove straight through me without braking - at least bad in terms of not paying attention as this case but it happens although in my case the guy stopped and was mortified by what he'd done.
.

Fair enough - but (and it is a big but) he/she did not stop or report the accident

dhope

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Going back to the video - I doubt the driver deliberately rammed the cyclist - there is nothing in there to suggest it was anything other than an extreme lack of attention on behalf of the driver. I was rear ended on a wide clear road a couple of weeks ago - guy just drove straight through me without braking - at least bad in terms of not paying attention as this case but it happens although in my case the guy stopped and was mortified by what he'd done.
.

Fair enough - but (and it is a big but) he/she did not stop or report the accident

If they are declining to confirm they were present at the time of the accident then not stopping or reporting isn't going to change things. You'd still need to prove they were there to prove anything else.

(they are still both cretins, and the law seems a bit of an ass in this situation. But I can see why if they can't be held responsible for all of it then they can't be held responsible for any of it)

surrey_commuter

dhope wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Going back to the video - I doubt the driver deliberately rammed the cyclist - there is nothing in there to suggest it was anything other than an extreme lack of attention on behalf of the driver. I was rear ended on a wide clear road a couple of weeks ago - guy just drove straight through me without braking - at least bad in terms of not paying attention as this case but it happens although in my case the guy stopped and was mortified by what he'd done.
.

Fair enough - but (and it is a big but) he/she did not stop or report the accident

If they are declining to confirm they were present at the time of the accident then not stopping or reporting isn't going to change things. You'd still need to prove they were there to prove anything else.

(they are still both cretins, and the law seems a bit of an ass in this situation. But I can see why if they can't be held responsible for all of it then they can't be held responsible for any of it)

agreed - my point is more that not stopping removes the mitigation that they may have inadvertently nearly killed somebody