Police fail to arrest driver of rolled car

[PH]

I’m not interested in becoming an authority on arrest protocol, I just want to see road traffic “accidents “ treated as what they are….avoidable consequences of drivers not concentrating and being unconcerned if they kill and maim innocent road users, or pavement users.

I think we're all agreed on that. It's just that, in a case such as this, any potential outcome isn't related to whether the driver has yet been arrested.

[531colin]

“Potential outcome”
Yes, that’s part of the problem, isn’t it?
Assault somebody with a stick, you are going to get nicked.
Drive a bin lorry through a bus queue of people, that’s an accident, could happen to anybody, wasn’t his fault and all the other mealy mouthed tripe.

[PH]

“Potential outcome”
Yes, that’s part of the problem, isn’t it?

Yes, it's a huge part of the problem, for the reasons you've outlined, on which there's no disagreement.
Any disagreement is about whether an arrest could be seen as an indication of the outcome. I don't believe it can, and IMO the links above support that view.

[Pebble]

I see this clip appeared at the end of the main BBC News at Six's light hearted 'and finally' section.

just goes to show how we have normalised road danger and idiotic driving.

[531colin]

“Potential outcome”
Yes, that’s part of the problem, isn’t it?

Yes, it's a huge part of the problem, for the reasons you've outlined, on which there's no disagreement.
Any disagreement is about whether an arrest could be seen as an indication of the outcome. I don't believe it can, and IMO the links above support that view.

But if I assault somebody with a stick, Co-operate with the police give my name and address etc, I will still be arrested.
Why not with a motor vehicle?
Because in our car centric country “it’s an accident, not your fault, could happen to anybody “and all the blether .

[UpWrong]

People were injured and property was damaged so why haven't they been charged?

[UpWrong]

The police are appealing for witnesses, https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... r-28316742

[Bonefishblues]

People were injured and property was damaged so why haven't they been charged?

Presumably because they are still investigating, per your post above.

[pete75]

People were injured and property was damaged so why haven't they been charged?

No one was injured. The police are still investigating and who knows if it was caused by a mechanical failure in the vehicle. Isn't it normal for the police to investigate before charge. Not only does the investigation decide if someone should be charged but also what they should be charged with.

[PH]

But if I assault somebody with a stick, Co-operate with the police give my name and address etc, I will still be arrested.

Only if the police wished to detain you and that fell within the guidelines in the links above. In some cases, such as drink driving (And maybe stick bashing), a series of events take place in quick succession - Arrest, custody, interview, charged, bailed or remanded. But if the police don't need to detain you for the investigation and they're not ready to charge you, and none of the other circumstances apply (Identity, safety...), they'd be wrong to arrest you and you'd be wrong to pre-judge the outcome based on that.

[peetee]

People were injured and property was damaged so why haven't they been charged?

Perhaps the driver suffered a medical incident.
As far as I can tell the report makes no reference to the driver which is rather strange - although the article is rather difficult to navigate with its interspersed, live ads.

[thirdcrank]

Earlier in the thread 531colin posted seeming to imply that police decisions to arrest might be improperly influenced by the ethnic origins of the driver of a vehicle. (FWIW I know nothing about the ethnicity of anybody in the case we are discussing.) There has, of course, been a lot published recently about the police treatment of Bianca Williams and her partner Ricardo dos Santos

More recently, the following report seemed to attract much less interest

Bianca Williams banned from driving and given 18 penalty points

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67613292

I have edited this report to remove references to the earlier publicity. In essence Ms Williams was sent three computer-generated letters after a vhicle for which she was responsible activated enforcement cameras and she did not supply the information requested. In legal terms, I think it's an application to the court to find special reasons - "exeptional hardship" - not to disqualify her from driving. A subject discussed on this forum before

British sprinter Bianca Williams has been banned from driving despite telling a court it would jeopardise her chances of going to the 2024 Olympics.

Williams, 29, failed to tell police who was driving a Tesla Model 3 when an alleged offence took place.

The athlete claimed a ban would make it difficult for her to get to training.

But magistrates at Lavender Hill rejected her claim that she could not use public transport and suspended her from driving for six months.

Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.

Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.

Representing herself, Williams said she was currently working as a tennis coach in the evenings and as a full-time athlete during the day.

The sprinter, who lives in the Maida Vale area of west London with her partner, said it was "massively inconvenient" to get to the central London athletics track where she trains using public transport and "really hard" to get to her tennis coaching sessions in north London without a car.

She told the court she drops off her three-year-old child at nursery before training every morning, and said losing her licence would "make my dream of going to the Olympics next year impossible". (...)

"I understand this is totally my fault, I shouldn't have relied on somebody else to fill out the form," she said.

"It's hard to get from nursery to training. My income would drop because I wouldn't be able to do any coaching sessions.

"It would be horrible to lose my licence. I would potentially have no work and no income."

Williams was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a fine of £276, a surcharge of £110 and £85 costs. Another 18 points were added to her licence, bringing her total to 29.

[531colin]

It seems that the courts have reminded Ms Williams that driving a car is a privilege which has to be earned.
I guess that’s not as “newsworthy” as the previous story.

I posted earlier that if the car which was rolled onto the pavement had held 3 black lads and a wrap of weed they would have been in handcuffs straight away.
TC knows (even I know) that would be the case if it were 3 white lads, and it’s to stop the lads sloping off or kicking the evidence down the drain.

I don’t like the message which is sent when somebody drives like a complete prat, avoids killing two people by pure luck, and just gets waved off to get on with their day.

[thirdcrank]

It seems that the courts have reminded Ms Williams that driving a car is a privilege which has to be earned.
I guess that’s not as “newsworthy” as the previous story.

I posted earlier that if the car which was rolled onto the pavement had held 3 black lads and a wrap of weed they would have been in handcuffs straight away.
TC knows (even I know) that would be the case if it were 3 white lads, and it’s to stop the lads sloping off or kicking the evidence down the drain.

I don’t like the message which is sent when somebody drives like a complete prat, avoids killing two people by pure luck, and just gets waved off to get on with their day.

Another point I've obviously failed to explain is that if there's suspicion that it's necessary

to stop the lads sloping off or kicking the evidence down the drain.

then an arrest would be ok under Code of Practice G. (See also PH's link to the Liberty(?) guide)

(I just edited my immediately preceeding post to add the bit about "special reasons and "exceptional hardship.")

[531colin]

I get that it might be “necessary” to handcuff someone over a bit of weed, and it might not be “necessary” to arrest or charge somebody who came within a hairs breadth of killing 2 people .,,,,,

I just think the message it sends out is totally and utterly WRONG.