This incident took place in London last year. It was reported to police and six months later went to court because Cargo Worldwide UK Ltd refused to identify the driver. They were found guilty and fined £660, £100 costs and a £66 victim surcharge.
Evo Lucas, who was the cyclist involved, told us: “This incident really shook me up and certainly dented my confidence for a bit.”
He said he had looked forward to meeting the driver, because, “previous experience has taught me that actually meeting that person and saying hello in a way that reminds them of the humanity at the other end of their interaction is invaluable.”
Of course the firm never identified the driver, so this couldn’t even happen in court.
“When I first learned of the fact that the company weren’t going to identify the driver, I wasn’t at all surprised,” said Lucas. “It’s almost as if it’s a legal strategy both to protect the company brand and their employee – after all, their vehicles carry no livery.
“Refusing to identify the driver to police is a terrible strategy. All it does is insulate a driver from the repercussions of their actions.
“I’m sure it cost Cargo Worldwide a bit more financially in legal costs than just the court fines they absorbed. In the long run I think it is bad practice morally for Cargo Worldwide to wilfully obstruct due legal process as well as safety on our roads.
“I know other riders who have experienced a similar thing. It’s very frustrating as the driver is still out there with zero consequences for their actions, simply because of a loophole in the law.”
He added: “Apparently the company motto is: ‘Trusted by the big guys, loved by everyone.’ Well I’d highly recommend any other freight company than this one for any of your haulage needs.”
27 thoughts on “Video: Terrifying near miss – firm prefers to pays fines rather than identify the driver”
Time the fines for not
Time the fines for not revealing the identity of a driver, especially commercial ones, are made more painful than the ones for the offence. Also in a vehicle requiring a tachograph, it should automatically rung bells to get the DVSA involved to do an inspection of tacho logs, as it could indicate illegal drivers/hours too. This also opens to remove commercial licencing for a firm if they are breaching the rules.
My guess is that the driver already has points and a further addition would vastly increase their insurance, while the failure to declare is a simple fine, which they likely got the driver to pay anyway…
Pretty bad pass,
Pretty bad pass, extraordinary behaviour by the company, and the scene of the driver hiding his face at the end is incredible. Either he’s banned or has enough points to be banned for one more infraction.
The fines for failure to identify have to be higher than the fine for the dangerous behaviour, and I’m sure the government enquiry into cycling safety will be considering this most seriously*.
*Yeah, right.
Presumably this company has
Presumably this company has an operators license.
It seems that only public bodies can object to a license on the grounds of “an operator’s reputation or fitness to hold a licence.”
https://www.gov.uk/traffic-commissioner
Perhaps the victim should press the Police ( via the Police and Crime commissioner) to object to this company’s license.
Hang on , someone surely has
Hang on , someone surely has to get 6 points for failing to identify the driver, otherwise where is the deterrent?
Ford Pinto springs to mind.
Ford Pinto springs to mind.
when is this close pass
when is this close pass bullshit going to end?
So not so much “can’t “
So not so much “can’t ” identify the driver (which seems rather unlikely) as “won’t ” identify the driver (in which case:why?)
Isn’t the punishment for
Isn’t the punishment for contempt of court usually imprisonment until you produce the evidence required? Surely the corporate equivalent would be an injunction preventing their trading until they do.
It’s not contempt. The
It’s not contempt. The punishment is 6 points and up to £1000 for an individual.
Looks like the MD or company secretary isn’t done in lieu.
This is a disgraceful
This is a disgraceful loophole in the law and shoud be changed pronto. I would have thought that inprisonment, as with contempt of court, would be an appropriate repercussion. As others have said the driver in question probably already has points on his licence and shouldn’t be driving, putting others lives at risk. This is not about punishment, it’s about removing drivers from the road who have clearly demonstrated that they are serious threat to the lives of others.
The Limited Company would
The Limited Company would have been registered as keeper of the truck and served with the requirement to identify the driver; the Company cannot be prosecuted for a driving offence. But there was nothing to stop the Directors of the Company being served with individual requirements to give information after the Company failed to respond. It’s difficult to see how any of them could argue they could not have identified the driver with reasonable diligence; the journey would have been logged and tacho’d for that driver. In that case, if they failed to comply, all Directors could have been given 6 points and a fine each.
Doesn’t this fall within the
Doesn’t this fall within the definition of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice?
Griff500 wrote:
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
Intimidating or threatening a judge
This doesn’t seem to fall into any of those categories. Silence is always a valid answer.
Is this them? https://twitter
Is this them? https://twitter.com/Cargo_Worldwide
This company has an operators
This company has an operators licence, as such they must record who is driving the truck and hold the records as required by the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1981
CARGO WORLDWIDE (UK) LTD
Licence details (OK1134048) – Blue disc MUST be displayed in windscreen & the registration details on disc MUST match those on the truck
Limited Company Directors
LAMIN SUWAREH
Licence type
Standard National
Continuation date – ie application for 5 yearly renewal (in 2 months!)
30 Nov 2019
Traffic area
London and the South East of England – (enquiries@otc.gsi.gov.uk – identify TAO & O licence)
Address
UNIT 9, CROMWELL BUSINESS CENTRE, 24-28 RIVER ROAD, BARKING, IG11 0DG, GB
Operating centres
(a high % of operators who have had trucks involved in cyclist fatal & serious injuries have their operating centres recorded as River Road Barking – using the site of the demolished Barking Power Station – wild west/tumbleweed might be an apposite description of a visit around 2 years ago – 2 Drummond-operated 4-axle rigid tippers killed in Holborn (2013) (Alan Drummond – eventually banned from operating trucks 2015) and Chelsea Embankment (2017) (Hayley Drummond – obtaining O Licence in 2015 with same office & operating base addresses a Alan Drummond)
Operating centre – 10 Vehicles, 0 Trailers
UNIT 9, 24-28 RIVER ROAD, BARKING, IG11 0DG,
Transport Managers – VASILICA TODASCA
I have a strong hunch that a) this is an agency/casual driver – probably not a UK-issued licence b) a serious possibility that as with Barry Meyer (the driver employed by Alan Drummond who killed Alan Neve) the driver of the vehicle at this time did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle – it was therefore cheaper to take the hit for refusing to provide the driver name than risk the O licence, a greater depth of enquiry and an appearance before the Traffic Commissioner, as well as potential harm to the reputation required to remain as directors of the company by Companies House.
Pass info to me or via RoadCC.
Surely they have a legal
Surely they have a legal obligation to know who’s driving any of their vehicles at any time. If they are saying that they can’t manage that then their operating licence should be revoked on grounds of being completely f-ing incompetent! No argument.
brooksby wrote:
No one said that they can’t. Apparently they won’t, though.
vonhelmet wrote:
So they can happily get away with just refusing to say? They didn’t even dress it up and pretend “oh, the dog ate that file”? They’re not saying they don’t have the records (incompetent) but that they’re not saying (obstruction). Seems to me that deserves a much bigger fine and pulling their licence to operate, then.
That looked pretty effing
That looked pretty effing scarey!
Legally speaking they are
Legally speaking they are required to make an effort to find out who was driving at the time, but in a case like this they have clearly just decided not to bother and the court apparently hasn’t pressed them particularly hard on the matter and has just given them the fine.
The offence of failing to identify the driver can carry 6 points for the registered keeper, but I imagine that gets complex when the keeper is a company as then you’re into piercing the corporate veil and going after the directors of the company.
vonhelmet wrote:
I thought the corporate veil protected the shareholders from financial liability, not the directors? Isn’t the whole point of a director that they are the designated day-to-day managers of a company?
brooksby wrote:
I don’t think so.
As I understand it, a limited company, or PLC, is considered a separate legal entity from the individuals who run it, or own it. That means that the punishment for a crime committed “by the company” (in this case refusing to name the driver of a vehicle committing a traffic offence) cannot simply be imposed on an individual or individuals within the company, regardless of their position.
As you say, the directors are the designated day to day managers, but they may simply be employees (not necessarily, but perfectly feasible, particularly for a PLC).
That’s the reason why so many company directors are described as “getting away with” stuff that goes on while they are in charge of a business.
Hmm, you could be right with
Hmm, I think you’re right with it being more a financial concern. Either way, given you can’t give a company points on its driving licence, you’d then be into the question of whether you can pass them on to the directors or whether the offence would prejudice their operating licence. I’m going to guess that you can’t easily and that it doesn’t seriously, in that order.
Googling suggests that the offence for a company of failing to provide details of the driver can only result in a fine, not points. They need to show “reasonable diligence” in trying to identify the driver. Clearly they should be able to do this with ease, given the nature of the business. At this point I think the only conclusion is that the court can’t be arsed pursuing it any further given that it was “only” a cyclist who was involved.
vonhelmet wrote:
I wouldn’t say that court apathy was because it was only a cyclist involved, but simply because the outcome of the incident was not serious.
Now, we know that the outcome was only not serious due to good fortune / rider skills, however the courts job is not to think about what might happen, only deal with what has happened… in this case, someone got a nasty scare.
Mindful of the above approach / attitude, you can see why the courts have muted appetite for pushing back against this operator. This is especially relevant when, as highlighted by others, doing so may unveil further breaches and criminality. We’d all love to think that the powers that be would be keen to uncover this stuff, and would use cases such as this as a way to look into the wider activity of companies operating in a way that could suggest foul play / non-compliant business activity, however this is not how the world operates.
When I were a lad, I worked in a job where there was the chance of being searched by security when leaving the premises. Petty theft was rife amongst the workforce and there was genuine fear of getting caught. Anyway, one day in the pub, the head security guard admitted that they’d only ever stop people that they were very confident weren’t being naughty as they didn’t want the trouble of catching someone. At 18 years of age, this was my first insight into the real world of work. Ultimately, virtually all of us are just getting through the day with the least amount of trouble… no one really cares about anything.
As an aside, I never figured out whether the Security guards admission was a warning that I may get searched, or reassurance that I wouldn’t…
I imagine the driver probably
I imagine the driver probably already had points (not suprising judging by his driving), or was not properly licenced. This is why he hid his face and the company refused to name him. I Agree, that the fines should be larger.
Being a director carries the
Being a director carries the responsibility to operate a company legally, and with due care to prevent harm in every sense. Especially in cases of corporate liabilities involving death or injury to employees or non-employees, the chain of command tracks back to the directors, and includes the possibility of jail, as well as fines.
Many people turn down a directorship for this very reason.
This issue should be notified to the Traffic Commissioner for London & SE, Sara Bell, to ensure this is on record for this operator’s licence, there is no automatic connection or requirement to close this communication gap.
A V Lowe wrote:
Exactly. The ‘corporate veil’ refers to keeping the shareholders’ assets/finances separate from the separate legal person that is a company. Any contracts are with the company-as-a-person and not with any individual director or shareholder. But, nevertheless, the obligations as regards the management of a company, and its compliance with all appropriate laws and regulations, fall (very heavily) on the directors.