Tangled Metal wrote:I am sure Volvo drivers are not any worse than drivers of other makes but they used to have a bad reputation for driving like they're untouchable. I once heard a close protection trainer say the way to break a car roadblock while driving a car is to imagine you're a Volvo driver, fix your eye on a point in the distance and drive towards it. If you were being unfair, you could say it was an extreme.version of a Volvo driver.
My dad had a few Volvos over the years. The biggest was the 940. He said to me one day that unlike other cars on the road, a Landrover driver would think twice before trying to bully him on the roads due to it being built like a tank. I have to admit I felt invincible in that thing.
Bill
“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
Vantage wrote:I hate this as much as anyone but one thing to think over very carefully is the naming and shaming idea. The alleged couple haven't been found guilty in court. Say they were identified and a hoard of people turned up outside their home wanting justice.
As I said above, the law is designed to stop that sort of thing happening. What these two people haven't done is offered themselves up to the court. One person is guilty, the other is covering up for them: the law is simple - if you have an accident you stop and report it. Society's values are also straightforward: if you knock someone over, you check to see if they need help. My hope is that they will come clean and offer themselves up to the police. After that point the public have no further claim on them. At the moment they will have to suffer society's outrage (if they are suffering). And like most decent people, I would hope it goes no further than that.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Tangled Metal wrote:I am sure Volvo drivers are not any worse than drivers of other makes but they used to have a bad reputation for driving like they're untouchable. I once heard a close protection trainer say the way to break a car roadblock while driving a car is to imagine you're a Volvo driver, fix your eye on a point in the distance and drive towards it. If you were being unfair, you could say it was an extreme.version of a Volvo driver.
My dad had a few Volvos over the years. The biggest was the 940. He said to me one day that unlike other cars on the road, a Landrover driver would think twice before trying to bully him on the roads due to it being built like a tank. I have to admit I felt invincible in that thing.
I'm not sure they're quite the same thing these days. There's a v50 estate owner in the family and it's not tank like at all. Not much different to other estates of a similar size.
In any case I don't think collective punishment is appropriate. Two people in this case. What if 10 people in a company use a car? Charge them all?
It may not be appropriate but "Joint Enterprise" certainly exists and is used against less popular sections of the community, if all ten people knew who was driving and were covering up for them.
Exactly. There needs to be evidence that someone is covering up for another. Two people can have access to a car without knowing when the other is driving it. If both deny any knowledge. One is lying the other isn't. A joint conviction isn't appropriate.
being an associate does not automatically make you responsible for the actions of your fellow associates as the law does not recognise guilt by association. The accused must have been aware of what the others involved in the criminal act were doing and have participated in some way in the criminal act.
There was the example of a baby killed by either it's mother or her partner. They blamed each other. Neither was convicted. While that is a deplorable result it is better than an innocent person being convicted for killing a child.
I'd like to know how quickly they were tracked down and contacted after the incident. The interview of the cyclist he seems to suggest they both say they may have been driving and neither thinks they hit a cyclist. If they're both willing to accept they are so incompetent that they can run someone over without realising, I want both of them banned for this reason alone. Hopefully name and shame them then society can disown them.
Exactly. There needs to be evidence that someone is covering up for another. Two people can have access to a car without knowing when the other is driving it. If both deny any knowledge. One is lying the other isn't. A joint conviction isn't appropriate.
But they havent had to go down the perjury line. They havent had to lie and blame the other. They have just refused to speak, which suggests joint enterprise rather than one innocent person and one guilty person. It wouldnt work if a gang tried this after a knifing, they would all go down for it.
Exactly. There needs to be evidence that someone is covering up for another. Two people can have access to a car without knowing when the other is driving it. If both deny any knowledge. One is lying the other isn't. A joint conviction isn't appropriate.
But they havent had to go down the perjury line. They havent had to lie and blame the other. They have just refused to speak, which suggests joint enterprise rather than one innocent person and one guilty person. It wouldnt work if a gang tried this after a knifing, they would all go down for it.
If they both refused to speak why was only one person convicted of refusing to name the driver? That would suggest there is more to it than both refusing to identify the driver.
In any case refusing to speak is not enough to prove joint enterprise. After all the first step in questioning any suspect is to tell them they are not required to say anything. S172 is a statutory exemption to the general rule.
I think the insurance company is going to be the only arbiter of justice.
The registered keeper has been convicted of failing to provide details (s172(3) RTA 1988) and should get 6 penalty points as well as the £150 fine, the insurance company will have to pay out for the collision and I'm sure they've viewed the footage.
At the very least the insurance company is going to cancel the policy and the registered keeper is going to find it very difficult to insure the vehicle at reasonable cost for the next 5 years.
Brian73 wrote:I think the insurance company is going to be the only arbiter of justice.
The registered keeper has been convicted of failing to provide details (s172(3) RTA 1988) and should get 6 penalty points as well as the £150 fine, the insurance company will have to pay out for the collision and I'm sure they've viewed the footage.
At the very least the insurance company is going to cancel the policy and the registered keeper is going to find it very difficult to insure the vehicle at reasonable cost for the next 5 years.
And the guilty(both of them)walk free without a blemish on their character,that's UK law for you . Whereas 20 miles across the channel you'd be in serious do do in the same circumstances and left the scene without assisting the cyclist,and that would only be for starters. Merry old England........
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
I thought.joint enterprise was a bit more than just being part of a gang that a member of which had committed a crime. There is something related to encouragement or covering things up.
AFAIK this case is about one.person driving.the car but it is not clear the other person was there. As said she might not have known the man had gone out and hit a cyclist. If that's.the case I can understand she's not been charged. If the guy had kept schtumm then without evidence he was driving your not got the means to proceed with a prosecution. It's one thing to know what happened, but it's something else to prove.it.
reohn2 wrote:Whereas 20 miles across the channel you'd be in serious do do in the same circumstances and left the scene without assisting the cyclist,and that would only be for starters. Merry old England........
being an associate does not automatically make you responsible for the actions of your fellow associates as the law does not recognise guilt by association. The accused must have been aware of what the others involved in the criminal act were doing and have participated in some way in the criminal act.
That didn't work out very well for Derek Bentley, did it?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Did anyone else notice that this story got a brief airing on the main BBC News on TV last night? The national news, I mean, not the regional programmes. They showed the relevant snippet of video along with the comment that no-one had yet been brought to justice.
Up till now I've been thinking, the more the Press gets involved in this, the better the likelihood that the culprit(s) will indeed, in due course, face justice. But I'm beginning to worry about the negative impact of all this. Whenever a news story about a cycling accident gets aired, how many people does it put off cycling on the roads - for good?
I'm tired of repeating myself yet again, but here goes: "There is risk in cycling, but it is far outweighed by the benefits".
Last edited by 661-Pete on 4 Feb 2016, 9:00am, edited 1 time in total.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Brian73 wrote:I think the insurance company is going to be the only arbiter of justice.
The registered keeper has been convicted of failing to provide details (s172(3) RTA 1988) and should get 6 penalty points as well as the £150 fine, the insurance company will have to pay out for the collision and I'm sure they've viewed the footage.
At the very least the insurance company is going to cancel the policy and the registered keeper is going to find it very difficult to insure the vehicle at reasonable cost for the next 5 years.
It was a hire car.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
And I presume that the hire company did indeed provide details of the hirers to the police. It's the next step along the line, where the process broke down.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).