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

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 owner 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”

ah hadn’t read the bullet points at the end, main story only says £150 fine, closer to my experience, owner paid more but may have been court costs etc.

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?

quite serious injuries wasn’t it? AFAIK the car itself has to be insured even if the driver is using his own insurance, maybe he claimed off the car iunsurance? MIB claim maybe?

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

quite.

Do you watch too much CSI?

I had assumed they were suggesting if one of the legit drivers phone was in the car but the other wasn’t we would have a good indicatgion of who was driving rather than both being present and identifying which was sat in the driving seat.

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).

Does anyone’s company keep record of who was driving? We have to sign out the pool car, and submit copies of driving licences to HR etc if we’re going to drive on company business, but I don’t think there’s ever been a log of who was behind the wheel at any given moment if there’s more than one person in the car.

“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 ?

According to BuzzFeed (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.

Again with the attempted murder. If the driver was trying to kill him do you not think they would have accelerated harder and hit him square on. The car made no manoeuvre and just drove straight on forgetting the cyclist was there, no swerve towards the cyclist. I agree its appalling driving and leaving the cyclist in the gutter potentially injured is clearly a charge greater than just dangerous driving, but unless the driver specifically tried to kill the guy its not attempted murder. If the CPS had went for that the driver would be out on the streets without even the 6pts and £150 fine!! Stop sensationalising it and treat it appropriately, it was a serious offence, rather than jumping out your seats screaming for a hanging.

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.

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 suggests 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?

quite, its depressing. Also depressing was hearing about a local HnR, a woman fell in the road hit her head, a bus and a cpl cars drove around her before another car ran over and killed her. Can’t believe the scum driving around someone lying in the road (have seen other drivers do similar), but you’ve got to be a proper lowlife **** to run them over and then scarper.

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”

Should be easy enough to prove intent to drive away and intent to withhold evidence either of which should see a significant punishment (but obviously won’t as they were in a car)

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.

Should be easy enough to prove intent to drive away and intent to withhold evidence either of which should see a significant punishment (but obviously won’t as they were in a car)
[/quote]

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…

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