This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Wow I'm surprised they got away with this one. The law needs sorting out so this can't happen so easily.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617
In reply to CurlyStevo:
A-holes, if somebody had been killed or if it had been a collision with another vehicle they would have easily found out who was driving. Surely somebody had registered to hire the car!??
A-holes, if somebody had been killed or if it had been a collision with another vehicle they would have easily found out who was driving. Surely somebody had registered to hire the car!??
In reply to Pesda potato:
two people registered but the responsible person refused to say who was driving and the police couldn't prove it. I've heard of people getting away with speeding tickets using the same blag.
two people registered but the responsible person refused to say who was driving and the police couldn't prove it. I've heard of people getting away with speeding tickets using the same blag.
6
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Seems ridiculous that the fine for failing to provide driver details is so low compared to the fine for almost any other offence.
Seems ridiculous that the fine for failing to provide driver details is so low compared to the fine for almost any other offence.
In reply to bigbobbyking:
It was £150 wasn't it, plus 6 points. More than most speeding penalties. I guess it is a catch all for people trying to avoid fines and points for less serious offences.
The problem here seems to be the CPS not treating the offence with the appropriate seriousness.
> Seems ridiculous that the fine for failing to provide driver details is so low compared to the fine for almost any other offence.
It was £150 wasn't it, plus 6 points. More than most speeding penalties. I guess it is a catch all for people trying to avoid fines and points for less serious offences.
The problem here seems to be the CPS not treating the offence with the appropriate seriousness.
3
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Seems odd that they were unable to identify the driver/ passenger with number of video cameras on the streets these days, plus all the triangulation data from mobile phones signals.
D
Seems odd that they were unable to identify the driver/ passenger with number of video cameras on the streets these days, plus all the triangulation data from mobile phones signals.
D
3
11
In reply to CurlyStevo:
This is just bloody criminal
There should be some law to say that in the case where a owner withholds information about the driver of a vehicle they are responsible for they are liable to the full extent for any crimes committed with the vehicle.
This is just bloody criminal
There should be some law to say that in the case where a owner withholds information about the driver of a vehicle they are responsible for they are liable to the full extent for any crimes committed with the vehicle.
6
In reply to CurlyStevo:
It's an utter disgrace. I would add to calls to prosecute both possible drivers, and add that the hiring company should be prosecuted under HSE legislation or similar (much the same as the vehicle owner can be prosecuted for allowing an uninsured person to drive their vehicle).
The police's efforts may or may not have been thorough, but I doubt the drivers face was obscured on every cctv camera they passed on that journey.
Interestingly a colleague deliberately squeezed by the driver, was punched and told to "Die Prick" by the passenger of a van in Farnham on Sunday whilst cycling along minding his own business (Fortunately he wasn't knocked off and got the number plate) . Having reported this to the police, within an hour they came back to say they weren't taking it any further as there was no proof who was driving or in the passenger seat.
In my mind that means they simply didn't bother. There wasn't enough time elapsed between the crime report being filed and being told they weren't taking it any further to even visit the owner and ask who was driving etc.
Realistically there is no real chance of a prosecution here, but every opportunity for the boys in blue to re-educate the van owner on his (or his employee's behaviour). After all, most vans are work vehicles which means a Sunday driver is most likely its owner.
And people wonder why so many cyclists film everything
It's an utter disgrace. I would add to calls to prosecute both possible drivers, and add that the hiring company should be prosecuted under HSE legislation or similar (much the same as the vehicle owner can be prosecuted for allowing an uninsured person to drive their vehicle).
The police's efforts may or may not have been thorough, but I doubt the drivers face was obscured on every cctv camera they passed on that journey.
Interestingly a colleague deliberately squeezed by the driver, was punched and told to "Die Prick" by the passenger of a van in Farnham on Sunday whilst cycling along minding his own business (Fortunately he wasn't knocked off and got the number plate) . Having reported this to the police, within an hour they came back to say they weren't taking it any further as there was no proof who was driving or in the passenger seat.
In my mind that means they simply didn't bother. There wasn't enough time elapsed between the crime report being filed and being told they weren't taking it any further to even visit the owner and ask who was driving etc.
Realistically there is no real chance of a prosecution here, but every opportunity for the boys in blue to re-educate the van owner on his (or his employee's behaviour). After all, most vans are work vehicles which means a Sunday driver is most likely its owner.
And people wonder why so many cyclists film everything
Post edited at 16:33
4
In reply to CurlyStevo:
How do you think he'd get on with a private prosecution?
The burden of proof is lower and there are no shortage of ambulance chasers offering no win no fee.
How do you think he'd get on with a private prosecution?
The burden of proof is lower and there are no shortage of ambulance chasers offering no win no fee.
1
In reply to Pesda potato:
How? If there are two potential candidates but no evidence to suggest one or the other, just how exactly do you prove murder?
> A-holes, if somebody had been killed or if it had been a collision with another vehicle they would have easily found out who was driving.
How? If there are two potential candidates but no evidence to suggest one or the other, just how exactly do you prove murder?
1
In reply to ByEek:
Similar to identical twins, one of whom commits murder, both can't be charged/convicted.
But maybe not for much longer ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25371014
Similar to identical twins, one of whom commits murder, both can't be charged/convicted.
But maybe not for much longer ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25371014
In reply to ByEek:
You gather evidence! Can you prove one of them was elsewhere? Do mobile phone records put one of them in the car? When pressure is applied, does one snitch on the other?
> How? If there are two potential candidates but no evidence to suggest one or the other, just how exactly do you prove murder?
You gather evidence! Can you prove one of them was elsewhere? Do mobile phone records put one of them in the car? When pressure is applied, does one snitch on the other?
1
In reply to ByEek:
Yeah it seems to me a fundamental issue with the law, perhaps there should be serious consequences to withholding or giving false information in this regard. Such that if the cyclist could identify the driver in a line up or they were caught on camera being the driver and they hadn't provided details they would be looking at a much more serious offence (when more than one person is involved it would also carry an additional conspiracy charge).
Yeah it seems to me a fundamental issue with the law, perhaps there should be serious consequences to withholding or giving false information in this regard. Such that if the cyclist could identify the driver in a line up or they were caught on camera being the driver and they hadn't provided details they would be looking at a much more serious offence (when more than one person is involved it would also carry an additional conspiracy charge).
Post edited at 17:09
In reply to CurlyStevo:
An added perverting the course of justice conviction (punishment to be consecutive not concurrent) would seem suitable.
An added perverting the course of justice conviction (punishment to be consecutive not concurrent) would seem suitable.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
It's a pretty fundamental aspect of the law, I thought, that there is no requirement to incriminate yourself or others. The obvious proximity of innocent and guilty in this case makes it seem absurd, but changing the rules generally would cause many more severe problems.
It's a pretty fundamental aspect of the law, I thought, that there is no requirement to incriminate yourself or others. The obvious proximity of innocent and guilty in this case makes it seem absurd, but changing the rules generally would cause many more severe problems.
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Have you thought this through?
One person was driving and the other one had nothing to do with the incident what so ever. They both say "it wasn't me". Are you seriously advocating the punishment of one innocent person to get one guilty person? Is that a precedent you wish to set.
There was an incident in Newcastle a few years ago where the two miscreants in a car that killed someone refused to say who was driving, and the outcome was similar to this case. I don't think that "joint enterprise" can be applied to an accident, as there was no joint intent.
> I would add to calls to prosecute both possible drivers,
Have you thought this through?
One person was driving and the other one had nothing to do with the incident what so ever. They both say "it wasn't me". Are you seriously advocating the punishment of one innocent person to get one guilty person? Is that a precedent you wish to set.
There was an incident in Newcastle a few years ago where the two miscreants in a car that killed someone refused to say who was driving, and the outcome was similar to this case. I don't think that "joint enterprise" can be applied to an accident, as there was no joint intent.
4
In reply to wintertree:
Always worked at school when the teacher punished the whole class for one person's misdemeanour. The perp usually got grassed on pretty quick or shamed into owning up.
Anyway if the police refused to pursue this and it was me the law would definitely be going into my own hands.
Wally
> Have you thought this through?
> One person was driving and the other one had nothing to do with the incident what so ever. They both say "it wasn't me". Are you seriously advocating the punishment of one innocent person to get one guilty person? Is that a precedent you wish to set.
> There was an incident in Newcastle a few years ago where the two miscreants in a car that killed someone refused to say who was driving, and the outcome was similar to this case. I don't think that "joint enterprise" can be applied to an accident, as there was no joint intent.
Always worked at school when the teacher punished the whole class for one person's misdemeanour. The perp usually got grassed on pretty quick or shamed into owning up.
Anyway if the police refused to pursue this and it was me the law would definitely be going into my own hands.
Wally
3
In reply to wintertree:
That seems like a ridiculous loophole. So two people in a car kill someone potentially deliberately with their car and then they both jump in the back seat and refuse to say who's driving and neither can be prosecuted even if it was on camera that no one got in to or left the car? Seriously that is broken and both of them should be liable for something pretty serious.
That seems like a ridiculous loophole. So two people in a car kill someone potentially deliberately with their car and then they both jump in the back seat and refuse to say who's driving and neither can be prosecuted even if it was on camera that no one got in to or left the car? Seriously that is broken and both of them should be liable for something pretty serious.
3
In reply to CurlyStevo
with a punishment that is less than the punishment for dangerous driving it doesn't really work does it?
> Its already a criminal offense not to provide driver details.
with a punishment that is less than the punishment for dangerous driving it doesn't really work does it?
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Whats special about the car scenario? Generally, if it is known one of two people is a murderer, do you want to punish both? What happens when both say it was the other?
Whats special about the car scenario? Generally, if it is known one of two people is a murderer, do you want to punish both? What happens when both say it was the other?
1
In reply to MG:
Slightly different, in this case they are refusing to say who drove not both insisting it was the other. If you are suspected of murder but refuse to say if you murdered some one or not I don't think it would be seen as a very strong defence would it?
Slightly different, in this case they are refusing to say who drove not both insisting it was the other. If you are suspected of murder but refuse to say if you murdered some one or not I don't think it would be seen as a very strong defence would it?
Post edited at 17:45
1
In reply to Bogwalloper:
Anyway if the police refused to pursue this and it was me the law would definitely be going into my own hands.
It was the CPS that refused to pursue it and not the Police.
Anyway if the police refused to pursue this and it was me the law would definitely be going into my own hands.
It was the CPS that refused to pursue it and not the Police.
In reply to wintertree:
I see no problem with charging both possible drivers with failing to disclose the details, and perverting the course of justice. Both are guilty of this offence so why was only one prosecuted?
> Have you thought this through?
> One person was driving and the other one had nothing to do with the incident what so ever. They both say "it wasn't me". Are you seriously advocating the punishment of one innocent person to get one guilty person? Is that a precedent you wish to set.
> There was an incident in Newcastle a few years ago where the two miscreants in a car that killed someone refused to say who was driving, and the outcome was similar to this case. I don't think that "joint enterprise" can be applied to an accident, as there was no joint intent.
I see no problem with charging both possible drivers with failing to disclose the details, and perverting the course of justice. Both are guilty of this offence so why was only one prosecuted?
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
My point still stands. People should not get away with stuff like that.
Wally
My point still stands. People should not get away with stuff like that.
Wally
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Its already a criminal offense not to provide driver details.
The car owner (Hire Company) did provide details of the two eligible drivers.
Its already a criminal offense not to provide driver details.
The car owner (Hire Company) did provide details of the two eligible drivers.
In reply to MG:
Disagree as mentioned if there was circumstantial evidence against you for a murder, you may well bet tried, if your best defence was I'm not saying if I'm murderer or not (and nothing more) I don't think things would go well for you.
Disagree as mentioned if there was circumstantial evidence against you for a murder, you may well bet tried, if your best defence was I'm not saying if I'm murderer or not (and nothing more) I don't think things would go well for you.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I believe from the conviction it was also their responsibility to further qualify who drove which is why one of them picked up a criminal conviction
I believe from the conviction it was also their responsibility to further qualify who drove which is why one of them picked up a criminal conviction
In reply to CurlyStevo:
If it is deliberate then joint enterprise may apply. The problem of determining a liar from a truth teller is not a loophole, it is an ancient dilemma. If one person was absent, or was present and genuinely innocent, and the other lies - note only one person is lying, the guilty part y , and there is no physical evidence, what do you suggest we do? Torture both the guilty and the innocent parties? Violate both minds with an as yet hypothetical mind reader? Shoot them both full of opiates and ethanol and question them?
Any solution violates or punishes the innocent party, and reasonable people tend to prefer letting the occasional guilty person get away with it over knowingly and wilfully having the state violate innocent people.
This absolutely sucks.
If there was a non hypothetical unbeatable lie detector then the innocent persons testimony would be enough to put the guilty person away, but there is no such scientifically or legally recognised device AFAIK.
> That seems like a ridiculous loophole. So two people in a car kill someone potentially deliberately with their car and then they both jump in the back seat and refuse to say who's driving and neither can be prosecuted even if it was on camera that no one got in to or left the car? Seriously that is broken and both of them should be liable for something pretty serious.
If it is deliberate then joint enterprise may apply. The problem of determining a liar from a truth teller is not a loophole, it is an ancient dilemma. If one person was absent, or was present and genuinely innocent, and the other lies - note only one person is lying, the guilty part y , and there is no physical evidence, what do you suggest we do? Torture both the guilty and the innocent parties? Violate both minds with an as yet hypothetical mind reader? Shoot them both full of opiates and ethanol and question them?
Any solution violates or punishes the innocent party, and reasonable people tend to prefer letting the occasional guilty person get away with it over knowingly and wilfully having the state violate innocent people.
This absolutely sucks.
If there was a non hypothetical unbeatable lie detector then the innocent persons testimony would be enough to put the guilty person away, but there is no such scientifically or legally recognised device AFAIK.
In reply to MG:
whether they were guilty of perverting the course of justice as the law stands now is irrelevant if in fact in sense they were guilty of that (as they both know who was driving).
whether they were guilty of perverting the course of justice as the law stands now is irrelevant if in fact in sense they were guilty of that (as they both know who was driving).
In reply to CurlyStevo:
But there isn't.
Anyway, how far are you extending this. If there were 10 possible drivers are they all punished? 100?
But there isn't.
Anyway, how far are you extending this. If there were 10 possible drivers are they all punished? 100?
In reply to Bogwalloper:
Why should people incriminate themselves? it's for the prosecution to make the case not the defence.
> People should not get away with stuff like that.
Why should people incriminate themselves? it's for the prosecution to make the case not the defence.
In reply to Bogwalloper:
My point still stands. People should not get away with stuff like that.
Which of the two drivers would you want prosecuted?
If neither are prosecuted, which one would you choose to deal with by your own means?
You have to choose one, otherwise an innocent person is being incorrectly punished. That's why the CPS decided not to take further action.
My point still stands. People should not get away with stuff like that.
Which of the two drivers would you want prosecuted?
If neither are prosecuted, which one would you choose to deal with by your own means?
You have to choose one, otherwise an innocent person is being incorrectly punished. That's why the CPS decided not to take further action.
In reply to wintertree:
I agree but it seems ridiculous that their defence can be refusal to say who was driving. If their defence both was along the line of it was the other person at least they are both incriminated and can be further investigated. I see this as a significantly different scenario even if it seems an only minor change.
I agree but it seems ridiculous that their defence can be refusal to say who was driving. If their defence both was along the line of it was the other person at least they are both incriminated and can be further investigated. I see this as a significantly different scenario even if it seems an only minor change.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
If two people were in a car and its reasonable to assume they both knew who was driving and the driver committed a crime there is no innocent party in the car if they refuse to say who was driving. I agree you may not be able to prosecute them for the crime the driver has committed but none the less they should both be held accountable for something.
If two people were in a car and its reasonable to assume they both knew who was driving and the driver committed a crime there is no innocent party in the car if they refuse to say who was driving. I agree you may not be able to prosecute them for the crime the driver has committed but none the less they should both be held accountable for something.
Post edited at 17:57
3
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
If two people were in a car and its reasonable to assume they both knew who was driving and the driver committed a crime there is no innocent party in the car if they refuse to say who was driving.
Why do you assume they were both in the car at the time of the accident?
If two people were in a car and its reasonable to assume they both knew who was driving and the driver committed a crime there is no innocent party in the car if they refuse to say who was driving.
Why do you assume they were both in the car at the time of the accident?
1
In reply to john arran:
Oh sorry I'm just talking hypothetically now regarding this apparent loophole. Mostly after wintree mentioned "
There was an incident in Newcastle a few years ago where the two miscreants in a car that killed someone refused to say who was driving, and the outcome was similar to this case. I don't think that "joint enterprise" can be applied to an accident, as there was no joint intent."
This seems particularly worrying and like a serious offense should have been committed by both of them.
Oh sorry I'm just talking hypothetically now regarding this apparent loophole. Mostly after wintree mentioned "
There was an incident in Newcastle a few years ago where the two miscreants in a car that killed someone refused to say who was driving, and the outcome was similar to this case. I don't think that "joint enterprise" can be applied to an accident, as there was no joint intent."
This seems particularly worrying and like a serious offense should have been committed by both of them.
Post edited at 18:03
In reply to FactorXXX:
Who failed to provide details of who was driving, one of them was convicted of this.
The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
> Its already a criminal offense not to provide driver details.
> The car owner (Hire Company) did provide details of the two eligible drivers.
Who failed to provide details of who was driving, one of them was convicted of this.
The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
3
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Exactly. Or possibly this was an unfortunate case where it really wasn't possible to prove who was driving. In either case, implementing a new legal philosophy seems a bit of a drastic response.
> The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
Exactly. Or possibly this was an unfortunate case where it really wasn't possible to prove who was driving. In either case, implementing a new legal philosophy seems a bit of a drastic response.
In reply to wintertree:
If someone was stabbed by a member of a gang other members of the gang who were involved but not the one using the knife can be prosecuted under join enterprise laws.
> Have you thought this through?
> One person was driving and the other one had nothing to do with the incident what so ever. They both say "it wasn't me". Are you seriously advocating the punishment of one innocent person to get one guilty person? Is that a precedent you wish to set.
If someone was stabbed by a member of a gang other members of the gang who were involved but not the one using the knife can be prosecuted under join enterprise laws.
In reply to gethin_allen:
Isn't that wilfully obstructing the police from conducting their enquiries? Can't they be prosecuted for doing that?
> This is just bloody criminal
> There should be some law to say that in the case where a owner withholds information about the driver of a vehicle they are responsible for they are liable to the full extent for any crimes committed with the vehicle.
Isn't that wilfully obstructing the police from conducting their enquiries? Can't they be prosecuted for doing that?
In reply to gethin_allen:
Joint Enterprise isn't without criticism, indeed I would say it doesn't really pass any test of natural justice.
Joint Enterprise isn't without criticism, indeed I would say it doesn't really pass any test of natural justice.
In reply to dread-i:
Think you mean a civil claim?
> How do you think he'd get on with a private prosecution?
> The burden of proof is lower and there are no shortage of ambulance chasers offering no win no fee.
Think you mean a civil claim?
In reply to gethin_allen:
Only under very particular circumstances..... There is pretty much no chance that joint enterprise would apply in this case.
> If someone was stabbed by a member of a gang other members of the gang who were involved but not the one using the knife can be prosecuted under join enterprise laws.
Only under very particular circumstances..... There is pretty much no chance that joint enterprise would apply in this case.
1
1
In reply to MG:
Yes they are (or would be if the second possible driver was charged). Police identified 2 drivers that were responsible for the vehicle having rented it jointly neither provided the name of the driver.
Yes they are (or would be if the second possible driver was charged). Police identified 2 drivers that were responsible for the vehicle having rented it jointly neither provided the name of the driver.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Go on then, how does constitute PCJ
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
Intimidating or threatening a judge
(From Wiki)
Go on then, how does constitute PCJ
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
Intimidating or threatening a judge
(From Wiki)
Post edited at 18:48
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Is that true? Joint rental seems like a very unusual arrangement. For a rental car, it is more normal to have a single person who makes the contract, who can then add named drivers. Responsibility for the vehicle would normally rest with the contract holder (equivalent to the registered keeper).
> Police identified 2 drivers that were responsible for the vehicle having rented it jointly neither provided the name of the driver.
Is that true? Joint rental seems like a very unusual arrangement. For a rental car, it is more normal to have a single person who makes the contract, who can then add named drivers. Responsibility for the vehicle would normally rest with the contract holder (equivalent to the registered keeper).
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
The lesson from this is: if you have bike-mounted cameras, make sure they're fitted with polarising filters so that you have a better chance of being able to film through the windscreen.
That's why I wear polarising sunglasses when riding a bike; so I can see the whites of their eyes...
The lesson from this is: if you have bike-mounted cameras, make sure they're fitted with polarising filters so that you have a better chance of being able to film through the windscreen.
That's why I wear polarising sunglasses when riding a bike; so I can see the whites of their eyes...
In reply to MarkJH:
Is that true? Joint rental seems like a very unusual arrangement. For a rental car, it is more normal to have a single person who makes the contract, who can then add named drivers. Responsibility for the vehicle would normally rest with the contract holder (equivalent to the registered keeper).
If that is the case, that would explain why one person was convicted of not supplying details and the other wasn't.
Still doesn't make identifying the driver at the time of the accident any easier though, which is basically all the CPS are concerned with.
Is that true? Joint rental seems like a very unusual arrangement. For a rental car, it is more normal to have a single person who makes the contract, who can then add named drivers. Responsibility for the vehicle would normally rest with the contract holder (equivalent to the registered keeper).
If that is the case, that would explain why one person was convicted of not supplying details and the other wasn't.
Still doesn't make identifying the driver at the time of the accident any easier though, which is basically all the CPS are concerned with.
In reply to The New NickB:
The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
The Police said that they conducted a thorough investigation, just the CPS felt there wasn't enough for a conviction.
The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
The Police said that they conducted a thorough investigation, just the CPS felt there wasn't enough for a conviction.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
If they both know and refuse then I agree with you. However that depends on why they refuse to name the driver - if one off them genuinely does not know who was driving, and says so, does that count as a refusal? It is not clear to me from the article exactly what happened.
The only positive suggestion I can make is that at any given time precisely one clearly defined person is legally responsible for knowing who is driving a car, and that they shoulder the consequences of any acts where they cannot identify the driver. That eliminates a two-person-one-liar scenario. That person can change readily but should be clearly defined.
Edit: obviously if a car is reports as stolen etc that person is off the legal hook.
Other than company cars and speeding fines this seems to be a very rare problem, I suspect human drivers will go away before legislation arises to address it...
> I agree but it seems ridiculous that their defence can be refusal to say who was driving. If their defence both was along the line of it was the other person at least they are both incriminated and can be further investigated. I see this as a significantly different scenario even if it seems an only minor change.
If they both know and refuse then I agree with you. However that depends on why they refuse to name the driver - if one off them genuinely does not know who was driving, and says so, does that count as a refusal? It is not clear to me from the article exactly what happened.
The only positive suggestion I can make is that at any given time precisely one clearly defined person is legally responsible for knowing who is driving a car, and that they shoulder the consequences of any acts where they cannot identify the driver. That eliminates a two-person-one-liar scenario. That person can change readily but should be clearly defined.
Edit: obviously if a car is reports as stolen etc that person is off the legal hook.
Other than company cars and speeding fines this seems to be a very rare problem, I suspect human drivers will go away before legislation arises to address it...
Post edited at 20:03
In reply to FactorXXX:
Probably because in the fill video you can see two people in the car.
> If two people were in a car and its reasonable to assume they both knew who was driving and the driver committed a crime there is no innocent party in the car if they refuse to say who was driving.
> Why do you assume they were both in the car at the time of the accident?
Probably because in the fill video you can see two people in the car.
In reply to Orgsm:
But you're assuming the two people in the car were the two registered drivers. People are calling for a lynching of at least one person that might not even have been in the car at the time, at a stretch of credibility potentially neither of them was in the car and neither had any idea who actually was driving. Unlikely I admit, but you can't try someone unless you can be sure at least that they were even at the scene.
But you're assuming the two people in the car were the two registered drivers. People are calling for a lynching of at least one person that might not even have been in the car at the time, at a stretch of credibility potentially neither of them was in the car and neither had any idea who actually was driving. Unlikely I admit, but you can't try someone unless you can be sure at least that they were even at the scene.
1
In reply to john arran:
Not assuming anything Jon, I was explaining why Curly Stevo might have thought both in car.
Not assuming anything Jon, I was explaining why Curly Stevo might have thought both in car.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Since you can't identify the driver but you can identify the car then 'punish' the vehicle.
Seize the car and it only gets returned for double the normal fine as nobody is getting points on their licence or getting sent to prison. Far from ideal but better.
Other countries must have some different ideas for how to deal with the situation, maybe registered owner is fully liable.
Since you can't identify the driver but you can identify the car then 'punish' the vehicle.
Seize the car and it only gets returned for double the normal fine as nobody is getting points on their licence or getting sent to prison. Far from ideal but better.
Other countries must have some different ideas for how to deal with the situation, maybe registered owner is fully liable.
2
3
In reply to The New NickB:
You say deliberately knocking the cyclist of their bike, I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was on the phone !
You say deliberately knocking the cyclist of their bike, I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was on the phone !
1
In reply to The New NickB:
The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
Deliberately?
Dangerous driving, Hit and Run, etc. certainly, but not sure you could actually prove it was deliberate.
The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
Deliberately?
Dangerous driving, Hit and Run, etc. certainly, but not sure you could actually prove it was deliberate.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
It looks like the responding officer was pretty thorough and was trying to get a conviction, but I doubt it was resourced beyond that.
> The Police said that they conducted a thorough investigation, just the CPS felt there wasn't enough for a conviction.
It looks like the responding officer was pretty thorough and was trying to get a conviction, but I doubt it was resourced beyond that.
In reply to Pedro:
Which would be quite easy to prove!
> You say deliberately knocking the cyclist of their bike, I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was on the phone !
Which would be quite easy to prove!
In reply to FactorXXX:
Really, it certainly wasn't done by mistake was it? They knew the cyclist was there, they sharply accelerated into the back of them, they made no attempt to overtake.
> The problem appears to be that the crime of deliberately knocking the cyclist off their bike, wasn't considered serious enough to pursue with any real effort.
> Deliberately?
> Dangerous driving, Hit and Run, etc. certainly, but not sure you could actually prove it was deliberate.
Really, it certainly wasn't done by mistake was it? They knew the cyclist was there, they sharply accelerated into the back of them, they made no attempt to overtake.
1
1
In reply to Orgsm:
Really, it certainly wasn't done by mistake was it? They knew the cyclist was there, they sharply accelerated into the back of them, they made no attempt to overtake.
Alternatively, they didn't see the cyclist and hit him.
Really, it certainly wasn't done by mistake was it? They knew the cyclist was there, they sharply accelerated into the back of them, they made no attempt to overtake.
Alternatively, they didn't see the cyclist and hit him.
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Ironically this same car has a cyclist detection system that automatically brakes if it detects a collision with car/cyclist/pedestrian.
I know this as I had an XC60 for a while. It comes up with warning lights in front of the driver prior to this.
The only way to not have the above happen is to turn it off, which involves going into the main settings and doing so.
I had it cut in when cars had pulled out on roundabouts without looking (it cuts in quite early but does put the anchors on!) and you can set the distance that it warns you at well beyond the 2 second rule.
So either it was defective on this Volvo or they had delibrately turned off the drivers aid or the hire company had
Or it met one of the below criteria.
http://support.volvocars.com/en-CA/cars/pages/owners-manual.aspx?mc=y413&my...
It detected cyclists when I drove it (and as a cyclist myself I overtook with due care and consideration).
Not good for the cyclist though and agree more should have been done beyond the 6 points and £150 fine. (Maximum is 6 points and £1000 fine).
EDIT: Apparantly that was an optional extra when I've looked back - City safety is included as standard (collision with cars) but pedestrian collision warning and braking is an optional extra!!
In my view it was brilliant and made you drive pretty much inline with recommended distances as covered in IAM and RoSPA training.
Ironically this same car has a cyclist detection system that automatically brakes if it detects a collision with car/cyclist/pedestrian.
I know this as I had an XC60 for a while. It comes up with warning lights in front of the driver prior to this.
The only way to not have the above happen is to turn it off, which involves going into the main settings and doing so.
I had it cut in when cars had pulled out on roundabouts without looking (it cuts in quite early but does put the anchors on!) and you can set the distance that it warns you at well beyond the 2 second rule.
So either it was defective on this Volvo or they had delibrately turned off the drivers aid or the hire company had
Or it met one of the below criteria.
http://support.volvocars.com/en-CA/cars/pages/owners-manual.aspx?mc=y413&my...
It detected cyclists when I drove it (and as a cyclist myself I overtook with due care and consideration).
Not good for the cyclist though and agree more should have been done beyond the 6 points and £150 fine. (Maximum is 6 points and £1000 fine).
EDIT: Apparantly that was an optional extra when I've looked back - City safety is included as standard (collision with cars) but pedestrian collision warning and braking is an optional extra!!
In my view it was brilliant and made you drive pretty much inline with recommended distances as covered in IAM and RoSPA training.
Post edited at 10:28
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Indeed. And in a murder investigation you have a whole team of detectives, administrators and researchers to do that sort of work. In this instance, there was probably a local community support officer and his three legged dog on the case.
> You gather evidence! Can you prove one of them was elsewhere? Do mobile phone records put one of them in the car? When pressure is applied, does one snitch on the other?
Indeed. And in a murder investigation you have a whole team of detectives, administrators and researchers to do that sort of work. In this instance, there was probably a local community support officer and his three legged dog on the case.
1
In reply to ByEek:
Yes, it looked like the responding officer did a reasonably thorough job, but it wasn't considered serious enough to use any more resources. A mistake in my opinion.
> Indeed. And in a murder investigation you have a whole team of detectives, administrators and researchers to do that sort of work. In this instance, there was probably a local community support officer and his three legged dog on the case.
Yes, it looked like the responding officer did a reasonably thorough job, but it wasn't considered serious enough to use any more resources. A mistake in my opinion.
1
In reply to Mike Highbury:
You match the time of the incident, with times of calls, text and to some extent different types of data use.
> How?
You match the time of the incident, with times of calls, text and to some extent different types of data use.
In reply to The New NickB:
But you don't know whether or not that person was driving, or do you?
> You match the time of the incident, with times of calls, text and to some extent different types of data use.
But you don't know whether or not that person was driving, or do you?
1
In reply to Mike Highbury:
No I don't. That is why crimes are investigated!
> But you don't know whether or not that person was driving, or do you?
No I don't. That is why crimes are investigated!
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Utter disgrace. The CPS know that it is very difficult to secure convictions of motorists for offences against cyclists even when you have a clear case, once you have few hurdles to surmount it becomes virtually impossible. Therefore it is simply uneconomic to peruse the case. Nothing will change until we have a fundamental shift in our attitude to motoring.
Utter disgrace. The CPS know that it is very difficult to secure convictions of motorists for offences against cyclists even when you have a clear case, once you have few hurdles to surmount it becomes virtually impossible. Therefore it is simply uneconomic to peruse the case. Nothing will change until we have a fundamental shift in our attitude to motoring.
2
In reply to elsewhere:
In Russia they start by slamming fingers in door.. Very good conviction rate.
> Other countries must have some different ideas for how to deal with the situation, maybe registered owner is fully liable.
In Russia they start by slamming fingers in door.. Very good conviction rate.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Then you charge them with perverting the cause of justice, and you give them a bloody good grilling down the station.
> But you don't know whether or not that person was driving, or do you?
Then you charge them with perverting the cause of justice, and you give them a bloody good grilling down the station.
2
In reply to sleavesley:
I've got a V40 with the same feature but it can be turned off with a single push of a button on the console.
> Ironically this same car has a cyclist detection system that automatically brakes if it detects a collision with car/cyclist/pedestrian.
> The only way to not have the above happen is to turn it off, which involves going into the main settings and doing so.
I've got a V40 with the same feature but it can be turned off with a single push of a button on the console.
In reply to Orgsm:
Then you charge them with perverting the cause of justice
Except it isn't 'Perverting the Course of Justice'.
Then you charge them with perverting the cause of justice
Except it isn't 'Perverting the Course of Justice'.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
The CPS know that it is very difficult to secure convictions of motorists for offences against cyclists even when you have a clear case, once you have few hurdles to surmount it becomes virtually impossible.
The CPS probably have the same problems when it comes to a lot of the cases put forward to it by the Police, etc. and not just cycling related ones. They look at each individual case and decide on the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
In this instance, they decided there wasn't enough evidence.
The CPS know that it is very difficult to secure convictions of motorists for offences against cyclists even when you have a clear case, once you have few hurdles to surmount it becomes virtually impossible.
The CPS probably have the same problems when it comes to a lot of the cases put forward to it by the Police, etc. and not just cycling related ones. They look at each individual case and decide on the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
In this instance, they decided there wasn't enough evidence.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...