Comments

  • Snap!Snap! ✭✭✭

    I'd post this on facebook/twitter, but I don't know how to use them and I don't want to be responsible for a lynch mob, however much they may deserve it.

  • It looks like the police basically know who it is - there were 2 possible drivers.

    The bloke got 6 points and ??150 fine.

    ??150 was what the magistrate decided and it sounds ridiculously light for a hit and run. Who polices the magistrates ?
  • Shocking video and shocking result. With it being a busy road, you'd have thought other drivers would have witnessed it and perhaps followed the car to see who it was and report them. Utter cowards.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I witnessed a hit and run on a cyclist around eighteen months back. Due to some mix up in the records at the cop shop, the case didn't get dealt with for another six months.

    The driver almost certainly thought they had got away with it. However, the cyclist had the number of the car, and I as the witness had the full backing of 'Mr Garmin' to prove my whereabouts; which was handy since the defendant doubted the existence of any witnesses.

    I'm not a vindictive type but have great pleasure in reporting that this hit run merchant was well and truly buried.

     

  • Snap!Snap! ✭✭✭

    What was the sentence?

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Am guess this is about the video in the bbc news. The idiot driver should be banned, neutered and incarcerated for at least 5 years. Typical Audi driver. Since BMWs became a bi of a Knobs car the knobs have am started driving Audi instead. I wonder which marque they'll do down next?
  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭
    Snap! wrote (see)

    What was the sentence?

     

    One year ban and £750 in costs and fines.

  • Snap!Snap! ✭✭✭

    It was a Volvo. 

    Looked more like attempted murder to me.

  • Snap!Snap! ✭✭✭
    RicF wrote (see)
     

    One year ban and £750 in costs and fines.

    Do you think that was enough? I wasn't there, so I don't know whether it was as deliberate as this episode.

  • KenbroKenbro ✭✭✭

    I hope that I can shed some light on th attitude of the police from my own experience. About 15 years ago I was knocked off my bicycle in a very similar style. The driver drove into the back off me and attempted to drive off. It was only the quick reaction of other drivers who blocked his escape that he was stopped. It was outside Slough police station and therefore they were on the scene in minutes. I was left with a broken wrist, elbow and dislocated shoulder. Despite the fact that there were several witnesses, the police took no action. Even when it was discovered that he was driving without insurance. The attitude of the police was that it was a minor misdemeanour and didn't warrant the effort it would take to prosecute. I was advised to sue the driver through a personal injury lawyer. The attitude being that the amount of money it would cost him was sufficient punishment. The whole episode shows the wrongheaded thinking of the police on this issue and the story in the news today confirms to me that the police don't give a toss about what they consider to be low level crime.

     

     

  • VDOT52 wrote (see)
    Am guess this is about the video in the bbc news. The idiot driver should be banned, neutered and incarcerated for at least 5 years. Typical Audi driver. Since BMWs became a bi of a Knobs car the knobs have am started driving Audi instead. I wonder which marque they'll do down next?

     Definitely a Volvo. The mark of car though doesn't really have anything to do with it. An arse can drive any car.

  • My wife drives a Volvo.... Sure she'll be happy you can't tell the difference VDOT ? 

    (You can pass the eye test for a driving licence can't you ?)

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    In the case I witnessed it wasn't deliberate. It was impatience and carelessness.

    The driver paused briefly after the 'incident', then drove off. The charges were 'failing to stop', 'failing to report', 'driving without due care and attention'.*

    It was the police who contacted me, and once it was established I would be a witness, they were rubbing their hands with glee.

    They had already contacted the 'driver' who claimed to have been in the area but had no accident.

    Up until I stepped up, it was the word of the driver against the word of the cyclist.

    * usually overlapped as one charge.

  • Kenbro wrote (see)

    I hope that I can shed some light on th attitude of the police from my own experience. About 15 years ago I was knocked off my bicycle in a very similar style. The driver drove into the back off me and attempted to drive off. It was only the quick reaction of other drivers who blocked his escape that he was stopped. It was outside Slough police station and therefore they were on the scene in minutes. I was left with a broken wrist, elbow and dislocated shoulder. Despite the fact that there were several witnesses, the police took no action. Even when it was discovered that he was driving without insurance. The attitude of the police was that it was a minor misdemeanour and didn't warrant the effort it would take to prosecute. I was advised to sue the driver through a personal injury lawyer. The attitude being that the amount of money it would cost him was sufficient punishment. The whole episode shows the wrongheaded thinking of the police on this issue and the story in the news today confirms to me that the police don't give a toss about what they consider to be low level crime.

     

     

    Read the story  again - it was 't the police it was the CPS. it is nearly always the CPS but Mr.Plod usually gets the blame.

  • It is ALWAYS the CPS who decide who to prosecute
  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Dave, my attempt to josh you a little backfired. My eyesight is quite good but I wish it want after seeing your moobs shot here on the forum.

    I haven't actually seen the video but heard someone else talking about it. Judging from the opinions of you lot I assume that the sentence was too lenient. Neutering is still my suggestion. Do we really want people breeding who knock cyclists over and then pretend it wasn't them or worse still were too stupid to notice?
  • But why pick on Volvo drivers ? 

  • He picked on Audi drivers didn't he?

     

     

  • I think he thought he was, but his eye sight is so bad it was a Crosville bus 

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Wasn't it a Chevy?



    Just saw the news and they guy is s blogger.



    No wonder the CPS didn't think he was worth fighting for.
  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭

    If the law was changed to say that the 2 potential drivers would both be charged with the "real" offence instead of "failing to provide details", I bet the individual who was not driving would be falling over themselves to give the actual driver's details.  The police know it was one of two people who must have been driving.  One of them committed a crime and the other one is covering for them. 

    Who was the MP who ended up in court because he got his wife to say she was driving when he was caught speeding, so that he could keep his licence.  Then she confessed when he was found to have been cheating on her?

  • Snap!Snap! ✭✭✭
    VDOT52 wrote (see)
    Am guess this is about the video in the bbc news. The idiot driver should be banned, neutered and incarcerated for at least 5 years. Typical Audi driver. Since BMWs became a bi of a Knobs car the knobs have am started driving Audi instead. I wonder which marque they'll do down next?

    Though that is a gross generalisation, I have some sympathy with your point of view. Audi has replaced BMW as the aspirational young/middle-age executive brand with appropriately hierarchical model designations and as evrything that comes out of Audi showroom is an S-line they attract a somewhat bling-tastic clientele. 

  • Unfortunately, I think the police are over a barrel here - if you really can't identify who was driving, you can't charge anyone. Horrible situation for them and obviously for the cyclist. I'm not sure what you could change to improve the situation.

  • Isn't there a thing called collective purpose in which everyone in a group of people that commits an offence can be charged, even if it's not clear who, for example, was giving someone a kicking and who was standing by and egging them on?

  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭

    If there were only 2 people allowed to drive (i.e. named on the hire agreement), it must have been one of them (unless they allowed someone else to drive, in which case said person was not insured - also a pretty serious offence).  So narrowed down to two, who know each other, and who both know who was driving...........

    So at a minimum, why can't they charge them with obstructing the course of justice or something?  That's got to have a higher penalty than failing to provide details, which seems to be just a rap on the knuckles offence.

    Agree it's not the police's fault - and probably what the CPS in this case says is in line with the current law, but it's wrong that someone can get off with this.

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    I think it is clear cut if it is a personal vehicle.

    Either the owner of the car is charged or he identifies who was driving.

    The complication is with this being a hire car, they have only identified two who were insured to drive.

    Perhaps laws regarding hire cars or company cars must be changed to make someone the principle hirer, responsible as if he or she were the owner of the vehicle.

     

     

     

  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭

    Normally a hire agreement has the "hirer" and "additional drivers" - or at least they used to.

    Still, I doubt our comments on a running forum will be enough to change the law.....

  • Muttley wrote (see)

    Isn't there a thing called collective purpose in which everyone in a group of people that commits an offence can be charged, even if it's not clear who, for example, was giving someone a kicking and who was standing by and egging them on?

    In this case, though, they don't know who was driving, nor was anyone 'egging' them on. It's worth remembering that one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in this country - the execution of Derek Bentley - was to do with 'common purpose'. 

Sign In or Register to comment.