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.
78 thoughts on “Police say horrific Nottingham hit-and-run resulted in £150 fine”
In cases like this, it should
In cases like this, it should be assumed that the person eligible to drive the car is liable, and prosecuted accordingly.
It is a horrible indication of the times that this level of crime gets away with a £150 fine.
kitsunegari wrote:
From the other reports, two people were eligible, and there’s not enough evidence to show which one was driving. There’s an argument that they both should be liable for failing to say who was driving, but I don’t think you can reasonably say they both should be proseuted for the driving offence when only one person was driving.
kitsunegari wrote:
Apparently there were two people eligible.
On the bright side, at least
On the bright side, at least you know the CPS’s attitude to cyclists…..
That’s horrid, I hope the
That’s horrid, I hope the Cycling Defence Fund fix this!
Outrageous that a hit and run
Outrageous that a hit and run could have a penalty of £150 !
What? The driver left a man
What? The driver left a man for dead and the police didn’t even bother to check the two suspects’ mobile phone records? Track the car on CCTV and see who got in/out of it at the other end of the journey?
With all that we’re hearing about government surveillance and the security services overreaching, this pathetic response beggars belief.
Well, call me reactionary if
Well, call me reactionary if you will, but I just think that is time that car drives should be licensed and insured and cars should be required by law to show an identification number so that when drivers behave like this, the perpetrator can be tracked down and brought to book…..
oh right..
It seems that as long as you
It seems that as long as you don’t stop, then say you don’t know who was driving the Police just throw up their hands and say they’ve done all they can. Ridiculous!
Quote:
is that not in itself, a bit dodgy?
Not surprised at all at this.
Not surprised at all at this.
If you all want to lodge a
If you all want to lodge a complaint with the force you can use this email,
psd@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk
Even if its just an email to tell them that you feel due diligance hasnt been done to find the driver of the vehicle.
Its cant be hard to work out which of the 3 people it was, ask each of them where they were and can any one confirm it.
If you want to do it old school via snail mail heres the address,
Professional Standards Directorate, Police Headquarters, Sherwood Lodge, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 8PP
kenyond wrote:
I’ve emailed a polite request asking for more information about the investigation. Would encourage others to do likewise.
So neither of these drivers had mobile phones that could have been tracked for the date / time of the accident?
mikem22 wrote:
What if they were in the car together?
So that’s it the perfect
So that’s it the perfect murder – just hire a car via a string of leasing companies, run someone over, then the CPS say they can’t prosecute as they can’t identify you.
There is so much wrong with this blatant case of “misconduct in public office”, I don’t where to start but I’ll give it a try:
1) From the article I assume that the vehicle was returned in a damaged state which the returning driver had to sign for, and that had to be the same driver who signed for the car in the first place.
2) CCTV cameras covering the road will show the route of the vehicle
3) Other CCTV cameras will probably show the driver getting in or out of the vehicle, e.g. at a petrol station or a shop. if the route of the vehicle was known then footage from the cameras operated by the local council can be used – these should be identifiable from the local authority’s web-site.
How much of 2) and 3) did the police check?
Also what evidence came form whoever at the leasing company took the car back from these scumbags?
Finally, what about any legal responsibility that the hiring companies have to ensure that their vehicles aren’t used for criminal purposes?
Mark By wrote:
how much of 2 and 3 exists?
I had a similar incident
I had a similar incident where I was struck from behind by (in my case by a HGV). Although I had no camera, another driver made a note of the vehicle details. I was told by the police that it was impossible to trace the driver as the vehicle belonged to a haulage company and so many different drivers used it.
I get the impression sometimes that they just can’t be bothered.
Richard1982 wrote:
I simply do not believe that the haulage company doesn’t keep track of who is driving which of their vehicles at any given time. If that is true, they must trust their staff imensely.
bsknight wrote:
I don’t know how tachographs work, but wouldn’t they reveal who was driving which wagon?
This doesn’t seem to be “just
This doesn’t seem to be “just an accident”, from the video it looks like attempted murder in broad daylight. Is this the level of investigative vigour that the Police and CPS in Nottingham apply to all cases of unprovoked attack with a lethal weapon?
Right, my first question is
Right, my first question is why Nottinghamshire Police seemingly investigated and pursued this under traffic laws (which most of know already are not really fit for purpose when it comes to these types of incidents) and not as attempted murder and/or assualt with a deadly weapon. Now, getting an attempted murder charge to stick might have been very difficult but I would think assault with a deadly weapon could have stuck? It looks clear cut to me!
The issue seems to me about the starting point by Nottinghamshire Police. Had they approached this differently from the off and assigned the CID resourse to these more two serious offences, as they would have done if some random person just walked up to you in the street and hit you around the head with a baseball bat, then the whole approach both morally and legally would have been different. As it is, it would seem they started down a route of using traffic laws from the off and then ultimatley it was this that has ended up with them and the CPS being legally backed into corner and all that happens is some guys gets a £150 fine and 6 points.
The victim is totally correct, this is not justice, the two prime suspects have not even appeared in any sort of court! I don’t understand why, just because this happened on the highway, this has been treated as a traffic offence.
As another poster as pointed out, is this a seemingly simple way to get away with a murder?
JonnyStone wrote:
They’re not fit for purpose because juries don’t convict on them. That’s not the fault of the police.
There’s no evidence of intent.
You’d never get attempted murder to stick. Careless or dangerous driving, maybe. It’s not assault because there’s no evidence of intent.
I concede that it does seem lazy of the police not to pursue it any further, but there is no pressure on them to do better except from the victims, and cyclists are an unpopular minority, so what do they care?
vonhelmet wrote:
They’re not fit for purpose because juries don’t convict on them. That’s not the fault of the police.
There’s no evidence of intent.
You’d never get attempted murder to stick. Careless or dangerous driving, maybe. It’s not assault because there’s no evidence of intent.
I concede that it does seem lazy of the police not to pursue it any further, but there is no pressure on them to do better except from the victims, and cyclists are an unpopular minority, so what do they care?— JonnyStone
I’m sort of puzzled by your comment that there is no evidence of intent. The car followed him for quite a way at a reasonable distance, then suddenly accelerated into him. If there was no intent the driver would have had to forget the existence of a cyclist within maybe 10 seconds.
vonhelmet wrote:
They’re not fit for purpose because juries don’t convict on them. That’s not the fault of the police.
There’s no evidence of intent.
You’d never get attempted murder to stick. Careless or dangerous driving, maybe. It’s not assault because there’s no evidence of intent.
I concede that it does seem lazy of the police not to pursue it any further, but there is no pressure on them to do better except from the victims, and cyclists are an unpopular minority, so what do they care?— JonnyStone
No intent? You hit someone directly in front of you, who has clary been there for some time, without intent. How about I go stand in s busy place with a baseball bat, and yhd at a random time swing it in s big arc around me with my eyes closed? I’d never get away with claiming accident. In this case the driver must have been able to the victim. Had it been an accident the driver would have stopped.
So, 54yr old man fined £150
So, 54yr old man fined £150 and 6 penalty points. Can’t be that hard to find his details in the court records……
Darkhairedlord wrote:
Easy tiger – the BBC had him as 52 – so put down the pitchfork..
If the hire company can’t
If the hire company can’t determine who was driving, then they should be shut down and not allowed to continue their business. There’s plenty of companies who can keep accurate records and I’m sure some of them would welcome extra business.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Except that it is possible when you hire a vehicle for two different people to be insured to use it. Obviously they will both deny being the driver at this time. Unless phone records can prove one was at this location and the other was not…….
Private prosecution?
Private prosecution?
Private prosecution?
Private prosecution?
Like someone’s already said
Like someone’s already said local CCTV could be checked to ID driver, good job for a PCSO! Seat dimensions and position could be measured by an accident investigator to see if the likely driver was the male or female. Cell site analysis of each of the suspects mobile phones to see where they were at what times etc etc. if the Police could be arsed to put a bit of effort in they could ID the driver. Clearly they don’t mind having these maniacs on our roads!!! Rant over!
Did the police appeal for
Did the police appeal for witnesses? Or nearby drivers from the video footage? You can read numberplates in the cyclist’s video – other drivers may be able to say whether a male or female was driving (although it’ll be harder given the passage of time).
Duncann wrote:
Other drivers, or passengers, or even onlookers would probably have seen the driver of this car. They should have been contacted by the police, using if necessary requests for witnesses via the media.
So the outturn of all this is
So the outturn of all this is that you want to hurt someone badly, hire a car, making sure that at least two people are eligible to drive it, then simply go and run him down. At worst, you’ll suffer a few meaningless points and a small fine.
The police, CPS and judges wil all say ‘so sorry, not us’, the politicians will ignore the issue for terror of offending the moton lobby, and you’ll have got away with it. Brilliant, what a fantastic attempt at protecting innocent people.
We have reached new lows with
We have reached new lows with this. Seriously WTF? Drivers just ignoring legal requests to provide details and the outcome is a fine equivalent to a London parking ticket?!
As for the endorsement we know that’ll achieve piss all with drivers kicking about with 50+ points whinging about ‘hardship’.
This is attempted murder, do the same with a crowbar in the high street and it’s taken seriously…as ever use a car and it’s a big joke.
I want the PM, head of CPS and the local Chief Constable on the TV explaining to the nations cyclists why they don’t give a toss.
So fed up with this ‘we want to encourage cycling’ spin when the establishment clearly hates it. Something has to give and now.
What a stupid system!!!! The
What a stupid system!!!! The law should state that if you refuse to divulge who was driving (in this case it was surely the person in question in any case) then you automatically receive the full punishment, without trial, that would be due to the perpetrator if found guilty. In that way there would be no benefit of refusing to cooperate in the knowledge it will result in a lesser sentence.
Sigh. Another case where
Sigh. Another case where suddenly everybody is an expert not only on what should be done but also on what was actually done. I’ll copy a fairly comprehensive run down of the situation in a moment, together with a link to a petition for a change in the law rather more sensible than the usual “hang all car drivers” that gets spouted in the comments section.
First, a couple of quick points:
a. there would be no prospect whatsoever of a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. That’s because there exists no such offence at English law. If you get your legal knowledge from American TV then you should probably not be making assertions of law. It’s not going to be helpful. Leave that sort of thing to people with a clue.
b. The same is true about technology. Unless you are actually an expert on mobile phone cell site evidence then your assertion that it could definitely be used to find out which of two people was driving a particular car at a particular time is really not very valuable. As with most forms of evidence, the actual answer is that it might help but no more than that.
c. This article does not purport to list every step that the police took in investigating the offence. Unless you actually have inside knowledge of the investigation then comments saying that the p[olice didn’t do this or that or were too lazy or didn’t care are all utterly worthless. We do not know whether the police tried cell site evidence. We don’t know whether the car was returned damaged. We don’t know whether they tried fingerprints or DNA. We don’t know what the people said in interview, whether they provided alibis, whether any alibis stood up etc etc. You can presume all you like but please don’t think that your brilliant theory on what the police actually did or thought is actually worth the energy it took to type it.
d. Finally, a point on the usual tired comments about the police and/or CPS not caring about cyclists. If you think that then you may need to reappraise your notion of the word “think”. Do you honestly believe that there are no cyclists in the police or CPS? Do you have some reason to suggest that cycling is less prevalent in those organisations than in the general populace? The last case I was involved in included a CPS lawyer who cycles, a lead investigator who does Ironman triathlons and a police sergeant who everested in the South Downs last year. My local CPS contains at least two triathletes and at least 3 or 4 others who cycle most days. Neither the police nor the CPS is some faceless body of evil masterminds who want all cyclists to die, nor are they comprised entirely of lazy jobsworths who don’t care about actual people’s lives. There are good, bad and average police officers and CPS staff, just as there are in any other profession.
There is only one sense in which the police and CPS “don’t care about cyclists” and it’s this: the fact that a person is a cyclist makes absolutely no difference to their attitude, generally speaking. If you are a victim of crime then the fact you are on a bike makes you vulnerable in just the same way that you would be if you were walking, running or skateboarding. It doesn’t make you a top priority and it doesn’t make you somehow not matter. You’re not special just because you ride a bike.
Cheers Dan. The petition is
Cheers Dan. The petition is being reviewed currently so I’ll pop back to sign it, but as it’s been written by somebody with a grasp of the relevant legal principles, I’m confident it will hit the right notes. Could be worth a regular bump to get some support. The current situation is nonsensical.
I think the source of frustration in many of the comments is that you’re right. That fact is incongruous with:
– the noise about a ‘cycling revolution’ and green transport and obesity crises and suchlike that is regularly spouted by the people who claim to run the country
– the evidence on what constitutes efficient urban transport and how our cities are designed,
– and the level of perceived risk (and actual risk in the event of minor collisions) that a cyclist vs driver experiences during a typical journey.
There is a strong argument for cyclists being treated as a bit more ‘special’ than they are currently.
Fancy whipping up a petition for (criminal) strict liability?
davel wrote:
There is indeed, but the police and CPS (who seem to be the instant points of blame by ill-informed ranters here) have to deal with the situation as it is. The law does not make allowances for the rhetoric of politicians (and nor should it).
No, absolutely not. True strict liability (“your car and a cyclist had a collision therfore you as the driver are criminally liable”) would be hideously unjust. The simple fact is that sometimes it’s the cyclist’s fault. When I was starting out I nearly had several accidents through my own fault: wobbling about as I tried to get my bidon into an unfamiliar cage; nearly coming off when trying aero bars for the first time and misjudging my speed and braking power on a descent that finshes at a major roundabout (I actually stopped about 4ft onto the roundabout but there were no cars coming). Others may have seen the footage taken on a car’s rearview camera of a cyclist going full gas, head down and simply riding into the back of the properly parked car.
Worse, I have dealt with a case where a driver was prosecuted for knocking a cyclist off her bike and killing her. The police expert evidence, together with video footage, revealed that the lady on the bike (riding along a dual carriageway where there are signs saying not to cycle) had wobbled some 2ft into the main carriageway. The road at that point curves in such a way that reconstruction footage showed that a driver in heavy traffic (as this was) would not see the cyclist until the car in front passed her. He was not too close to the car in front and was doing no more than 50 (perfectly safe and the same as those around him). The police expert agreed under cross-examination that the driver had reacted (based on the skid marks and reconstructed speed) quite a bit faster than the average driver would have done and that he could not have done more to avoid the crash. Strict liability would have been utterly unjust.
There are other technicalities such as what happens if the driver denies that there was a crash or (as in Nottingham) you have a dispute as to who was driving? What’s the liability there?
The alternative is presumed liability. This has the same basic problems as strict liability but with the additional problem that it often turns juries against it. You need to work within the system and if you take a bunch of jurors and tell them that they should presume somebody guilty unless they can show otherwise then they really don’t like it.
Other people who don’t like it include the higher courts, the European Court of Human Rights and victims of every other offence where the burden isn’t reversed. There are already calls to reverse the burden of proof in rape cases, so that the moment a woman accuses a man of rape he has to prove he didn’t do it. If we change it for cyclists then lots of other offences call out for it (including pedestrians hit by cyclists).
The current system is by no means perfect but it’s better than a lot of the alternatives!
Dan S wrote:
I would say it’s rather more than that. In this case, the video shows (appears to show) the car following the cyclist for some distance, then, on a straight road, suddenly speeding up and hitting him. If I walked some distance behind someone, them suddenly pushed them to the floor and walked over them you’d be hard pressed to believe it was accidental. The same is true here. Regardless of the legal issues, it feels as though the driver has got away with not merely bad driving, but a deliberate attack.
As a non driving cyclist i do indeed feel ‘special’ – I feel quite often that driving which is utterly incompetent, and often illegal, is simply ignored, and that even when the consequences are severe it’s treated as accidental, which it is clearly not. No, I don’t mean in the sense of ‘intending to hurt’ (not so sure in this specific case, but not generally , I agree), but in the sense that the original bad driving was conscious and voluntary. Treating such behaviour as ‘accidental’ seems ridiculous.
Here’s the post I put up the
Here’s the post I put up the other day explaining things in nice short words for the pitchfork brigade:
Basically it’s as anybody with knowledge of the law would assume:
1. It’s a hire car.
2. The police did what they should have done and served a s172 notice, requiring the hire company to tell them who hired it.
3. The car had been hired out to a man but with two permitted drivers: him and a female. They were also served with s172 notices requiring them to say which had been driving.
4. They declined to say who had been driving. This is obviously extremely reprehensible. Note that at this point the fact of its being a hire car becomes irrelevant. It is exactly the same situation as if my car hits somebody (or just goes througha red light/speed camera) and my wife and I refuse to say which of us was driving.
5. A few people have said that the failure to find out who it was shows that the police either don’t care or are incompetent. This is simply wrong. It is conceivable (likely, in fact) that the car went outside the view of CCTV. In any event the police would not have gone to CCTV until it became apparent that the car was a hire and the hirer wasn’t complying. Doing so would have been a complete waste of resources as most people do comply. By the time they got that far it is likely that any CCTV other than city council would have been wiped – most provate companies keep their CCTV for short periods only, to save space. You can only check out an alibi if they give one – they may not have done so.
6. The same goes for mobile phone positioning, with the added complication that it is very difficult and very expensive to do a precise triangulation of mobile phone position. The bit that can be done relatively easily is call data. That just shows you which cells were used and this is not sufficient to say exactly where you were (it can be a range of several kilometers). It also only works if you are actually using your phone at the time. Anything beyond that rough position requires very time-consuming and expensive work. By which I mean that police resources are such that it is very rare to get it in cases like organised burglary and drug dealing gangs. This does not mean that the police don’t care about this case or about cycling generally. It means that they do not have infinite resources. Add complications like showing who had which phone at the time (basically impossible in some cases) and the decision not to go down that route is entirely right.
7. Both were summonsed for failing to stop, failing to report and failing to respond to their s172 notices. The CPS (rightly) took the view that there was no prospect of conviction on the failing to stop and failing to report for exactly the same reason that there is no prospect of a conviction for dangerous driving: it is impossible to identify the driver. This, by the way, is not the CPS being incompetent of uncaring or a bunch of car drivers who cyclists. It’s the CPS applying the law.
8. The male (presumably it was he who hired the car) was convicted of failing to answer the s172 notice. The female doesn’t appear to have been convicted, which makes sense – she would only be lawfully required to reply if she was the driver. Since we would only have the male’s word for that, she wouldn’t be convicted (the Prosecution not being able to rely on a Defendant’s word in their case).
9. The male was fined £150. This is shockingly low. The maximum is £1000. This low fine is not the fault of the police or the CPS. It is a decision taken my magistrates. They have sentencing guidelines that they have to pay heed to but are free to excedd in appropriate case. Personally I would have thought that this justified a higher fine but I (like everybody else here) don’t know the details of what led to the decision, so cannot say for certain.
10. The male received 6 penalty points. This is the maximum penalty in terms of driving punishment. The fact that this is the maximum is not the fault of the police, CPS or Magistrates. It is the fault of the Parliament of 1988 that passed the Road Traffic Act and of every Parliament since that has not increased it.
11. Personally I feel that the penalty for willfully failing to provide details should be the same as the penalty for whatever offence the unidentified driver committed. It isn’t. If those who are talking about writing to MPs want to put something useful in their letters, leave aside calls for expensive infrastructure and education that will probably be ignored. Write and suggest an amendment to make wilfully failing to supply driver details punishable with the same penalty as the offence that the driver committed. That’s the actual lesson from this case.
This is not a case, as far as the reports show, where the police have been lazy, incompetent or uncaring about cyclists. Nor have the CPS. The only reprehensible behaviour has been by the driver and possibly by the other eligible driver (I say possibly because it may be that each said it was the other, in which case the non-driver has done nothing wrong). And possibly the court sentenced too low but really would a £1000 fine have reduced the justifiable sense of injustice here?
It is also a case that highlights a problem with the current legislation. That is not something that can be fixed by the police, the CPS or the courts. It needs a Bill in Parliament.
Dan S wrote:
how about aiding and abetting? one of them committed a crime, they both know which one, therefore surely they must both be complicit in aiding and abetting?
p.s my law knowledge is from silent witness and spooks, not the wire.
themartincox wrote:
There are still problems. As a general rule you cannot be guilty of an offence by mere inaction. There are exceptions but not that many. There is no law that says you have to help the police. There have been calls to change that (such as when people appear to shield those who are suspected of abducting children) but that is the state of the law. So if they simply refused to answer when asked who was driving then you’re stuck.
Alternatively, they may each have blamed the other. It’s hard to say that X is helping Y if X is actually saying “Y was the driver”. If Y is saying that X is the driver, however, it’s very difficult to know where to go. A jury have to be sure that a particular defendant was driving. If it’s one person’s word against the other’s then that’s very difficult to achieve.
As a technicality, even if you could show that they were conspiring together, the best you could do would be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. But that requires proof of an actual agreement. It may be that you could make that stick but without knowing exactly what each said in interview neither I nor anybody else can say.
themartincox wrote:
Or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
I have no legal knowledge whatsoever.
I also hadn’t read all the comments , e.g. when Dan answers this precise point…
And here is the link to the
And here is the link to the petition to change the law so that failure to provide driver details would be punishable with the same penalty as the main offence, thereby making it harder to pull the same trick that this pair appear (based on what I read here and on my experience of similar cases) to have pulled.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120623/#sthash.lN72w823.dpuf
I think I’m getting criminal
I think I’m getting criminal/tort/civil mixed up – but what is it they do in a huge chunk of Europe?
davel wrote:
Some form of presumed liability for civil law. Basically it means that the starting point is for the driver’s insurance to pay for medical care, bike damage etc for the cyclist. That’s displaced if it’s not the driver’s fault.
Your first point is entirely
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.
@Dan S – interesting to see
@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.
Dan S wrote:
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.
Dan S 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?
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.
oldstrath wrote:
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.
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.
Quite possibly, but there isn
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.
Irrespective of all the above
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.
ironmancole wrote:
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…
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”.
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.
Possibly, although I won’t pretend to understand what you mean…
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.
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”.
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.
Dan S wrote:
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.
wycombewheeler 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.
Dan S wrote:
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.
Dan S – thank you for some
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.
stumps wrote:
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.
Cycle in this country at your
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 drivers or Police, CPS get away with this.
Paulo47 wrote:
Stumps, you see my point?
For me I accept there are
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.
ironmancole wrote:
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.
I started using a Fly6
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.
The stats I’ve found are that
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.
While there’s some comfort in
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.
OK, so I think the problem
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.
I know this is an old thread
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.
I thought there was a law
I thought there was a law called joint enterprise that couldve dealt with this, or has that been scrapped?
Damian M wrote:
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 “.
Yes, that’s why we started
Yes, that’s why we started the petition to do exactly that. Link is in one of the early posts.
Dan S, if you get a chance
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.
Is there a link?
Is there a link?
Found it!
Found it!
Dan S wrote:
Have fun watching!
Hmm. Interesting.
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.