http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 'Brutal' cyclist hit and run captured on video en Mon, 18 May 2026 09:01:46 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210928 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:34:51 +0000 Min 210928@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I mean subliminal, not subversive.</p> <p>I could accuse myself of mangling the English language! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210927 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:30:00 +0000 Min 210927@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I can't help but link the word "brutal" with cyclist, as though the cyclist were the one doing the damage</em></p> <p>They were. They probably did a lot of damage to that poor car by not paying road tax and being in the way. And apparently our justice system agrees.</p> <p>I couldn't possibly accuse the BBC of using deliberately subversive language though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210921 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:18:40 +0000 ih 210921@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This may seem a trivial point, but every time I see the title of this thread and the sloppy headline associated with it, I can't help but link the word "brutal" with cyclist, as though the cyclist were the one doing the damage and the hitting and running, rather than being the one left sprawling on the ground in agony. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210904 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:26:41 +0000 wingpig 210904@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Both guilty of not stopping at the scene of an accident... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210902 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:08:36 +0000 gibbo 210902@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"I imagine they were both in the car at time."</em></p> <p>I wouldn't be surprised. But, if you can place them both in the car, then surely they're both guilty of obstruction of justice, at the very least.</p> <p>Or am I missing something? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210875 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:37:48 +0000 Luath 210875@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I imagine they were both in the car at time. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210851 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:06:34 +0000 gibbo 210851@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Maybe I watch too many of those "Enemy of the State" kind of movies, but can't the police look at phone records to see which of these 2 people couldn't have been at the scene of the crime? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210848 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:59:05 +0000 gibbo 210848@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Roibeard</p> <p><em>"Clearly we need a "joint enterprise" clause for drivers - if you don't admit who was driving, then you're all jointly guilty of the charge..."</em></p> <p>I agree 100%.</p> <p>This decision sends a clear message: if you hit someone in your car - whether it's a cyclist or a pedestrian - floor it! Get the hell out of there ASAP.</p> <p>And then, if the police do manage to track you down, deny all knowledge - especially if it's a family car, where you and your partner both have access to it.</p> <p>The police would be able to prove which of you was driving if you both claim to know nothing.</p> <p>Why do time? When you can simply flee the scene of the accident and only get a slap on the wrist.</p> <p>(Though, in this case, it certainly didn't look like an accident.) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210838 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:36:28 +0000 Tulyar 210838@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It was described as a Courtesy (sic) car Let's view this as a civil action that tracks back the chain to the keeper/owner of the vehicle, who has clearly failed in carrying out due diligence on handing over the keys to the vehicle. That company should be identified and ultimately the CEO faces the civil action, and possibly a criminal action for the failure to deliver that duty of care. </p> <p>If only Car hire operations had to have O Licences like bus &amp; truck operators they'd get an allocation of vehicles and be expected to check the drivers properly. Persistent failure (and frequent crashes/traffic offences) could result in having their fleet allocation reduced or licence to operate revoked. Of course with certain aspects of transport devolved for Scotland we could always consider this </p> <p>Note that the car actually accelerates rapidly relative to the 'bronze' SUV in the outside lane and very deliberately at the cyclist. There was a passenger in the front seat, and the impact would have caused substantial damage to the car. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210820 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:23:55 +0000 chdot 210820@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just been on BBC 10 o'clock news!</p> <p>'Couldn't prove who was driving' </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210794 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 18:18:27 +0000 minus six 210794@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Hitmen should simply hire a car</em></p> <p>that's frequently the case</p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Cardew#Death" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Cardew#Death</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210790 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 17:35:38 +0000 Ed1 210790@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Its seems strange that this is just being treated this a motoring offense, if this assault was not in vehicle cannot imagine it would be quite so cosy if the owner of the weapon refused to provide information a fine? Quite bazaar. If the weapon was a firearm and owner refused to provide information or a less controlled object even if someone’s bike was involved in a crime would imagine taken more seriously if owner refused to provide information.</p> <p>If this had been an accident then can understand why may be treated as a motoring offense but as appears not to be, then a case of the police not taking it seriously treating it as such.</p> <p>If it was Borris Johnston on the bike, I imagine more effort would be made. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210781 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:49:59 +0000 mgj 210781@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's the same rule as for speeding cameras; if you don't admit it was you driving and the photo doesn't show it, they cant prove you were driving, so cant prosecute for that. Which is why the penalty for refusing to say whether you were driving or not is greater than the penalty for speeding (£30, 3 points). In this case, to make it work, the penalty for failure to stop/identify driver etc would have to be greater than life imprisonment. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210772 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:23:52 +0000 Roibeard 210772@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I doubt the "quite a slap".</p> <p>Compare actual bodily harm (up to 5 years imprisonment), grievous bodily harm (usually up to 10 years, but could be more), whereas this is equivalent to the lowest possible speeding fine (3-6 points and up to £200 fine).</p> <p>Careless driving would be 3-9 points and up to £5000 fine.</p> <p>Even the failure to stop/report is 5-10 points (or ban) and up to £2500 fine.</p> <p>Surely puts the slap in context compared to risking any of the above in court.</p> <p>Hitmen should simply hire a car...</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210751 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:44:43 +0000 Dave 210751@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Probably worth keeping in mind that 6 points and £150 is quite a slap (there are plenty of examples of motorists who kill who aren't prosecuted, are let off, or are convicted but don't even get this much). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210703 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:28:14 +0000 14Westfield 210703@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think the prime problem is that the 'car is subleased through a variety of different companies' each of which is denying liability and or knowledge.<br /> Whether this represents how hire companies operate or is a tax biding type shenanigan; they can't just hide behind each other..</p> <p>I'd suspect what a particularly egregious case such as thus requires is a civil case against the identified drivers and each of the shell companies involved.<br /> As civil burden of proof relies on probability, and video evidence confirms illegal behaviour that has resulted in injury +loss, this is exactly the sort of thing that I'd give a tenner to crowd fund! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210696 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:57:40 +0000 acsimpson 210696@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Presumably the cars insurance would pay out regardless of whether the driver can be identified or not. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210682 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:17:23 +0000 wingpig 210682@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If you don't admit who was driving it should be automatically interpreted as driving without due care and attention/careless driving, as paying sufficient attention would hopefully make the journey memorable enough for the driver to recall having driven.</p> <p>Is there an equivalent of Doctrine of Concert in English/Welsh law? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210679 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:08:20 +0000 crowriver 210679@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Liability, sure. Not criminal guilt, which is what the coppers were trying to prove. However the CPS claimed not enough evidence to prosecute...</p> <p>"As ever, the easiest way to get away with assault (and worse) is to use a car."</p> <p>Even easier if it's a hire car, apparently. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210677 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:06:25 +0000 Roibeard 210677@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Seems like a simple enough calculation - fail to provide details of driver (small fine), admit details (larger fine, potential ban). Oh, and if the UK courts were better and treated it as attempted murder, then the calculation is even easier.</p> <p>As ever, the easiest way to get away with assault (and worse) is to use a car.</p> <p>Clearly we need a "joint enterprise" clause for drivers - if you don't admit who was driving, then you're all jointly guilty of the charge...</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210673 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:46:20 +0000 Min 210673@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That is odd because whenever I hire a car I have to sign a thing accepting liabilty for parking/speeding tickets etc. Why would that not extend to deliberatly smashing into someone and leaving them for dead? </p> <p>Outrageous, even for the UK. :-( </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16008#post-210668 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:34:10 +0000 kaputnik 210668@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617</a></p> <p><em>Police say there is not enough evidence to prosecute a hit-and-run driver who accelerated into a cyclist - despite the incident being captured on video.</p> <p>The video clearly shows the car number plate, but it was a hire vehicle and Nottinghamshire Police said it cannot prove who was driving.</em></p> <p>If this had happened to me, and I had also captured it perfectly on a camera, and the law said "Sorry Guv, can't prove who it was". Well, you know how I'd be feeling.</p> <p>Sorry to ruin Hankchief's "light relief" vibe. </p>