Disgusting.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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

You're confusing mitigations. The man attended Court and pleaded guilty to the failing to name charge. He will have been given credit for that. A 1/3. Though this is a money offence, so that's money off, not time off. If he had a lawyer then that lawyer would have mitigated on his behalf. I assume that he had one. I have no idea what he said.

But at no point would that mitigation have included any reference to anything to do with the driving offence. To do so would have been a bit nuts and would have led to them admitting the offence. The mitigation probably went along the lines of a) pleaded guilty b) no previous convictions c) upstanding member of the community. I'd imagine the lawyer would have steered well away from any statement at all in relation to the circumstances of the offence.

It would be really useful to see a report of the case. We never will.

Now, IF the person had been convicted of the driving offence then mitigation may have included lesser injury, etc.

Slowbike wrote:

So we've got a couple who declined to say who was driving - this must be because they know - or have been advised - that the punishment for failing to declare who was driving is smaller than the probable punishment for running over a cyclist and not stopping.
IMHO, they should both be punished as though they were driving the car.

If we had a couple who both acused the other of driving then it's a bit trickier - one is inocent - but if there's no evidence that can back up one party over the other then to punish both would go against the legal principles in this country.
If it was evident that both were in the car (but not who was driving) then it would seem viable to charge both with failing to stop and report - but you still get the problem over who should get the dangerous driving charge.

The CPS code requires Prosecutors to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. That's the problem, they can't just leave it to a jury to decide which one is.

Now, of course, cases like that, who is to blame, do happen. But they happen on the basis of there being more evidence against each. Not no evidence against either.

Slowbike wrote:

perhaps we should do away with the courts system and put all cases on public forums - we could debate it and at the end, draw our own conclusions....



... by the time we've reached the end the accused would probably have died of bordom!

Frankly I get yelled at least once a week that cyclists shouldnt be allowed on the roads - as road users we are out-numbered so I would hate to see the conviction rates of cyclists for jumping red lights if it were debated and decided on internet fora.


@Bender re vicarious liability: surely in the sphere of corporate manslaughter (ok crappy example for UK) and respondeat superior we already have the beginnings of vicarious criminal responsibility in common law jurisdictions. strict liability is everywhere nowadays so the need for a mental element is already massively weakened. As with any weakening of the protection of the accused party I think we should be incredibly careful. To be honest the more I think about it the less I like the idea. However I would have liked both parties having to swear on oath or affirmation in open court - rather than avoiding that because of the decision that a conviction was unlikely.

imatfaal wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

perhaps we should do away with the courts system and put all cases on public forums - we could debate it and at the end, draw our own conclusions....



... by the time we've reached the end the accused would probably have died of bordom!

Frankly I get yelled at least once a week that cyclists shouldnt be allowed on the roads - as road users we are out-numbered so I would hate to see the conviction rates of cyclists for jumping red lights if it were debated and decided on internet fora.


@Bender re vicarious liability: surely in the sphere of corporate manslaughter (ok crappy example for UK) and respondeat superior we already have the beginnings of vicarious criminal responsibility in common law jurisdictions. strict liability is everywhere nowadays so the need for a mental element is already massively weakened. As with any weakening of the protection of the accused party I think we should be incredibly careful. To be honest the more I think about it the less I like the idea. However I would have liked both parties having to swear on oath or affirmation in open court - rather than avoiding that because of the decision that a conviction was unlikely.

We do. And we should probably have more of it. Indeed, if you have a look at gross neligence manslaughter there are some interesting cases. But, the thing is, we're talking there about making corporations responsible for the actions of the little guy. There's nothing here to suggest anything other than actions of the little guy. And the little guy here, for whatever reason, just stayed schtum.

Indeed, from some reports on the net there appears to have been a comment interview on arrest. That's a weird one. I wonder what they said. If there's no physical evidence in these cases then a no comment interview will pretty much kill the case off every time. And, even if there's some evidence, and two accused, exercising your right to silence in court would pretty much see you get off every time. It's still all about the evidence.

NitrousOxide wrote:

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.

I dont think the windscreen was smoked, as technically thats a no-no thesedays, and the police should have pulled them up on that as well at least if that was the case, I suspect its just the angle the camera was at, with the overcast conditions the camera was probably blowing the auto balance light levels as it picks up the car lights (and thats a weird strobing effect they have) as a stronger light source.

doesnt mean none of the other cameras in the area werent worth a check though, and Nottingham city centre is crawling with cctv traffic cameras, but we dont know if that was done, or when it was done or if it showed anything as inconclusive either.

which in itself is unnerving since it would seem there would be no evidence at all without the cyclists video, but would then a CCTV check have been the first call had it not existed,and thats an interesting one to ponder isnt it

I've not watched it. Did he wait on just one? Or did he contact others?

Right. That's well, a bit silly. And weird. Why would they suddenly remember the email when it hits the news?

Latest instalment - the so-called trial, here:
https://youtu.be/enlYjxfR5Ic

No words to describe the incompetency.

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Latest instalment - the so-called trial, here:
https://youtu.be/enlYjxfR5Ic

No words to describe the incompetency.

There's some interesting stuff and some good points. I'd be wary of comparing someone to a criminal stereotype, but then that's up to the accused to deal with.

Where it really goes bizarrely is at about 7 minutes. The prosecutor flat out accuses the bloke of being the driver. Which is odd, the charge is not about that. It's about failure to name the driver, which does not seem to have been proved, at all.

The leniency point is bizarre. And really needs to be followed up. Properly and utterly bizarre.

And then it gets weirder. The CPS have not proceeded with the driving offences. Why is the Defence asking for them to be struck out?

Then there's a plea of guilty. Ok. But then it gets weirder. He says he understands they are on benefits etc. But how? Who told them? It's weird. That comes out from a plea in mitigation which appears not to have happened?

There's a lot of weirdness going on here. I can't say that I'm all that confident in the retelling of the story. But there's some weird stuff.

I do think that a formal complaint needs to be made against the prosecuting lawyer even if only some of it is true.

ThePeoplesChamp wrote:

There's a similar-ish story that you can watch a documentary about on youtube.
It was a lawyer called Eugene McGee - he ran over a cyclist, killed him instantly, then drove off and hid for the next 6 hours, while allegedly sobering up, and calling his own lawyer.

Turns out the punishment for not stopping at an accident & hiding from police is a small fine. Killing someone drink driving would have been prison.

Moral of the story in both cases. Never stop & get a good lawyer before speaking to anyone.

I';ve just done a bit of reading up on that one. Wow!!!

I'm angry about it now. And it happened 13 years ago, on the other side of the world! His table order from a restaurant showed 3 bottles of wine, a bottle of port and beer consumed between him, his brother and their Mum. He hid for ages, called his lawyer three times and then handed himself in with a pre-written statement. He is still practising lawyer, now specialising in defence against drink-driving and dangerous driving charges!! :shock:

BornAgainRoadie wrote:

The link for the petition for increasing the penalty for not complying with the request to name the driver has finally gone live at:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623

Hmm.
So that's had 54 signatures, and the "other" (120620) has had 44 signatures.
This is not looking good

NitrousOxide wrote:

BornAgainRoadie wrote:

The link for the petition for increasing the penalty for not complying with the request to name the driver has finally gone live at:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623

Now up to 140 signatures, hoped this would have gone viral in the last 24 hours.

Unfortunately the delay after the coverage on the news has probably had that affect.
Would it be wrong of me to propose that "they" deliberately delayed the approval of the petition until the viral hub-bub had died down?

I thought of this thread when I read this persuasive article in the Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-remove-right-to-trial-by-jury-death-cyclists-pedestrians-justice

(Part 1 is useful pre reading)
https://roubaixcycling.cc/2016/01/27/cr ... chapter-1/