CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

'Brutal' cyclist hit and run captured on video

(22 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. kaputnik
    Moderator

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

    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.

    The video clearly shows the car number plate, but it was a hire vehicle and Nottinghamshire Police said it cannot prove who was driving.

    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.

    Sorry to ruin Hankchief's "light relief" vibe.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. Min
    Member

    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?

    Outrageous, even for the UK. :-(

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. Roibeard
    Member

    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.

    As ever, the easiest way to get away with assault (and worse) is to use a car.

    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...

    Robert

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. crowriver
    Member

    Liability, sure. Not criminal guilt, which is what the coppers were trying to prove. However the CPS claimed not enough evidence to prosecute...

    "As ever, the easiest way to get away with assault (and worse) is to use a car."

    Even easier if it's a hire car, apparently.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. wingpig
    Member

    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.

    Is there an equivalent of Doctrine of Concert in English/Welsh law?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. acsimpson
    Member

    Presumably the cars insurance would pay out regardless of whether the driver can be identified or not.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. 14Westfield
    Member

    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.
    Whether this represents how hire companies operate or is a tax biding type shenanigan; they can't just hide behind each other..

    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.
    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!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    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).

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. Roibeard
    Member

    I doubt the "quite a slap".

    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).

    Careless driving would be 3-9 points and up to £5000 fine.

    Even the failure to stop/report is 5-10 points (or ban) and up to £2500 fine.

    Surely puts the slap in context compared to risking any of the above in court.

    Hitmen should simply hire a car...

    Robert

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. mgj
    Member

    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.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. Ed1
    Member

    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.

    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.

    If it was Borris Johnston on the bike, I imagine more effort would be made.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. minus six
    Member

    Hitmen should simply hire a car

    that's frequently the case

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Cardew#Death

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    Just been on BBC 10 o'clock news!

    'Couldn't prove who was driving'

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. Tulyar
    Member

    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.

    If only Car hire operations had to have O Licences like bus & 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

    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.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. gibbo
    Member

    @Roibeard

    "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..."

    I agree 100%.

    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.

    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.

    The police would be able to prove which of you was driving if you both claim to know nothing.

    Why do time? When you can simply flee the scene of the accident and only get a slap on the wrist.

    (Though, in this case, it certainly didn't look like an accident.)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. gibbo
    Member

    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?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. Luath
    Member

    I imagine they were both in the car at time.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. gibbo
    Member

    "I imagine they were both in the car at time."

    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.

    Or am I missing something?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. wingpig
    Member

    Both guilty of not stopping at the scene of an accident...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. ih
    Member

    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.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Min
    Member

    I can't help but link the word "brutal" with cyclist, as though the cyclist were the one doing the damage

    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.

    I couldn't possibly accuse the BBC of using deliberately subversive language though.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. Min
    Member

    I mean subliminal, not subversive.

    I could accuse myself of mangling the English language!

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin