[Closed] Have we done that hit and run on the BBC site yet?

Eeek!

I guess this complicates matters:

?Nottinghamshire Police said the investigating officer established the car was a hire vehicle that had been sub-leased through a number of different companies

but something should be in place to deal with hire cars so the Police can find out who was driving.

Does sound a bit like "It was hard so we gave up". Surely if it is leased to an individual then they should be easy to trace, and if it is a company car then there is some liability on the company?

The officer traced a man and a woman who were eligible to drive the car, so could have been driving on that day. The man and woman were issued with a formal request to provide the driver's details, but did not respond

The narrowed it down to 2 people. How hard would it have been to estalish the whereabouts of each at the time of the crash..

And if neither owned up then charge them both with obstructing justice...

6 points and a £150 quid fine is a farce.

Prosecute the company for not keeping correct records - make them liable for the actions of the person who they failed to properly manage.

Not that I'm firing up the pitchfork or anything but would it be possible to ID the 2 people from the court records? Or are they not made public?

Sorry, but that's attempted murder. A deliberate attack with a 2 tonne lump of metal. That was no accident. It was completely deliberate. I can't help but feel with these cases, the fact that it's a cyclist that's the victim, creates a certain stigma. We are simply seen as a nuisance and inferior.

Put it this way, if the vehicle had been clocked at 100mph+ through a speed camera, would the police etc have said they couldn't work out who was driving. Absolutely farcical.

Nottingham Police have form on this - they failed to detect the driver of a fatal hit and run 2 years ago for similar reasons.

The officer traced a man and a woman who were eligible to drive the car

is there no way to work the video to get a better image of the driver?

Thats horrific!

Is there no way we as a collective could pressure the police into taking this flyer on behalf of the poor chap who was hit it spam the fubar out of there Facebook page calling them incompetent and maybe letter through the post shit loads of them make are shelfs a right thorn in there side till they get on with there jobs correctly.

Sorry, but that's attempted murder. A deliberate attack with a 2 tonne lump of metal. That was no accident. It was completely deliberate.

Surely one of them was driving and one of them knows the other one was driving. Both should be in trouble and ideally in prison.

Hasnt a thread about this incident come up before anyway?

Nitts police cut 40 million a year for the last 3 years, they probably just don't have the resources

I saw Bez tweet this a couple of days ago.

Its absolutely shocking.

The incident is bad enough but the failure of the police to follow it up is just ridiculous.

It definitely seems like it too much hassle for them

If the driver had killed the rider, what would happen?
Would they still have the same attitude? If not, why not?

I wonder if the driver was messing with the computer settings (being a hire car) and failed to see the cyclist. They hit the cyclist as if he wasn't there.

As a result, the prosecution for failing to stop and failing to report was discontinued. The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details

could easily solve this by making punishment for "failing to provide driver details" the same as if they committed the offense.

Really? So you have proof it was done with intent and not just very dangerous driving.

Did you watch the video????

I witnessed a hit and run in s.e london a few years ago, followed the car and got a numberplate. Turned out it was a company can and supprise supprise they (the company) could not work out who was driving.

As someone up there said, if it 100mph through a speed cammera would the police except that argument?

Did you watch the video????

I think what Stato is trying to point out is that there isn't any evidence that it was a deliberate ram as you can't see the driver. It could easily have been a very dangerous bit of texting whilst driving or similar instead of a deliberate assault.

Scary shit, though...

Edit :

is there no way to work the video to get a better image of the driver?

That was my thought after watching but I have to assume the investigating officer had already tried that approach or deemed it worthless/impossible.

The man and woman were issued with a formal request to provide the driver's details, but did not respond

"Can you tell us who to prosecute, pretty please?"

"No"

"OK, thanks for your time."

I doubt attempted murder would ever be a realistic charge, given the lack of evidence of intent to kill. However, gbh/abh should be possible. The driver knew the cyclist was there or he'd have been run over at the roundabout.

If i walked behind someone with a hammer and after twenty seconds smashed their skull in then I'd be in serious trouble. Shouldn't be any different with a car.

Shouldn't the penalty for not providing the details of who was driving be far worse that the actual offence? Treat it like contempt of court?

I though with drunk driving failing to give a sample was treated harsher than failing the actual test?

Absolutely shocking. Can't believe the police are so inept/couldn't give a shit.

Pathetic.

iirc, it was Nottingham police who blamed the cyclist when some thugs jumped out of a car at the back of a funeral procession and beat a cyclist up, even though the attack was caught on camera.

I suspect the Police are as frustrated as we are, but have limited time and resources. Perverting the course of justice should be thrown at the company and the possible drivers.

Would it be corporate manslaughter if he'd died and no individual could be identified?

Isn't this what PCCs were elected to be accountable for?

When my Dad was a magistrate he had a case of a husband and wife who could not say which of them was driving when a speeding offence occurred. Both had been using the car at around the same time in the same area on the day of the offence. Neither tried to deny it was them, both said it could well of been them but neither could they say it was them for sure as they had no recollection of the incident itself. As they said as well if one of them had elected to take the blame then that would have been perjury.
The result was that they paid a hefty for not being able to provide the drivers details but neither received points on their licence.

I suspect the Police are as frustrated as we are,

I really don't think they are.

The point needs to be made that it was the CPS and NOT the police that discontinued this prosecution. They are a completely separate entity and one that officers struggle with daily to get them to prosecute offences. I can guarantee you that officers want offenders to have their day in court as much as anyone.
The officer interviewed and summonsed the suspects for the appropriate offences (due care could have been added but given the other offences carry higher penalties so there would have been no additional penalty). Personally I would have loved to stick the driver on for dangerous driving but if you have ever tried to get that passed a CPS lawyer you will know that would never happen

Can you get polarized filters for SJ4000's and GoPros?
Getting an image of the driver seems key.

I work in computer vision type stuff (for road safety systems on cars) and someone here previously did a phd on removing or enhancing reflections and stuff on windows. Wonder if we could get hold of the original footage...

We usually tend to work with raw image data though as compression algorithms on gopros are designed to remove exactly the sort of information we use.

No CCTV in Nottingham they could check? Surely the car must have driven through a camera prior to the incident.

If we elect people who don't give a shit, it is hardly surprising that the systems they have governance over will fail like this.

Worth chasing the PCC?

[i]Write to the Commissioner:

Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner
Arnot Hill House
Arnot Hill Park
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 6LU

Email or Call the Commissioner or for General Enquiries:

Telephone: 0115 844 5998
Email: nopcc@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk[/i]

Really? So you have proof it was done with intent and not just very dangerous driving.

The BBC have cut the video short. The full clip shows that the car first appears behind the cyclists well before the roundabout - the cyclist is riding in primary for 50 seconds before the collision.

So the driver of the vehicle has known there was a cyclist in front of them for nearly a minute, neither they nor the cyclist have changed lanes in that time, there are 5 seconds between the Volvo straightening up to leave the roundabout and the collision. The car doesn't appear to make any attempt to move to pass the cyclist at all - even if the cyclist had been hugging the kerb they'd still have hit him.

Really difficult to understand how that could be in any way accidental. Then you consider that they didn't stop.

Looks like two people in the car to me.

Watch the video carefully (full screen, HD)

At 0:23 and 0:30 I see a hand being raised (probably in a "WTF" gesture), first by the passenger then by the driver.

The Nottinghamshire Police ought to be collectively ashamed of themselves for this. Six points and a £150 fine closes the case, but allows whoever was driving to get off with a slap on the wrist.

Given that neither person in the car confessed to driving, there's a clear case of perverting the course of justice here.

@Graham S

Can't see the second but definately the first from the passenger. good spot. This needs to be investiageted further.

Is it possible to request the case file from the CPS under the Freedom of Information Act? Would this give the name of the driver/people involved?
Just curious.

A bit like the foreign lorry that wasn't (at the time it caused a car accident that I was involved in) required to have the same reg plate on the trailer as on the cab, thus making it too difficult for Nottinghamshire police to investigate even though they had footage of the incident.

The guy just carried on driving despite having practically run his trailer over the top of this poor woman's hatchback before it was finally spat out right into my path - luckily I had slowed to about 20mph, so it didn't even set the air bag off.

The police said there was no way that he wouldn't have been aware of what he had done from the amount of slewing and bouncing that the trailer did.

Perhaps it's worth taking the local MP to task over this?

I can guarantee you that officers want offenders to have their day in court as much as anyone.

If only it were true, I'm currently reading Nick Davies account of the phone hacking carried out by News International. The police in that case were complicit in the denial of justice by withholding evidence and at very senior levels. That none of them ended up in prison is an utter disgrace.

s it possible to request the case file from the CPS under the Freedom of Information Act? Would this give the name of the driver/people involved?
Just curious.

Sadly not. But if the 'failing to provide' offence went to court, those details should be publically available.

Police know there were two in the car:

"While we share the victim's disappointment at the outcome, we feel the investigating police officer made every effort to ensure that the [b]occupants[/b] of the car were found and brought before the courts," the force said in a statement.

Blaming them is also a bit harsh - they summonsed the pair of them for various charges, CPS then decided it wasn't going any further.

It would be lovely to get the pair of them into court on a conspiring to pervert the course of justice charge, just for the publicity and to make them sweat, even if they would most likely get off if they stuck to their story.

I can guarantee you that officers want offenders to have their day in court as much as anyone.

Depends on the officers and other pressures I guess. The same force certainly seemed pretty keen on tracking down a car-vs-cyclist hit and run when it was one of their own that was cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-19757901

If it's narrowed down to 2 people, couldn't the police request phone records from their providers to identify their whereabouts based on cell information?

similar happened to me, hit and run (thankfully no injury) the owner (who was definitley not the driver) refused to fess up who was driving, so she got some points and a fine. Officer who investigated said it's a screwed up situation but nothing else they can currently do. If you have no evidence to specifically ID who was in the driving seat I guess the "beyond doubt" is out of the window already.

But I can't believe this vehicle [s]owner[/s] keeper got less punishment than the one in my case, serious injury in the OP vs my busted rear wheel, stupid!

If it's narrowed down to 2 people, couldn't the police request phone records from their providers to identify their whereabouts based on cell information?

Driver and passenger? Presumably if they narrowed it down and one of them wasn't in the car they'd have given an alibi.

In fact I'd take "6points and a fine" by one person as a pretty good admission of guilt, the passenger just has to provide just enough reasonable doubt that it wouldn't stick in court and the driver's safe.

This got great coverage on the local BBC news at lunchtime - the cyclist came across as a very reasonable bloke in the circumstances.

Thinking aloud......if he had injuries of damage to claim for, would the company the car was hired to be vicariously liable if the driver could not be identified? Would that possibly focus their minds?

Assuming that the details of the company are included in the publicly available court records of the charges that were brought, I can see some bad publicity heading their way. And two employees potentially being on dodgy ground for bringing their employer into disrepute....

People have to remember that criminal offences have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a mantra within the British justice system that states better to release than find an innocent guilty. Civil law however has a lower threshold of evidence. The fact they have been found guilty of something in a criminal court will make any subsequent civil case so much easier. There is a certain hypocrisy online in general over matters of driver identity when reported for speeding or parking offences. The advice is of denial or memory loss, except when that same advice works against the greater good like this. As to the suggestion of phone cell sitings? Really? Two people in the same car, both with phones. Do you watch too much CSI?

In fact I'd take "6points and a fine"

Thinking aloud......if he had injuries of damage to claim for, would the company the car was hired to be vicariously liable if the driver could not be identified?

There is a certain hypocrisy online in general over matters of driver identity when reported for speeding or parking offences.

Do you watch too much CSI?

Impound the car. Put the onus on the lease company to investigate in order to get their goods back or it gets crushed.

But, perverting the course of justice seems right to me (everyone from driver and passenger up to the various companies involved who seem not to have any records).

If it's down to 2 people who are known to be in the car but it's not known who was driving they should use the rather unjust threat of common purpose. Might not have a chance in court but again might be enough to get one piece of low life scum to rat on another piece of low life scum.

But, perverting the course of justice seems right to me (everyone from driver and passenger up to the various companies involved who seem not to have any records).

"If driver details are not provided within this period an offence has been committed and a charge of failing to provide driver details will have been committed, this offence carries a punishment of 6 penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000." so this sentence seems well lenient.
It is clearly a apparent offence of dangerous driving I wonder if the potential drivers were arrested and locked up to allow time to question them and establish where they were at relevant times and what there accounts were ?

[url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosebuchanan/cyclist-captures-collision-on-camera-but-no-prosecution ]According to BuzzFeed[/url] (sorry) the CTC are looking at it:

National cycling charity CTC told BuzzFeed News they were in touch with the cyclist and would be looking into measures to help.

"Considering the seriousness of the injury and how blatant the offence, this is very weak from the court not to have imposed the maximum penalty on the unnamed Nottingham man who failed to provide driver details," CTC campaign coordinator Sam Jones told BuzzFeed News.

CTC spokesperson Rhia Favero added: "I'm sure most people will find it incredible that the driver couldn't be traced when the courtesy car company must have their details on file."

I wonder if the potential drivers were arrested and locked up to allow time to question them and establish where they were at relevant times and what there accounts were ?

You've been watching too much CSI, they don't just lock everyone up until they've figured it out. Think how may officers are in a police station, and how many cases they're probably involved in, multiply those by how many suspects there are in each case......

how are we going to get anyone to try cycling when **** like this is systematically tolerated?

You've been watching too much CSI, they don't just lock everyone up until they've figured it out. Think how may officers are in a police station, and how many cases they're probably involved in, multiply those by how many suspects there are in each case.....

Trouble is, that just like the police and the CPS, you are treating this as a traffic offence, when it is quite clearly attempted murder.

I have not just been watching CSI though I have also been practicing criminal law for 30 years. Many dangerous driving investigations can and do involve the arrest and detention of the suspects for up to 24 hours . No need to lock up everyone just the two identified suspects . The one who did not do it often dobs the one who did in very quickly . My role is usually to defend the suspect and argue against this , justice only works when someone is doing the other side of the equation at least as diligently as I do my side.

Not worth saying twice.

clearly attempted murder.

unless the driver specifically tried to kill the guy its not attempted murder

He deliberately drove a car at him, I don't see how it can be treated any differently than hitting him in the face with an axe.

forgetting the cyclist was there

I suggest you don't try getting crankboy to defend you with that excuse.

@crankboy, out of interest what would the mechanism be to bypass the CPS and bring a private criminal prosecution?

This, "justice only works when someone is doing the other side of the equation at least as diligently as I do my side."
That in a nutshell sums it all up. CPS receive most jobs when they turn up at court while the defence has had it for 6 months.

Private prosecutions are easy to start difficult to maintain and can be taken over and dropped by the crown. You just lay an information at a magistrates court is fill in a forum.
It would not work in this case as without investigation powers you will not have any leavers to identity which of the two suspects was the driver.

[quote=MSP ]He deliberately drove a car at him

Prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Easiest payday for a defence lawyer ever (I'm prepared to be contradicted by crankboy, but I don't think that's going to happen in this case).

2nd double post i cant even work a smart phone.
I agree it would never fly as attempt murder, but would be an easy dangerous driving if you could establish identity .

I would say it was assault (possibly adding "with a deadly weapon") not attemted murder.

They should have both been banned from driving for life and given custodial sentences until they remember who was driving.

I too am amazed there is not CCTV footage from nearby on the road that shows the driver but I don't know how much gets recorded and how much is just live. It did happen outside of a BBC building so it's a shame that don't have footage of the car.

I bet the hire company is also playing dumb on it and I agree the car should be seized and held as evidence until it's resolved. I assume they have deduced the excess from the hirers credit card to cover the insurance claim by the cyclist against them? Probably not done that too and trying to wriggle out of the claim.

"Attempted murder" is possibly a bit strong, but something like "assault with a deadly weapon" seems about right.

The video [i]suggests[/i] intent to me (driver was clearly aware he was there and there are signs of agitation in the car) but yeah, proving it would be another matter unless they get the driver to admit it or the passenger to testify against him.

Edit: great minds andyl

how are we going to get anyone to try cycling when * like this is systematically tolerated?

Apparently driving around someone lying in the road is illegal in France, sounds like we could do with some laws to make it illegal not to show a bit of human ****ing compassion.

I think for assault you also have to prove intent - but I'm not the criminal lawyer on this thread. I don't know why you're all agitating for them to be charged with offences which are never used in motoring cases unless there is conclusive (not just circumstantial) proof of intent, when they didn't even get prosecuted for what our resident defence lawyer seems to think they should have been. I note that from my recollection of previous threads, crankboy tends to err on the cautious side on charging for such offences, so what he's saying here is quite telling to me.

I don't know why you're all agitating for them to be charged with offences which are never used in motoring cases...

I think people are suggesting that is part of the problem.

Because incidents like this are treated as a motoring offence the feeling is that they don't get as much time or manpower as other types of assault might.

The thing is, lacking proof of intent beyond reasonable doubt, it isn't assault. I'm certainly not an apologist for motorists, and think the while law system needs reforming regarding motoring offences, but don't think it's helpful expecting something which wouldn't even happen if it wasn't a motoring offence, given the available evidence.

Some people really don't seem to understand the concepts of "proving intent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".

If we aren't happy with how the law works in this country, lobby MPs to change it. But as with most changes to legislation, be careful what you wish for.

I'm with those struggling to understand how invoking a right to silence /not self incriminate allows 2 people who are individually guilty of dangerous driving and withholding evidence can receive such limited punishment. They'd have to be pretty ballsy to withstand the pressure of a full on Police investigation without giving anything away. Shame the CPS weren't prepared to prosecute on the minimum offence as the two occupants committed both offences (one each).
A civil prosecution would presumably require only balance of probability - could this not be brought against the occupants collectively?

The civil action effectively is a claim for compensation for loss from negligence, the insurers of the driver will deal with that without being too troubled by the identity of the actual driver in thr incident or the motor insurers bureau will .I don't understand from the report why the injured guys claim has not progressed yet.

"proving intent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

[quote=deepreddave ]Shame the CPS weren't prepared to prosecute on the minimum offence as the two occupants committed both offences (one each).

Yeah, but which one did which? Reasonable doubt gets them both off either offence.

Though I do agree with:

They'd have to be pretty ballsy to withstand the pressure of a full on Police investigation without giving anything away.

and as always the sentencing is a joke, right down at the minimal level, similar to what you'd get for not naming the driver for an SP30 - sentencing for motoring offences is something which really does need addressing. Not that the maximum possible sentence would be much better.

A civil prosecution would presumably require only balance of probability - could this not be brought against the occupants collectively?

A civil "prosecution" could only be for damages, which presumably the insurance has covered anyway (I don't think we have info on this)?

I see it made the BBC 10 o clock news.

[quote=nickjb ]

"proving intent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Sure, and they appear to have done some investigation into prosecuting for that, but failing on identifying the driver, which still needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The intent thing was really concerning some people's suggestions that assault charges should have been laid. The withholding evidence thing would presumably be perverting the course of justice, and again on what appears to be available evidence there's room for doubt there I think (though way out of my depth on that one).

Once again I'll point out that I'm firmly on the side of more robust prosecution of motorists, and wonder whether the police could have done more to "beat" some info out of the people involved, but not sure the CPS had any other choice in this particular case.

One thing I am curious about is that they appear to be avoiding naming the people involved - yet they have been successfully prosecuted, so their names should be on court records and in the public domain...

[quote=hamishthecat ]I see it made the BBC 10 o clock news.

TBH the publicity from this might actually be quite a good thing, as I think even to non-cycling members of the public those involved don't come across well.

BBC piece here (don't think I can embed video)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35486855

even the international news headlines section in our local paper in down under Melbourne this am

and

".I don't understand from the report why the injured guys claim has not progressed yet."

because he was riding a bike ? pretty sure "the you brought it on yourself" mentality runs through a lot of thinking and hence actions don't follow a logical path