Cycle killer walks free from court.

[Angelfishsolo]

I got told, when hit in a car park as a pedestrian by a drunk driver (I did 100m on his bonnet), that you have 72 hours to report anyway. So you can drive away from the scene.

For all we know, he was wrestling with an alien to save the earth. Point being, we only know what is reported, and what the driver used as an excuse, or was told to use by his solicitor.

Not my experience. I had a R.T.C and in a daze drove to my Police station rather than the local one. I was told it was wrong of me not to have called immediately from the scene.

 

[SportMonkey]

Not my experience. I had a R.T.C and in a daze drove to my Police station rather than the local one. I was told it was wrong of me not to have called immediately from the scene.

Yes it's wrong but you weren't prosecuted for it I assume.

There is in fact some precedence for driving to police stations dependent on incident - i.e. for your safety. If you do move your car though it is harder for you to prove your innocence.

 

[marinyork]

Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc

That is not the case at all (as can be seen in the hierarchy in the highway code on the section on the road and the law where it is listed sixth). It is just we don't use it much (which is the fault of the CPS and the police). It appears that in this case the CPS did prosecute for that (as opposed to some horrific cases that didn't).

If he said he didn't know he had an accident he can hardly leave it can he, he doesn't how much later he drove past in the other direction, some time later at a guess, he can argue he had no idea that was him

He may even have genuinely thought he'd hit 'roadside furniture'

I don't buy it. If he thought he'd hit 'roadside furniture' you'd go back and look. In any case he was apparently found guilty of this 'barely a crime'. So again the argument goes back again to sentencing.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes it's wrong but you weren't prosecuted for it I assume.

There is in fact some precedence for driving to police stations dependent on incident - i.e. for your safety. If you do move your car though it is harder for you to prove your innocence.

Sorry all I was getting at was the 72 hours rule was not mentioned to me.

 

[marinyork]

Sorry all I was getting at was the 72 hours rule was not mentioned to me.

The point is you made an effort. The driver in this case made no effort whatsoever and someone died. They should be going to prison unless they say something very convincing indeed.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I wonder if he is a member of the funny handshake brigade?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The point is you made an effort. The driver in this case made no effort whatsoever and someone died. They should be going to prison unless they say something very convincing indeed.

I agree. I was simply querying the 72 hour rule as I have never heard about it before.

 

[SportMonkey]

I agree. I was simply querying the 72 hour rule as I have never heard about it before.

I didn't know it until I bonnet surfed, it may be less than that - I've had ale since then. It's what I was told by the police officer.

However all I can find is 24 hours. He should have still reported hitting street furniture, imagine if someone had been sleeping on the bench[sic].

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I didn't know it until I bonnet surfed, it may be less than that - I've had ale since then. It's what I was told by the police officer.

However all I can find is 24 hours. He should have still reported hitting street furniture, imagine if someone had been sleeping on the bench[sic].

This is what I am getting at. I was under the impression that it should be reported as soon as possible is not immediately. I am not trying to get into an argument BTW simply seeking knowledge

 

[PaulB]

It's not even my point of view, just things to consider

Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc

If he said he didn't know he had an accident he can hardly leave it can he, he doesn't how much later he drove past in the other direction, some time later at a guess, he can argue he had no idea that was him

He may even have genuinely thought he'd hit 'roadside furniture'

There you go again hiding behind that mealy-mouthed term 'accident'. The police will not entertain that concept anymore and quite rightly so. It's as though you're suggesting the poor killer was confronted with something he could do absolutely nothing about and maybe we should all have a whip-round for him.

And he did not think 'he'd hit roadside furniture'. He informed the police when confronted that he knew full well he'd hit a cyclist.

You seem to be taking great delight in finding excuses to mitigate this killing.

 

[mumbo jumbo]

Only just seen this. It's an absolutely shocking case. I've not read the whole thread but in case it's not been mentioned, the Attorney General has power to appeal unduly light sentences (only has 28 days to do it though): http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/ULS/Pages/default.aspx

Problem is, I'm not sure that causing death by careless driving is covered. And "unduly lenient" means more than just lenient. The courts have said that an unduly lenient sentence "falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate". I don't know enough about sentencing policy to know if what the judge handed down would meet this test.

But if enough of us make a stink about this, it might make a difference, hopefully now in this case or perhaps sometime in the future. I'll be emailing the AG's office later tonight.

mj

 

[gaz]

Not my experience. I had a R.T.C and in a daze drove to my Police station rather than the local one. I was told it was wrong of me not to have called immediately from the scene.

From my understanding it's between 48 and 24 hours that you have to report a RTC.

You don't have to ring the police at the scene. If there is no harm to anyone and damage is minimal then it is fine to exchange details and be on your way.

In London you can also go to any police station to report it, that may not be the case elsewhere. This is because RTC's are normally all dealt by one team per 'district' rather than individual stations.

Police front desk officers generally know very minimal information about traffic procedures, you are best of not listening to them.

 

[SportMonkey]

This is what I am getting at. I was under the impression that it should be reported as soon as possible is not immediately. I am not trying to get into an argument BTW simply seeking knowledge

I know. I don't have a clue, just what some copper told me, I looked for evidence to back it up and it's not there. So much for the police knowing the law; what hope do we have with drivers?

 

[Tynan]

There you go again hiding behind that mealy-mouthed term 'accident'. The police will not entertain that concept anymore and quite rightly so. It's as though you're suggesting the poor killer was confronted with something he could do absolutely nothing about and maybe we should all have a whip-round for him.

And he did not think 'he'd hit roadside furniture'. He informed the police when confronted that he knew full well he'd hit a cyclist.

You seem to be taking great delight in finding excuses to mitigate this killing.

why so aggressive and abusive?

unlike you I've read more than that single article, try this one for more detail including 'roadside furniture'

I'm not hiding behind anything, there's no suggestion, nuance or opinion in anything I've posted, just plain fact

any use of the word accident in my posts has been strictly in the phrase 'leaving the scene of an accident' as I've already told you

still waiting for anything I've posted to justify your abuse, there won't be anything other than your making things up and taking things utterly out of context though

and as anyone sensible should see, my posts are merely explaining hiow the law and courts have to try people rather than some sort of lynch mob approach based on what someone must have been thinking, seemingly based on a local newspaper report

 

[stowie]

like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true

while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident

should we ever be in court facing a serious charge and looking at a lot of circumstantial evidence you'd be glad of a god barrister and a judge that upholds the law demonstrating that although it does look poor, nothing more than that can be proved

better that 10 guilty men go free and all that

The law is supposed to be guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" though. And the number of people killed my motorists suddenly developing debiliting conditions for the first time seems stretching reasonable doubt somewhat.

The thing is that it seems to be a rather super get out of jail (literally) card with little downside. If someone really blacks out whilst driving for reasons that are unclear, and causes the death of another person due to this medical condition, then they should have their license revoked until such a time as they can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) this medical condition will no longer affect their ability to drive.