Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

[Postboxer]

I can see this incident putting people off cycling because even with good video evidence, front and back, the driver has essentially got away with it. Although I assume any insurance claim is unaffected by the failure to decide who was driving.

[Samuel D]

The natural optimist in me says we haven’t heard the last of this. Many people must know the names of the people who could have driven that car and some must even know who was driving it. Those names will probably come out, for better or worse.

And hopefully the downed cyclist will at least get some restitution from the insurance company.



Edit: a particularly galling thing about this case is that the driver has got away (so far, at least) despite the car having been clearly filmed. Would a polarising filter on the camera lens have made a difference to this outcome? See what that may have done here.

[Mark R]

we are missing two pieces of information:

1, The date of the hearing

2, Which court

Their details ought to be on the public record, if they are not we need to be asking why?

[Vantage]

I can see this incident putting people off cycling because even with good video evidence, front and back, the driver has essentially got away with it. Although I assume any insurance claim is unaffected by the failure to decide who was driving.

I'm certainly a lot more nervous about what these people can get away with. God help us when the rest find out.

[Mark R]

Apparantly the court case was in September 2015.

Can someone from Nottingham do a bit of research? In my area the local rag has an 'around the courts section' where this sort of thing would be listed.

Would be great if someone could get the papers from that period (local library should have them) and get some names....these people deserve to be shamed.

[Flinders]

The natural optimist in me says we haven’t heard the last of this. Many people must know the names of the people who could have driven that car and some must even know who was driving it. Those names will probably come out, for better or worse.

And hopefully the downed cyclist will at least get some restitution from the insurance company.



Edit: a particularly galling thing about this case is that the driver has got away (so far, at least) despite the car having been clearly filmed. Would a polarising filter on the camera lens have made a difference to this outcome? See what that may have done here.

A polarising filter isn't an easy option. At best, it cuts out light (even a good one cuts out one 'stop' on a DSLR).
I don't know how they work on a video camera, but for an autofocus SLR/DSLR they have to be 'circular' polarisers rather than the simple linear ones you can use with manual focus cameras, and circuar polarisers aren't as effective. Both types need readjusting if the angle of the camera to the light changes.

[Flinders]

So we all know what to do now if we want to murder someone, do we? Just blame spouse, have spouse blame us, and the CPS will walk away saying 'fine, that's alright then'?

If this really is the law in this country it is high time the law was changed.

[Tom Richardson]

Just as an aside,
The victim of this crime has a civil right to claim against the owner of the vehicle for loss and damages in order to put them into a position where they at least no worse off from the incident. Hopefully they will have done that and as a result the will be (presuming that you can compensate for injury with money) no worse off. Criminal prosecution is therefore academic.

Cyclists often seem reluctant to make these civil claims where a motorist wouldn't think twice about it- as if broken bones matter less because they will heal on their own where scratched paintwork has to be paid for. A greater readiness by cyclists to make these claims (better still strict liability rules) would help motorist to be aware that they can't attack vulnerable road users with impunity, that their insurance premiums will suffer even if they escape criminal prosecution.

UK roads are effectively policed by insurance companies based on the assumption that 'accidents' will happen & that's what you have to have insurance for. The owner of this car will be severely penalised through their insurance premiums both because of the points on their licence and hopefully as consequence of a heavy financial claim against them.

[AndyBSG]

The owner of this car will be severely penalised through their insurance premiums both because of the points on their licence and hopefully as consequence of a heavy financial claim against them.

But surely to make a civil claim you have to be able to identify who the claim is against which is what the crux of the matter is here?

Also, as it's a higher car will the actual driver even be the one who foots the ball or will it be the hire company?

For me this is something that I think the Cyclists Defence Fund should get involved in as it's a very grey area so could set an important precedent going forward

EDIT: It seems the CDF are interested in it as they've appealed for information on their twitter feed.
https://twitter.com/CyclistsDefence/sta ... 3124355072

[karlt]

The owner of this car will be severely penalised through their insurance premiums both because of the points on their licence and hopefully as consequence of a heavy financial claim against them.

But surely to make a civil claim you have to be able to identify who the claim is against which is what the crux of the matter is here?

Only to the extent of balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, as in the criminal law.

Moreover, if the insurance policy covered both drivers, it doesn't matter which one it was.

[Tom Richardson]

But surely to make a civil claim you have to be able to identify who the claim is against which is what the crux of the matter is here?

Also, as it's a higher car will the actual driver even be the one who foots the ball or will it be the hire company?

A claim will go via the owner to their insurer no matter who was driving (unless it has been stolen but even then its possible for the owner to be held to be negligent and therefore liable to a claim against them).

Hire car is good because the hire company will make sure that its insured and claim can be directed at them.

The driver won't pay at all apart from a small excess. The insurer will pay. The driver will pay more next time their own car insurance comes up for renewal of course - when the answer questions about points on their licence and claims history. Some hire companies restrict hire to drivers with points on their licence as well so it will cause problems for them with future vehicle hire.

This incident involved a cyclist and like I said earlier its not unusual for cyclists to be reluctant to claim. Its very unusual for motorists not to claim even for the slightest bump. Cyclists need to become more like motorists in this respect and then motorists might be less inclined to drive in to them.

[Postboxer]

The driver may completely get away with it though, as if they were essentially a named driver, and are claiming not to have been involved, their own insurance won't be affected at all will it?

[Mark R]

Still no word on who it was who got the 6 points and £150 fine? How very strange...

[Steady rider]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35472617

[Tom Richardson]

their own insurance won't be affected at all will it?

it will if they give an honest answer to the question on their proposal for about claims made against them. They've not shown any honesty so far so its a fair presumption that they are likely to lie about it again but its risky for them to do that - the hire companies insurer will match the claim with the hirer of the vehicle and make that info available to other insurance companies so there's a good chance of them being caught out. It will cost them in the long run.

Meanwhile the victim of the crime will be recompensed so they're no worse off so there's no loss to them (provided that they've made a claim like a motorist would in those circumstances).