Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Police say horrific Nottingham hit-and-run resulted in £150 fine

CTC’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund currently looking into the case

Police have said that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the driver of a hire car who was captured on video accelerating into the back of a cyclist in Nottingham. The victim said he sustained a severe back injury and internal haemorrhaging in the shocking hit-and-run incident, but Nottinghamshire Police said they could not prove who was driving.

The car was a hire vehicle that had been sub-leased through a number of different companies. The BBC reports that a 54-year-old man who was eligible to drive it received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details.

Failing to provide driver details is an offence contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The penalty is a fine of up to £1000 and the endorsement of 6 penalty points (with the possibility of disqualification).

Sam Jones, CTC Campaign Coordinator, said the case was being looked at by the organisation’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund, which works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling and offers help with legal cases.

“We’re now aware of the Police’s reporting of their investigation, and will follow up accordingly. CTC’s Cyclist Defence Fund has been in touch with Reginald Scot and we are now looking into how we can help him find justice for this awful incident.

“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 the driver’s details.”

Interestingly, despite only one person being charged, police said that two people had been traced who were eligible to drive the car. Both were issued with a formal request to provide the driver's details, but did not respond.

The two possible drivers were subsequently interviewed and summonsed to court for failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to report an accident and failing to respond to a legal request for driver details.

After reviewing the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove who was driving when the collision took place. The prosecutions for failing to stop and failing to report were consequently dropped.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

78 comments

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

The stats I've found are that of 148 charges for killing a cyclist, there were 108 convictions (based on data 2007-2014 between 30-odd police forces responding to the FOI request).  That's 73%.

For all charges of death by driving, Ministry of Justice figures for 2012 revealed 447 convictions out of 643 charges.  That's 70%.

There was a TfL study from 2007-2009 into pedestrian and cyclist deaths.  The cycling is unhelpful because there were 13 per year, which is not enough to give statistically useful results (prosecution and conviction rates fluctuate hugely based on a small number of charging decisions and trials).  What is interesting is that there were 197 pedestrian deaths and a conviction rate of 35%.  That sounds awful but it is worth noting that, for example, the conviction rate was 84% where the car was speeding but only 20% where the pedestrian was drunk.  So there does at least seem to be some rationale behind the decisions, whether we like them or not.

Avatar
davel | 8 years ago
1 like

While there's some comfort in the logic that there seems to be little singling out of cyclists, it doesn't change the perception. If there's an attitude that road deaths are just unfortunate collateral for motoring infrastructure, that probably needs to change (harsher sentences and guidelines might help to remove some of these joke injustices so we don't have the daily headlines of cyclists being shafted. No doubt other road users are shafted too, but being treated equally shoddily is less comforting.).

So the other aspect is how dangerous cycling seems to be. We're never going to be as protected as drivers, so something (ad campaigns, education etc) is needed to stop people in vehicles acting like dicks around people on bikes. More space. More patience. More appreciation that, no, you're not being held up by the person on the bike - it's the thousands of other cars that's your problem, and yes, it's fine that they're riding two abreast or in primary (when appropriate, natch).

That'd do for starters.

Avatar
oldstrath | 8 years ago
1 like

OK, so   I  think the problem is hoping the law will fix the social problems caused by  our motor vehicle addiction,  rather than simply reflecting that addiction.  You see it in some of Dan's comments, about how motorists convicted of killing are still 'decent  people',  I see it regularly at work and socially,  where people who would  sooner kill themselves than break most laws will happily say things like 'oh, I had to drive at 80 otherwise I'd have been late'.

Part of the answer is simply more people on bikes, requiring both better education and more well designed infrastructure.  Stopping referring  to killers as decent people might help though.

Avatar
TriTaxMan | 8 years ago
0 likes

I know this is an old thread but in situations where the Registered Keeper/First Named Hirer fails to provide details of who was driving rather than be given the points & fine for the failure to provide the information they should be given the full points and fine for the offences committed.

For most people a 3/6 points and a £150 fine for failing to provide details, looks far better on their licence than - points for dangerous driving and failing to stop etc.  So it is a far easier to say "I don't know who was driving" and get a lesser penalty than to admit they were in the wrong.

Avatar
Damian M | 8 years ago
0 likes

I thought there was a law called joint enterprise that couldve dealt with this, or has that been scrapped?

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Yes, that's why we started the petition to do exactly that. Link is in one of the early posts.

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dan S, if you get a chance check out the 4 part youtube videos the complainant has put up. I think the Court process is part 3. 

There's a lot of weird stuff going on there. Either he's misreported a lot of it or, well, you decide.

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Is there a link?

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Found it!

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
1 like

Hmm. Interesting.
Some parts were, I'm afraid, more of the same ignorant ranting you often get (the implicit suggestion that the magistrates are on first name terms with the lawyers and they all go out golfing together etc).
Other parts were essentially him explaining less clearly what I've explained, about lack of evidence of who was driving.
His complaint that there is no logic in charging the male and not the female is right but probably based on a lack of information. Most likely it's because the police sent him a notice and he didn't respond, which meant they never sent her a notice, so she'd be not guilty. There are other possible reasons but I'd be extremely surprised of it was sexism as he suggests.
The single most worrying bit is that the prosecutor hadn't seen the video. Lack of notes is nothing. Many very fine advocates use no notes at all. I wouldn't have any notes to open this. But not seeing the video is very troubling. Many possible reasons, most likely being a combination of lack of resources and lack of thoroughness. There are other possibilities but those seem most likely to me.

I'd be interested to know whether he's made a formal complaint, as he's entitled to.

Avatar
Dan S replied to Damian M | 8 years ago
0 likes
Damian M wrote:

I thought there was a law called joint enterprise that couldve dealt with this, or has that been scrapped?

Joint enterprise hasn't been scrapped but it doesn't cover this (and never has). Joint enterprise is where people do things together. So if you go in and rob a bank while I keep the motor running outside and drive us away, we are both guilty of robbery. Equally if two drivers are racing along a road, egging each other on, then whichever one hits the cyclist, both are guilty of death by dangerous driving.

That's not the case here. To make joint enterprise stick you'd have to prove that both played a part in the driving. They probably didn't (maybe the passenger said "go on, hit him" but you'd never prove that). Joint enterprise covers "both were involved, so both are liable for the direct consequences of each other's actions". It doesn't cover " one of them did it so let's punish both ".

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dan S wrote:

Found it!

Have fun watching!

Avatar
Shades | 8 years ago
2 likes

I started using a Fly6 recently to ensure that if I got 'rear-ended', there would be undisputed evidence as to what happened.  Doesn't seem much point now.

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
1 like

For me I accept there are genuine accidents. However, tanking down a rural road in an impreza with scant regard for anyone else who might be around the corner before ploughing into them is categorically NOT an accident.

It's wantant recklessness in the same manner as leaving a loaded gun at preschool then claiming innocence when the inevitable happens. 

Claiming there was no intent is a cop out, someone might not go out thinking 'I'm going to kill someone today' but in the same way as leaving the gun is stupid the same applies with driving like a tit.

At some point it's more than likely that someone will pull the trigger...or indeed drive into someone. The continued insistence of society and the judiciary that such obviously reckless acts in motor vehicles are random and unpreventable thus low culpability is 90% of the problem. 

Avatar
Dan S replied to ironmancole | 8 years ago
0 likes
ironmancole wrote:

For me I accept there are genuine accidents. However, tanking down a rural road in an impreza with scant regard for anyone else who might be around the corner before ploughing into them is categorically NOT an accident.

It's wantant recklessness in the same manner as leaving a loaded gun at preschool then claiming innocence when the inevitable happens. 

Claiming there was no intent is a cop out, someone might not go out thinking 'I'm going to kill someone today' but in the same way as leaving the gun is stupid the same applies with driving like a tit.

At some point it's more than likely that someone will pull the trigger...or indeed drive into someone. The continued insistence of society and the judiciary that such obviously reckless acts in motor vehicles are random and unpreventable thus low culpability is 90% of the problem. 

I don't see where "no intent" would arise there. Driving too fast, with no regard for vulnerable road users, makes it a category 3 death by dangerous driving. Starting point 3 years, range of 2-5, according to the guidelines.

Avatar
Paulo47 | 8 years ago
2 likes

Cycle in this country at your peril. The Police treat cyclists as second class citizens and this only encourages the ignorant and aggressive attitude that some drivers have. The Police are there to support the status quo, the majority's right to  drive, or do anything the majority do, note the creeping acceptance of using mobile phones at the wheel. Don't expect any enlightened or progressive attitudes or justice from the police or CPS. Cars are status and power, a big part of the economy, It's not the Police's job to undermine a driver of the economy. 
I hope there's a private prosecution and I hope neither the driver\s or Police, CPS get away with this.
 

Avatar
Dan S replied to Paulo47 | 8 years ago
0 likes
Paulo47 wrote:

Cycle in this country at your peril. The Police treat cyclists as second class citizens and this only encourages the ignorant and aggressive attitude that some drivers have. The Police are there to support the status quo, the majority's right to  drive, or do anything the majority do, note the creeping acceptance of using mobile phones at the wheel. Don't expect any enlightened or progressive attitudes or justice from the police or CPS. Cars are status and power, a big part of the economy, It's not the Police's job to undermine a driver of the economy. 
I hope there's a private prosecution and I hope neither the driver\s or Police, CPS get away with this.
 

Stumps, you see my point?

Avatar
Stumps | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dan S - thank you for some very insightful comments and i hope a lot of people on the forum read and digest them before blaming all and sundry.

In the end its a public forum so people can feel free to vent their spleen in any way they wish.

Avatar
Dan S replied to Stumps | 8 years ago
0 likes

stumps wrote:

Dan S - thank you for some very insightful comments and i hope a lot of people on the forum read and digest them before blaming all and sundry.

In the end its a public forum so people can feel free to vent their spleen in any way they wish.

Sure, but it's nice if they vent them in a factually accurate way!

Seriously, there are things to be angry about and things that could be changed but misdirected rants waste that energy and undermine the good points.

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
1 like

Irrespective of all the above, which are increasingly very fine posts, we remain left with an unjust and dangerous situation. Can a drunk driver escape prosecution by refusing to give a specimen of breath then blood? No, fortunately that loophole was plugged but it took a damn sight longer to do it than was actually necessary.

For me the real issue here is the absolute ease of causing so much harm and the failure, which is what this undoubtedly is, to take it seriously.

Points are increasingly meaningless so the fine, representing just 15% of what could have been ordered is pathetic. In an exam that percentage is a fail.

Meaningless fines also aside the scariest issue I think is this 'lack of intent' ergo it's an accident nonsense.

As we've read here in other posts the example of a baseball bat wielding thug fracturing a skull then arguing it was an accident and there was no intent wouldn't wash in court.

What we have then is clear disparity and increasingly perhaps, evidence of, growing inequality on the roads then inflamed by flimsy court intervention, I use that word lightly.

Politicians ignore most petitions. Do we instead need an intelligent and focused attack of all responsible bodies stating lack of equality and lack of justice as reasons to support a no confidence drive? Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion and clearly there are increasing numbers of bereaved and fed up people who want change today.

It's a human rights issue, always believed it has been. This lack of intent loophole is terrifying and will continue to be used to sidestep both punishment and deterrant that is currently absent.

Avatar
Dan S replied to ironmancole | 8 years ago
0 likes

ironmancole wrote:

Points are increasingly meaningless so the fine, representing just 15% of what could have been ordered is pathetic. In an exam that percentage is a fail.

On the other hand, 15% is a brilliant success rate for faith healers causing limbs to grow back.  That fact is every bit as irrelevant as whether or not it's a fail at any particular test.  It is certainly, on the face of it, far too low a fine.  The points may or may not be meaningless, it varies from person to person.  For some it represents loss of their job and subsequent financial ruin.  But I'm sure you know this person's circumstances...

Quote:

Meaningless fines also aside the scariest issue I think is this 'lack of intent' ergo it's an accident nonsense.

There's only so much that the police, CPS or Parliament can do about the workings of the English language, in which, depending on which dictionary you consult, the definition is likely to be something similar to "something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone".

Quote:

As we've read here in other posts the example of a baseball bat wielding thug fracturing a skull then arguing it was an accident and there was no intent wouldn't wash in court.

Leaving aside the technicalities of s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, your analogy is inapt on its face because in your example the person deliberately hits the other with the bat but does not intend to fracture the skull.  That is not the same as somebody who is acting perfectly lawfully apart from a lack of care.  To suit the driving, the analogy would have to be with somebody playing cricket in the park who swings the bat and hits somebody walking behind them.  Certainly their fault but not intentional.

It is unhelpful to talk about intention without defining exactly what you mean:

1. Clearly if a driver intends to hurt somebody then that is dangerous driving and will also constitute an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act (which one depending on the injuries and precise circumstances).

2. If a driver intends to collide with somebody but does not intend to injure them then the same thing applies as in 1.  In that situation a lack of intention to injure is a defence only if they are charged with an offence that require such intention (such as attempts or GBH with intent (s18 OAPA)).  This is where your baseball bat analogy would fit.

3. If they intend to scare somebody but not collide with them then the same principle applies as in 2, since making somebody fear immediate violence is an assault.  Again, the lack of intent to injure is not generally relevant, unless the Prosecution choose an offence that specifically alleges it.

Those three are pretty obvious.

4. If the driver intends to make a manoeuvre (say, turning left) and does so quite deliberately without checking their mirror (essentially not caring whether somebody is there, as opposed to forgetting to check it) then you could make an argument for calling it an assault on a reckless basis (it would partly depend on traffic conditions etc) but it would certainly be dangerous driving.  Of course it's hard to think of a case where this would arise because it would be very difficult to prove that state of mind.

5. If the driver intends to make that manoeuvre but simply has a lapse of attention and doesn't check their mirror/blind spot (or does so inadequately) then clearly they did not intend to cause the crash any more than a cyclist who absent-mindedly half-wheels or swerves intends to do so.  You can talk about blame all you like but talk of intention here is unhelpful.  The analogy with the baseball bat does not cover this situation, which is more akin to playing baseball in the park when the bat slips from your fingers and hits somebody nearby.  Not a perfect analogy, of course, but better than yours for this situation.

6. Finally we have the situation where the driver's action is involuntary, whether because of some sudden emergency making him swerve, some involuntary spasm etc.  Clearly talk of intention is unhelpful here.

A final point: if you sentence the people under 5&6 in the same way as people in 1&2 then you dilute the opprobrium that rightly attaches to the worst acts of driving, by lumping them in with mistakes that everybody makes but usually gets away with.

Quote:

Politicians ignore most petitions. Do we instead need an intelligent and focused attack of all responsible bodies stating lack of equality and lack of justice as reasons to support a no confidence drive?

Possibly, although I won't pretend to understand what you mean...

Quote:

Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion

No, this is not fact, this is your opinion, based on either inadequate evidence or inadequate understanding (or possibly both).  It is not OK for a cyclist to be killed.  That's why there are laws against it.  You may not like the laws, you may not like the way they are applied (at least on those occasions when you see it) but the fact is that cyclists are protected in the same way that everybody else is.  You're not special.  It's not perfect protection by any means but that's not the same as saying that it's OK to kill people.

There are undoubtedly sentences passed that are too lenient.  This happens in relation to all offences.  I've seen robbers and drug dealers walk out, as well as drivers who killed.  Cyclists aren't special.

Equally undoubtedly (at least in my opinion), drivers who kill get lenient sentences more often than most other offenders.  This is for two reasons.  First, it is much easier for a judge to  think "there but for the grace of god..." about a driver making a mistake than about a drug dealer.  Second, most such drivers are decent people, no previous convictions, loving families, devastated by remorse etc.  They arouse more sympathy personally than the average robber.  That doesn't make it right to under-sentence, it's just what happens.  The point, however, is that this applies to drivers who kill other drivers, their own passengers, pedestrians, horse riders, motorcyclists and cyclists.  You're not special.

Quote:

It's a human rights issue, always believed it has been.

Old legal adage: "If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If the facts are against you, argue the law.  If the law and the facts are against you, say it's a matter of human rights".

Quote:

This lack of intent loophole is terrifying and will continue to be used to sidestep both punishment and deterrant that is currently absent.

There isn't a lack of intention loophole.  There is simply a system that distinguishes between people who drive deliberately badly and people who make mistakes.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
3 likes

Dan S wrote:

Quote:

Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion

No, this is not fact, this is your opinion, based on either inadequate evidence or inadequate understanding (or possibly both).  It is not OK for a cyclist to be killed.  

 

clearly it is not OK but when we have

cyclists killed and drivers not charged, despite the impact proving the car drove into the cyclist who was directly in front of the driver.

cyclists killed and drivers aqquited by juries despite the impact being shown to have happened from directly behind with no possible space between the vehicle and the edge of the carriageway for even a dangerous pass to have been possible, the drivers phone records showing a string of text messages in the moments leading up to the impacxt and the driver blatently caught out lying in court

cyclists killed and the driver convicted but excused a custodial sentance.

It certainly starts to look like it is considered regretable collateral damage and evertything is allowed to continue as before.

it seems that the driver will only face prison time if;

a) driving while disqualified

b) driving under the influence of drinj/drugs

c) driver is a foregin lorry driver.

if 2000 people a year were being killed in industrial accidents, major investigations would result in major changes to regulation or serious consequences for fimrs breaching current regulations

If 2000 people a year were dieing to terrorist action, can you imagine the government response?

but 2000 people a year are dying on the roads and nothing changes.

Avatar
Dan S replied to wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
0 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Quote:

Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion

No, this is not fact, this is your opinion, based on either inadequate evidence or inadequate understanding (or possibly both).  It is not OK for a cyclist to be killed.  

 

clearly it is not OK but when we have

cyclists killed and drivers not charged, despite the impact proving the car drove into the cyclist who was directly in front of the driver.

cyclists killed and drivers aqquited by juries despite the impact being shown to have happened from directly behind with no possible space between the vehicle and the edge of the carriageway for even a dangerous pass to have been possible, the drivers phone records showing a string of text messages in the moments leading up to the impacxt and the driver blatently caught out lying in court

cyclists killed and the driver convicted but excused a custodial sentance.

It certainly starts to look like it is considered regretable collateral damage and evertything is allowed to continue as before.

it seems that the driver will only face prison time if;

a) driving while disqualified

b) driving under the influence of drinj/drugs

c) driver is a foregin lorry driver.

if 2000 people a year were being killed in industrial accidents, major investigations would result in major changes to regulation or serious consequences for fimrs breaching current regulations

If 2000 people a year were dieing to terrorist action, can you imagine the government response?

but 2000 people a year are dying on the roads and nothing changes.

I'm not saying that bad driving shouldn't be more heavily punished. The point is, as I believe I've mentioned, cyclists are not singled out. Everything you mention applies to all other road user deaths, from car drivers to riders and pedestrians.
Look at your own figures: 2000 road deaths (actually about 1700, according to the figures I've seen), of which a tad over 100 are cyclists.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dan S wrote:

 I'm not saying that bad driving shouldn't be more heavily punished. The point is, as I believe I've mentioned, cyclists are not singled out. Everything you mention applies to all other road user deaths, from car drivers to riders and pedestrians. Look at your own figures: 2000 road deaths (actually about 1700, according to the figures I've seen), of which a tad over 100 are cyclists.

OK, so the point, perhaps, is that killing with cars appears to be ok. My focus is skewed because, as a pedestrian I am either not in the road, or when crossing I feel I have more control of the risks involved, when I am in my car I have a massive steel safety cage and air bags, I don't ride a horse, so I only feel at risk as a cyclist.

I would be interested to know the conviction rates of drivers who kill other drivers, drivers who kill pedestrians (or people in shops and cafes) and drivers who kill cyclists. If those rates are shown to be equal then the statement that cyclists are not singled out holds true.

the talk is of wanting more people to cycle because it is good for the economy, good for congestion, good for NHS costs. But every time cyclists go on the roads we put our lives in the hands of others, because you cannot avoid someone simply ploughing straighht through the back of you as in this incident. Yet it often seems that the rules of the roads are might makes right.

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Quite possibly, but there isn't enough information.  If they both simply refused to say in police interview (as opposed to the forms they were sent) who was driving then you could argue for a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  If they each blamed the other then that's not really an option.

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
1 like

Your first point is entirely valid.  I would be very surprised if the police did not treat this as an assault as much as a dangerous driving.  Importantly, that distinction basically makes no difference.  There is a certain proportion of cyclists who like to think that the police say "it's just a driving matter" and put it in the "not important" pile.  This is (at least in my experience and my area) nonsense.  It may determine which officer investigates it (although not always) but nothing else.  The road deaths investigation team in my local constabulary is one of the best and most thorough teams I've seen.  

The article certainly does not show that this case was in any way neglected because it was a driving case (or because a cyclist was involved).  It is perfectly normal for robbers, rapists, drug dealers etc to get away with things because they can't be traced.  I've just been involved in a drugs case this year where the police actually have video footage of several people dealing drugs.  One of them we can't identify.  That is neither sinister nor incompetent.  It's just shit that happens.

Your second point needs to be clarified.  First, the fact that bad driving often goes unpunished is nothing to do with cyclists.  The same complaint is raised by pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, motorcyclists, horse riders (the only group I've come across who are more rabidly anti-car than cyclists) and other drivers (personally I hate taxi drivers, but that's just me...).  So no, cyclists aren't special.  You probably have a disproportionate sense of their vulnerability because you are one and because you read road.cc, which reports cases against cyclists but not against the others.

"Accidental" means, to most people, "unintentional".  Somebody turning left but forgetting, in a momentary lapse, to check their wing mirror, causes an accident.  Turning was deliberate but hitting the cyclist on their inside, while the driver's fault, is an accident.  It is often a matter of luck: everybody has such lapses, whether driving or doing something else.  I've seen professional soldiers fire their weapons by accident and professional horse riders fall from a walking horse.  It even happens among cyclists: somebody strays a bit forwards and overlaps wheels; somebody changes line, forgetting to signal; maybe somebody just randomly falls.  It happens.  The consequences can be horrible and certainly the crash is their fault but that doesn't make them bad cyclists and it certainly doesn't mean that it wasn't an accident.

Certainly there are cases of genuine bad driving and certainly they should be prosecuted.  Where an impact is deliberate it is often charged as an assault rather than a driving offence.  None of which provides the police or CPS with some mystical power to make evidence appear from thin air or to change the law at the drop of a hat.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
2 likes

@Dan S - interesting to see this from a different point of view (presumably the other side of the thin blue line).

I feel that I should bring you up on your "more rabidly anti-car than cyclists" comment. In my mind, being an anti-car cyclist is a rational opinion as cars cause the majority of incidents for cyclists. For the record, I think most drivers are reasonably competent - it's a small minority that cause the problems even though speeding/phone use/jumping red lights is considered normal amongst drivers.

With regards to your "accidental" point - if a driver consistently doesn't use their mirror to check for other road users before making a turn, then I'd consider that to be dangerous driving and although the outcome is not directly "intentional", I wouldn't consider it to be accidental as they are deliberately not considering other road users.

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
3 likes

Dan S wrote:

There is a certain proportion of cyclists who like to think that the police say "it's just a driving matter" and put it in the "not important" pile.  This is (at least in my experience and my area) nonsense.  It may determine which officer investigates it (although not always) but nothing else.  The road deaths investigation team in my local constabulary is one of the best and most thorough teams I've seen.  

 

I realise that the police are not completely homogeneous.  But in my dealings with them a large proportion are very anti-cyclist.  I've even been told that it's cyclists fault most of the time when they get run over. 

 

Avatar
oldstrath replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dan S wrote:

Your first point is entirely valid.  I would be very surprised if the police did not treat this as an assault as much as a dangerous driving.  Importantly, that distinction basically makes no difference.  There is a certain proportion of cyclists who like to think that the police say "it's just a driving matter" and put it in the "not important" pile.  This is (at least in my experience and my area) nonsense.  It may determine which officer investigates it (although not always) but nothing else.  The road deaths investigation team in my local constabulary is one of the best and most thorough teams I've seen.  

The article certainly does not show that this case was in any way neglected because it was a driving case (or because a cyclist was involved).  It is perfectly normal for robbers, rapists, drug dealers etc to get away with things because they can't be traced.  I've just been involved in a drugs case this year where the police actually have video footage of several people dealing drugs.  One of them we can't identify.  That is neither sinister nor incompetent.  It's just shit that happens.

Your second point needs to be clarified.  First, the fact that bad driving often goes unpunished is nothing to do with cyclists.  The same complaint is raised by pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, motorcyclists, horse riders (the only group I've come across who are more rabidly anti-car than cyclists) and other drivers (personally I hate taxi drivers, but that's just me...).  So no, cyclists aren't special.  You probably have a disproportionate sense of their vulnerability because you are one and because you read road.cc, which reports cases against cyclists but not against the others

I don't  doubt for one second that other road users also feel threatened.  The fact that everyone who isn't  in a cage feels threatened and  under served by the legal system might give you pause?

Quote:

"Accidental" means, to most people, "unintentional".  Somebody turning left but forgetting, in a momentary lapse, to check their wing mirror, causes an accident.  Turning was deliberate but hitting the cyclist on their inside, while the driver's fault, is an accident.  It is often a matter of luck: everybody has such lapses, whether driving or doing something else.  I've seen professional soldiers fire their weapons by accident and professional horse riders fall from a walking horse.  It even happens among cyclists: somebody strays a bit forwards and overlaps wheels; somebody changes line, forgetting to signal; maybe somebody just randomly falls.  It happens.  The consequences can be horrible and certainly the crash is their fault but that doesn't make them bad cyclists and it certainly doesn't mean that it wasn't an accident.

Certainly there are cases of genuine bad driving and certainly they should be prosecuted.  Where an impact is deliberate it is often charged as an assault rather than a driving offence.  None of which provides the police or CPS with some mystical power to make evidence appear from thin air or to change the law at the drop of a hat.

Of course anyone can indeed do accidental things. But if the soldiers in question  consistently carried their weapons with safety off in public places, it would be rather unsurprising if an 'accident 'occurred, and  one would hope they'd be discouraged from doing so in time to prevent the accident.

Avatar
Dan S replied to oldstrath | 8 years ago
0 likes

oldstrath wrote:

I don't  doubt for one second that other road users also feel threatened.  The fact that everyone who isn't  in a cage feels threatened and  under served by the legal system might give you pause?

Certainly.  But having made something of a study of the legal system and keeping a balanced approach in mind I have yet to see a substantially better way of doing things.  By all means encourage better driving, improve infrastructure, increase penalties for bad driving etc but none of that would help in situations like this one.

 

Quote:

Of course anyone can indeed do accidental things. But if the soldiers in question  consistently carried their weapons with safety off in public places, it would be rather unsurprising if an 'accident 'occurred, and  one would hope they'd be discouraged from doing so in time to prevent the accident.

YI'm not sure what point you're making.  Soldiers do indeed get punished for negligent discharges, in public or otherwise.  Just like drivers do in fact get punished if there is an accident that is felt by the court to be their fault.  And that includes momentary lapses.  They may not always be convicted and the people who acquit them or who give them lenient sentences may not always do what you, after reading a 200 word article, think they should do.  But the penalty exists and if you think it never gets applied then you need to get some grasp on the realities of the criminal justice system over and above what you read in the papers and on forums.

Pages

Latest Comments