Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

[reohn2]

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).

And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

[irc]

And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

What is the alternative? Either we require a high standard of proof or more innocent people are convicted.

Guilty people escape justice every day. It's good when new evidence or scientific progress catches up with them but the reality is you can't convict everyone. Even murder and manslaughter where time and resources are almost unlimited have a "get away with it" percentage of around a third in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20910859

Caught by DNA advances.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... e-10826515

[Postboxer]

But if they were a named driver, who are claiming not to have been involved in the accident, then the insurance claim isn't against them is it?

[Samuel D]

Tom Richardson seems more concerned with whether the cyclist gets some cash than whether the perp gets punished and others are deterred from acting similarly in the future.

But the general outrage about this case is clearly not about whether the cyclist gets a payout. It’s about the driver getting away with it and not even having to face the shame of having his or her name in the public domain.

It would probably be trivial for the police to identify the driver of that hire car. Eye witnesses at both ends of the driver’s journey know who got into and out of the car. Mobile phone records show who was in it. The non-driver was probably seen elsewhere, i.e. has an alibi. Forensics could even get fingerprints and hair samples from the car interior, if push came to shove. Etc., etc. The police or CPS or both presumably thought it wasn’t worth the effort, but the public outrage has at least shown them that they misjudged that.

[horizon]

The police or CPS or both presumably thought it wasn’t worth the effort, but the public outrage has at least shown them that they misjudged that.

+ 1 And not to forget that this is all down to a dramatic, well produced, double angle video. Without that I don't think any of us would be talking about it. The bad news is that the time-poor/cash-poor media are obsessed with content like this; the good news is that cyclists are capable are producing and distributing plenty of it. It could be the cyclist's secret weapon.

[beardy]

It will have blown over in a week or two. The Police and CPS will still continue to exercise an "its only a cyclist policy" and just roll with the blow when occasional things like this happen.

[reohn2]

It will have blown over in a week or two. The Police and CPS will still continue to exercise an "its only a cyclist policy" and just roll with the blow when occasional things like this happen.

Ain't that the truth.

The UK authorities prove yet again it isn't worth the time,money and effort to catch criminals.The cyclists claims off the insurance and gets paid out,seems to be the only justice worth persuing,meanwhile the guilty carry on as before.

[reohn2]

And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

What is the alternative? Either we require a high standard of proof or more innocent people are convicted.

We need a higher(much higher) standard of policing investigation.And harsher penalties to make people such as these two think twice before committing such crimes.
I've already pointed out one possible step forward,that to leave the scene of an incident should cost the criminal(s) dearly.
But what seems to be the one thing that stands out(if my facts are correct) is that the car was rented to an individual with a second driver both of whom would be registered with the hire company,unless the vehicle was stolen,there doesn't seem to be a claim of that,then those two individuals are responsible for the vehicle.
That said IMHO it's reasonable(beyond doubt)to think one or the other were driving on that day,so summons the pair of them.Unless they can prove that neither were driving then both are guilty and should be jointly charged.
If the paperwork by the hire company is false or incomplete then whoever within the company is responsible,and the company itself should also be fined heavily for their involvement.

That's my unqualified assessment of it,but no doubt there'll be enough wriggle room for all parties to escape the justice they deserve.
And you'll most likely inform me of chapter and verse as to why it's so unreasonable to think the way I do.

[Vantage]

Forensics could even get fingerprints and hair samples from the car interior, if push came to shove. Etc., etc.

Ah but could they? Lets not forget this was a hire car. Unless the actual owner/carer of the car has meticulously scrubbed every last mm with bleach between uses, there could be hundreds of different dna samples all over it. Mr and Mrs CyclistHater could have both driven it at different times.

[johncarnie]

Having read numerous articles on this, it would appear that there were two possible drivers - could they not be charged under the "joint enterprise" legislation?

[irc]

Having read numerous articles on this, it would appear that there were two possible drivers - could they not be charged under the "joint enterprise" legislation?

No. They would need to be proved to be acting together. Like Chris Huhne and Vicky Price. Then there is the fact that as spouses they can not be compelled to give evidence against each other.

[jgurney]

One obvious conclusion is that the penalty for failing to identify a driver ought to be proportionate to the penalty for the offence being investigated.

[Steady rider]

If two people or more people are in a vehicle and no one admits driving, all should be charged with a joint offence and of conspiring together, penalty to include a prison term for all involved.

In this way anyone driving or a party to hiring the vehicle could be charged. An automatic maximum penalty could be applied, meaning disclosing who was driving would in most cases result in a lesser penalty. Some measure along theses lines are probably needed.

[Tom Richardson]

Tom Richardson seems more concerned with whether the cyclist gets some cash than whether the perp gets punished and others are deterred from acting similarly in the future.

I'm pointing out that's the system that we have; that the law often allows motorists to bash into people so long as they pay compensation on assumption that cash will make things right. I'm pointing out that motorists who run into people have to pay compensation to make things right even if the criminal system does nothing. And I'm pointing out that despite the concern expressed in these forums many people say that they're reluctant to use the only redress often available to them when they've been run in to.

What I'm really getting at is that if you get run in to you should sue every time - sue like a motorist. Its often the only redress you will get but at least in theory it should be good enough to recompense and deter. It may be satisfying to see action by the criminal justice system as well but it makes little practical difference.

Think about strict liability - so often mentioned. It makes it slightly cheaper for a vulnerable road user to claim from a motorist who has run into them but those costs would be borne by the motorist anyway. The only practical benefit is that motorists know that if they run in to a vulnerable road user they're very likely to get sued. Do you think this motorist would have done that if they knew it would still land them with a £20k claim for loss, damage and expense even if they escaped criminal prosecution? Hard to say really I know; there are some total nutters out there but I reckon it would be a lot less likely. Don't wait for strict liability; sue like a motorist.

[irc]

If two people or more people are in a vehicle and no one admits driving, all should be charged with a joint offence and of conspiring together, penalty to include a prison term for all involved.

In this case two drivers had access to the car. There is AFAIK no evidence they were both in the car at the time of the crash.

In this way anyone driving or a party to hiring the vehicle could be charged.

So your work hires a car. Various people use it. One of your workmates hits a cyclist and keeps quiet. Are you happy to get a conviction?