MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Been on her before. It's the one where the woman driver denies running him down, while the bike is still trapped under her car.
Anyways, according to the updated description on YouTube it has made it to court, partially:
Driver one Chris XXXXXX OF Harrow, PLEADED GUILTY ( His statement was that he's insurance company told not to plead Not Guilty as there was no damage to his car but on seeing the video he pleaded guilty). : RECEIVED SIX POINT AND A £230 FINE.Driver two Sue XXXXX of Hanwell, has pleaded NOT GUILITY even on view the video. The court case has been delay until sep 2012 due to the court has not the facility to play the video format (.MOV).
First driver: Good on him. Yeah he messed up, but he stuck around after the accident, accepted blame, apologised, and then stood up in court to take the rap. His insurance company should be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice IMO.
Second Driver: scares me.
And how many months does it take the court to find a laptop with Quicktime on it????
If true, driver number 1's insurance co should be prosecuted for that advice IMO
Currently working on projects with the police, there are very stringent rulings on what can and cannot be submitted as evidence as a file format.
Granted, common sense should prevail, but that's the way it is. They'll have to either resubmit as a hashed and confirmed original in the right format (usually AVI) or somehow convince the courts to tweak their rules.
what on earth was driver 1's insurance company doing giving advice on pleading on a motoring offence?
what on earth was driver 1's insurance company doing giving advice on pleading on a motoring offence?
Presumably they would be liable if the cyclist then sued for damages?
The court case has been delay until sep 2012 due to the court has not the facility to play the video format (.MOV).
One of the daftest things I've read in a while!
I might be mistaken, however, I believe that a claim for damages can't be born out of a guilty pleading as the damages would have to be awarded by the courts and paid by the defendant.
A civil claim for damages is entirely separate, and then handled by the [s]evil rip off merchants[/s] insurance companies.
Like I said, I might be entirely wrong but that was my understanding.
_Tom_One of the daftest things I've read in a while!
Do not underestimate the backwardness of the legal and police profession when it comes to technology and submittal of evidence.
****ing woman that ran him over...Open your damn eyes seriously. "Where were you?" Did she totally miss the cyclist flying through the air infront of her?
I believe that a claim for damages can't be born out of a guilty pleading as the damages would have to be awarded by the courts and paid by the defendant.A civil claim for damages is entirely separate
That is my (Layman/IANAL) understanding too - but I [i]think[/i] civil cases are prosecuted on "balance of evidence", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", so a Guilty conviction would/should hugely swing the civil verdict.
Any fuzz or beaks care to clarify?
GrahamS - that would seem sensible.
I guess the difficulty is that unless the judge orders the insurance company to pay out, the insurance company could argue that it is not liable as it is a criminal offence (if dnagerous driving or similar) and that the insurance is null and void, and that the defendant is liable for the costs and payout unless explicitly stated in the policy that the defendant is covered having been found guilty of criminal acts.
Can't see an insurer paying out for robbers shooting someone - that's what the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority is for (having had to claim this way myself*).
Additionally, a claimant for uninsured drivers can claim for damages through the MIB pot of money, but I don't know if that works in this case.
Either way, not nice.
ETA: * I wasn't shot by a robber btw. I just had my two front teeth knocked out when I was 16 by a little oik and a lucky and uninvited punch.
ETA2: Just noticed, I'm wrong about CICA - they're for violent crime that was intended - so not applicable here.
Do not underestimate the backwardness of the legal and police profession when it comes to technology.
Can I add HMRC here... Doing a keynote presentation to a group of people, the sponsor said he would bring along a disc with his stuff on to load to my laptop. He arrived with a 5.25 floppy disc and was bemused it wouldnt fit in the cd slot...
Yes he was absolutely serious, yes it was 2002.
Hopeless.
but I think civil cases are prosecuted
There is no prosecution in a civil case.
The evidence in a civil case only has to convince "on the balance of probability"
In a criminal trial the evidence has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" - It is a higher burden of proof and as such there are strict rules of what evidence is admissable also because there is a lot more at stake in a criminal trial.
I think it was all stated at the time, the first guy obviously makes a mistake but understands it straight away.
Months down the line the second driver still cant accept they are in the wrong even with a video of them running the bike over !
The bike is under the car, the cyclist is lucky he still has both feet.
**** woman that ran him over...Open your damn eyes seriously. "Where were you?" Did she totally miss the cyclist flying through the air infront of her?
Ever seen a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game.
Car, car, bike, car, car, bike, car, cyclist flying through the air, car, and pull out.
Yes he was absolutely serious, yes it was 2002.
Seems reasnoble, in 2002 we were upgraded from a maxium storage of 4mb per person on the server to 16mb! and I remember a friend's 128mb USB MP3 player being a big deal.
The driver of the Ford Focus should be parted from her driving license as a matter of public safety. She should also be sent on a "recognising the bleeding obvious in front of you face" type training course too.
Ever seen a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game.
Car, car, bike, car, car, bike, car, cyclist flying through the air, car, and pull out.
No one is saying she might not have seen the cyclist.
The problem is she's still unable accept that she ran him over once the bike is under her car.
I reckon she will be found not guilty.
That's unbelievable ! Hope she gets her licence taken off her !
Ignoring all the legal arguments that this is now mired in, what gets me about her is that at no point at all in the entire video does she ask if he's ok.
It's pure human nature to see if others are ok isn't it?
Selfish, stupid woman.