PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Surely the courtesy car company have records of who the insured driver is at the time? Although, if the driver isn't visible in any of the image, they can only prove who SHOULD have been driving
Brutal hit and run, Nottingham
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Surely the courtesy car company have records of who the insured driver is at the time? Although, if the driver isn't visible in any of the image, they can only prove who SHOULD have been driving
RoubaixCube
~Tribanese~
- Location
- London, UK
I wonder if hiring a private investigator would make any difference. Sometimes the police are just incompetent and the good people who have done no wrong suffer while the folks who partake in criminal activities get away.
I would as least get a private investigator to do some digging to find out who the driver is insured with so i could forward the video to them if not keep on digging to get more details for a private prosecution.
I would as least get a private investigator to do some digging to find out who the driver is insured with so i could forward the video to them if not keep on digging to get more details for a private prosecution.
RoubaixCube
~Tribanese~
- Location
- London, UK
Sometimes folks who hire cars leave fake details, which is probably what happened here.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
well ok, but by the time you've paid a couple of grand for the PI's time you may be on to a loser
fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
[QUOTE 4134321, member: 9609"]from the cyclists comments under the youtube clip
"Despite the evidence, the police and CPS failed to bring the driver in this savage attack to justice…
The driver is still out on UK roads."
does this mean that the police have never even bothered to speak to the driver ? sadly the police seem to have given up on road crime.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't surprise me. They aren't interested as the civil side of the law will 'sort it' - that's effectively what the police officer said to me - 'your insurance/solicitor will sort it out, despite the severity of your injury'. CBA !
"Despite the evidence, the police and CPS failed to bring the driver in this savage attack to justice…
The driver is still out on UK roads."
does this mean that the police have never even bothered to speak to the driver ? sadly the police seem to have given up on road crime.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't surprise me. They aren't interested as the civil side of the law will 'sort it' - that's effectively what the police officer said to me - 'your insurance/solicitor will sort it out, despite the severity of your injury'. CBA !
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Just clicked.
They can prove who SHOULD be, but not who WAS. If the video can't identify the driver, then it would be difficult to prove he was driving beyond doubt. I believe in a criminal case, the accused has the right not to self-incriminate. Which could mean not having to name the person who was driving. So although he could be guilty of allowing a vehicle to be used illegally, it would be very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case that he WAS driving.
The insurance should still pay out I believe.
RoubaixCube
~Tribanese~
- Location
- London, UK
thats something to take into a account - But at least if you do managed to get the purps details and find out who he's insured with, you can f**k him good by making sure he has to pay over the odds for car insurance or get charged a massive premium if you file a claim with them for compensation after emailing them the correct details.
If i had the money to pursue it then i would out of principle. If the police wont act or refuse to act then I will find other legal avenues which can be used to (A) make life possibly a lot harder for said person or (B) Bring them to justice via private prosecution.
If it means that idiots like these are off the roads where they can no longer harm others then the job would be complete.
I just don't get it. The case is clear cut. The car driver did a hit and run. The number plate is very clear to read. There's no reason why the cops or CPS seeing the video wouldn't see it as a crime.
There's more to this then meet's the eye. As some one else has said, the OP of the video needs to be a bit more open about what has happened and why.
There's more to this then meet's the eye. As some one else has said, the OP of the video needs to be a bit more open about what has happened and why.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Realise though, the number plate identifies the vehicle, not the driver. The person given use of the courtesy car, or the registered keeper is not necessarily the person driving.
Legally, the police can issue a S172, which requires the registered keeper of the vehicle to supply details of who was driving at a given time and place.
Failure to reply with an unequivocal response in time will see 6 points on the licence and £500 fine, unless the recipient can show that with reasonable diligence they could not work out who was driving.
For this to be valid, the S172 must be served on the RK of the vehicle within 14 days of the incident. In the case of a chain (hire car, not the RK driving) only the first S172 need be served within 2 weeks.
It's possible that the hire company didn't have decent records for the driver, or it's possible that the driver didn't reply and for some reason the CPS didn't prosecute the failure to supply details offence. Or else the S172 was properly returned and there is another reason why this didn't proceed.
Failure to reply with an unequivocal response in time will see 6 points on the licence and £500 fine, unless the recipient can show that with reasonable diligence they could not work out who was driving.
For this to be valid, the S172 must be served on the RK of the vehicle within 14 days of the incident. In the case of a chain (hire car, not the RK driving) only the first S172 need be served within 2 weeks.
It's possible that the hire company didn't have decent records for the driver, or it's possible that the driver didn't reply and for some reason the CPS didn't prosecute the failure to supply details offence. Or else the S172 was properly returned and there is another reason why this didn't proceed.
RoubaixCube
~Tribanese~
- Location
- London, UK
If they cant see who they driver was, They should be able to go after the person who hired the car - whose details are on the hire documentation.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Even still, 6 points, and £500 for failure to supply details is better than (from the drivers POV) than an attempted murder charge!
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
But you can't PROVE them GUILTY of a crime to the standard required in a criminal court. It's an important standard for us to have, although it is open to exploit.
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
Having been through the experience of having a family member involved in a serious RTC that they were not expected to survive, I can say that it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that the victim's account of the prosecution doesn't make sense, that there is something missing, something odd.
My family's experience was awful and we desperately wanted to know what had happened that night. Later, we wanted to know why the criminal case had evaporated (also involving a failure to stop). Our solicitor wanted to know why the police were particularly evasive and obstructive, more so than in any case in her twenty years of specialising in RTC resulting in serious brain injury.
But when you have to fight every inch of the way for a settlement in a civil claim against the driver's insurers, a claim that the Police threaten to withdraw any assistance from if you pursue a complaint, your need to get on with life as best you can starts to outweigh the need for answers (not that any contribution the Police had made could be considered assistance - despite closing the road for several hours as part of a fatal accident investigation the only paperwork that generated was apparently a hand scrawled sheet of A5 - the threat was that to that stage they hadn't yet chosen to be 'difficult').
The civil claim against the insurers was settled after six years for a six figure sum - the only interim payment that had been made was a paltry amount to cover the immediate expenses of the events of the evening. The fact that I contributed over ten thousand pounds for time critical maxio-facial/dental work (through their specialist) was actually used by the insurers to justify that sufficient support existed without the need for interim payments. Everything is a battle, eventually you'll most likely just want to walk away from it all and the insurers use that to beat you down.
When our solicitor said that now that the civil claim was settled she was prepared to pursue the Police for the inadequacies of their investigation we declined.
She wasn't ambulance chasing, she had been appalled by their behaviour. Their actions had severely compromised the level of compensation awarded and she believed that they should be made accountable. The evidence she had accrued was insurmountable and she believed compensation in the order of multiples of the insurance payout was in order. We had no more fight left, not even for millions. In fact, during the midst of this I was deliberately hit by a driver while cycling and suffered a shattered collarbone requiring two operations. I had video of the incident but couldn't face even more of the same trauma that was overwhelming the entire family, I didn't pursue a claim.
I mention all this not just as a rant (and I know I go on about it) but to point out that the system is stacked massively against non-motorised RTC victims - police, courts, insurance industry, even public opinion (making an appeal for information results in some very unpleasant responses). It's hard enough when the processes of justice and restitution run 'smoothly'. If someone within the system goes about making things difficult it is horrendous. It's also pretty opaque.
I still have no idea what exactly led to the experiences my family had in dealing with the courts and police being so difficult. Ingrained bias? Corruption? Cover up? I can't discern where the problem arose but I know that deliberate actions obstructed justice, I'm just not equipped with the resources to accurately point a finger or if I did, deal with the consequences of doing so.
I also have a fair amount of experience as a witness of matters being pursued through the magistrates' courts.
Justice at this level is not a well resourced principle. Competence in prosecution and defence is hugely variable for various reasons. Legal argument generally isn't as robust and incisive as drama and reportage might lead one to expect.
In one case I was involved with, a driver was aquitted of assault but found guilty of a driving offence. The evidence objectively showed him punching me in the head but driving in accordance with the specific traffic regulation that he was convicted of breaking - it was the right result though. The punch was rubbish but so was his general standard of driving and it was his driving that posed the greater danger.
Basically, if anyone is dissatisfied that the cyclist hasn't provided the complete picture, there may not be a great deal he can do about that in this specific case. All he might be able to manage at this point is show that this happened, no one was held accountable and that that is wrong.
Once justice has supposedly been seen to be done a victim is limited in the accusations they can continue to make, both legally and in avoiding compromising recovery and compensation. All we can do is look at the bigger picture and question how our society allows this to happen.
My family's experience was awful and we desperately wanted to know what had happened that night. Later, we wanted to know why the criminal case had evaporated (also involving a failure to stop). Our solicitor wanted to know why the police were particularly evasive and obstructive, more so than in any case in her twenty years of specialising in RTC resulting in serious brain injury.
But when you have to fight every inch of the way for a settlement in a civil claim against the driver's insurers, a claim that the Police threaten to withdraw any assistance from if you pursue a complaint, your need to get on with life as best you can starts to outweigh the need for answers (not that any contribution the Police had made could be considered assistance - despite closing the road for several hours as part of a fatal accident investigation the only paperwork that generated was apparently a hand scrawled sheet of A5 - the threat was that to that stage they hadn't yet chosen to be 'difficult').
The civil claim against the insurers was settled after six years for a six figure sum - the only interim payment that had been made was a paltry amount to cover the immediate expenses of the events of the evening. The fact that I contributed over ten thousand pounds for time critical maxio-facial/dental work (through their specialist) was actually used by the insurers to justify that sufficient support existed without the need for interim payments. Everything is a battle, eventually you'll most likely just want to walk away from it all and the insurers use that to beat you down.
When our solicitor said that now that the civil claim was settled she was prepared to pursue the Police for the inadequacies of their investigation we declined.
She wasn't ambulance chasing, she had been appalled by their behaviour. Their actions had severely compromised the level of compensation awarded and she believed that they should be made accountable. The evidence she had accrued was insurmountable and she believed compensation in the order of multiples of the insurance payout was in order. We had no more fight left, not even for millions. In fact, during the midst of this I was deliberately hit by a driver while cycling and suffered a shattered collarbone requiring two operations. I had video of the incident but couldn't face even more of the same trauma that was overwhelming the entire family, I didn't pursue a claim.
I mention all this not just as a rant (and I know I go on about it) but to point out that the system is stacked massively against non-motorised RTC victims - police, courts, insurance industry, even public opinion (making an appeal for information results in some very unpleasant responses). It's hard enough when the processes of justice and restitution run 'smoothly'. If someone within the system goes about making things difficult it is horrendous. It's also pretty opaque.
I still have no idea what exactly led to the experiences my family had in dealing with the courts and police being so difficult. Ingrained bias? Corruption? Cover up? I can't discern where the problem arose but I know that deliberate actions obstructed justice, I'm just not equipped with the resources to accurately point a finger or if I did, deal with the consequences of doing so.
I also have a fair amount of experience as a witness of matters being pursued through the magistrates' courts.
Justice at this level is not a well resourced principle. Competence in prosecution and defence is hugely variable for various reasons. Legal argument generally isn't as robust and incisive as drama and reportage might lead one to expect.
In one case I was involved with, a driver was aquitted of assault but found guilty of a driving offence. The evidence objectively showed him punching me in the head but driving in accordance with the specific traffic regulation that he was convicted of breaking - it was the right result though. The punch was rubbish but so was his general standard of driving and it was his driving that posed the greater danger.
Basically, if anyone is dissatisfied that the cyclist hasn't provided the complete picture, there may not be a great deal he can do about that in this specific case. All he might be able to manage at this point is show that this happened, no one was held accountable and that that is wrong.
Once justice has supposedly been seen to be done a victim is limited in the accusations they can continue to make, both legally and in avoiding compromising recovery and compensation. All we can do is look at the bigger picture and question how our society allows this to happen.
Last edited:
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
This is an interesting case, clear cut as many have said but for some reason the police and CPS have decided not to go further into it.
As some have mentioned, it seems to be a hire car. There should be a paper trail of who is allowed to drive on such. If there isn't or if the company doesn't want to state who was driving, then they can be taken to court for not providing the information. As someone said around £500 fine and 6 points.
I'm not quite sure what this loophole is. I've got a feeling it is just bad police / CPS work and he has been fobbed off. I've got a similar one that I just reported where I driver drove into the back of me, on what looked like purpose. Time will tell how they will deal with it.
As some have mentioned, it seems to be a hire car. There should be a paper trail of who is allowed to drive on such. If there isn't or if the company doesn't want to state who was driving, then they can be taken to court for not providing the information. As someone said around £500 fine and 6 points.
I'm not quite sure what this loophole is. I've got a feeling it is just bad police / CPS work and he has been fobbed off. I've got a similar one that I just reported where I driver drove into the back of me, on what looked like purpose. Time will tell how they will deal with it.
Similar threads
