Let's catch the scumbag who did this

[Return of the Rev]

Why 12 days to get this into the media? Subtle bits of info might be lost after that time.

 

[Stat Brother]

Have you watched the video?!

Surely there is no way you can think others have "driven in an equally reckless fashion"?!

No, but I was looking for mitigating circumstances where the driver might not be a scumbag, deserving of a slap, something made all the more difficult by them not coming forward.

As [MENTION=3110]Paul Reids Sock[/MENTION] said, somewhat better than myself, 'The driver may have realised late that they needed to turn and therefore didn't brake, then they panicked and drove off.'

 

[sir albion]

Holy cow I've never seen footage as bad as that when getting hit by a car...That car was seriously speeding.
Hope the **** gets what he deserves,but knowing our system he'll eventually get peanuts.

 

[Return of the Rev]

No, but I was looking for mitigating circumstances where the driver might not be a scumbag, deserving of a slap, something made all the more difficult by them not coming forward.

As [MENTION=3110]Paul Reids Sock[/MENTION] said, somewhat better than myself, 'The driver may have realised late that they needed to turn and therefore didn't brake, then they panicked and drove off.'

Even if he wasn't intending to turn it was far too fast for that bit of road!

 

[symyjym]

No, but I was looking for mitigating circumstances where the driver might not be a scumbag, deserving of a slap, something made all the more difficult by them not coming forward.

As [MENTION=3110]Paul Reids Sock[/MENTION] said, somewhat better than myself, 'The driver may have realised late that they needed to turn and therefore didn't brake, then they panicked and drove off.'

Maybe you should watch the video then

 

[Buzzer]

No, but I was looking for mitigating circumstances where the driver might not be a scumbag, deserving of a slap, something made all the more difficult by them not coming forward.

As @Paul Reids Sock said, somewhat better than myself, 'The driver may have realised late that they needed to turn and therefore didn't brake, then they panicked and drove off.'

No you weren't. You were setting yourself up as the self-appointed voice of reason....again.

And your reasoning still doesn't make sense. Let's say for argument's sake that they did realise they needed to brake too late AND they did panic and drive off. The police have found the car but are apparently trying to identify the driver and passengers. This means that they haven't come forward. They're trying to conceal the crime. That makes them a scumbag. End of argument.

 

[Sheebo]

I see most people are assuming the driver was male.

Hence my capitals earlier which said 'HE/SHE' as I also noticed this casual sexism

 

[wellquickwoody]

It's quite unusual to release something like this before a trial, because it risks giving the perpetrator information that might be useful to him or her in coming up with a cover story. The decision was taken in this case because- as I think you'll agree- it's sufficiently shocking to make most viewers appreciate the horrendous nature of what happened. It might just persuade somebody who could have been keeping quiet to come forward.

It was also deemed polite to discuss this with the injured gentleman prior to its release to the media, and as you can imagine, he's been rather busy in hospital lately.

As an aside, is not all evidence shared with the defence team in advance of a trial?

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Another point that has been mentioned is the risk of being sued in case you did something that made matters worse. Jenny gets really cross with this one - she assures us she has never heard a UK case for anyone being sued for trying to help someone. She does emphasise that this is only SO LONG AS you are following the recognised DR-ABC. Edna has already covered this off in good detail, but essentially, preserving life takes precedence over risk of worsening injury - no judge will prosecute you for paralysing someone because you had to move then to enable CPR, as an extreme example.

A lot of countries now have "Good Samaritan" laws which are designed to protect people who provide assistance at the site of an emergency from legal action

 

[Acker79]

Please read post #144 and ALL of my previous posts in this thread.
Every post of mine is emphatically endorsing how much of a scumbag the driver is.

Yes. I know, see the bit in parenthesis at the end of the post you've quoted.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

No, but I was looking for mitigating circumstances where the driver might not be a scumbag, deserving of a slap, something made all the more difficult by them not coming forward.

As [MENTION=3110]Paul Reids Sock[/MENTION] said, somewhat better than myself, 'The driver may have realised late that they needed to turn and therefore didn't brake, then they panicked and drove off.'

You are now showing yourself up - give it a rest

 

[Leekbrookgull]

You're asking me have I ever driven INSANELY fast into a blind corner, in a heavily pedestrianized area?

No OF COURSE I ****ing haven't. If that's how you drive, you should definitely have your licence taken away immediately. Anyone who drives like that on a regular basis is a very clear and present danger to the health and safety of anyone living in that area.

Absolutely bang-on. To drive like that is not an issue for you simply don't have a licence. A licence is a privilege and not a right.

 

[Stat Brother]

No you weren't. You were setting yourself up as the self-appointed voice of reason....again.

And your reasoning still doesn't make sense. Let's say for argument's sake that they did realise they needed to brake too late AND they did panic and drive off. The police have found the car but are apparently trying to identify the driver and passengers. This means that they haven't come forward. They're trying to conceal the crime. That makes them a scumbag. End of argument.

Certainly not, I fully accepted the reasoned position is slap the scumbag.
And yes concealing the crime does make this driver impossible to defend, which is why I never have.

I was offering up an alternative non-scumbag perspective to bad driving.
As we have all had 'oh shit' moments, but in the main we have all 'got away with it'.
Granted that's not the debate to have a short period of time after watching the video, my mistake I 100% own that wrong.

There are over 3,000 deaths annually on the roads, not all of those responsible are scumbags, no matter how badly they act before, during and after the accident.
We drive around cocooned in 2 tonne death boxes, with all manner of distractions around us.


But once again I'll say, the police have the car, they will get the job done and assuming this driver is a scumbag I hope they get the full force of law.

 

[patchamalbion]

it's just horrific, I've never seen someone get hit that hard and hope I never do in the flesh.

far too many on here making comments about the passers by, the emergency services etc - terrible incident + lets hope the person I caught and punished!

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Stat,you are correct in the number of road deaths and yes bad driving will be a factor in many road accidents,how to drive at a speed like that in a built up area is not bad driving. It,s I DONT GIVE A DAM ABOUT ANYONE.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

What dash cam did you go for? I've wanted one for a while but would love a recommendation.

I went for this one: https://www.7dayshop.com/products/7dayshop-full-hd-1080p-2-7-colour-screen-black-box-car-windscreen-camera-recorder-DS-156

It's not the best, but at under £40 for HD, not bad and offers good value for money - my only gripe is that the battery is so powerless, it loses the date and time setting overnight. I'm going to contact 7dayshop to see if this is maybe faulty as it retains all the other settings.

Other than that, does the job.

 

[spence]

Certainly not, I fully accepted the reasoned position is slap the scumbag.
And yes concealing the crime does make this driver impossible to defend, which is why I never have.

I was offering up an alternative non-scumbag perspective to bad driving.
As we have all had 'oh shit' moments, but in the main we have all 'got away with it'.
Granted that's not the debate to have a short period of time after watching the video, my mistake I 100% own that wrong.

There are over 3,000 deaths annually on the roads, not all of those responsible are scumbags, no matter how badly they act before, during and after the accident.
We drive around cocooned in 2 tonne death boxes, with all manner of distractions around us.


But once again I'll say, the police have the car, they will get the job done and assuming this driver is a scumbag I hope they get the full force of law.

The driver is a scumbag end of.There's no defending his actions. Anyone who drives like that or drives off after a crash is a scumbag.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Certainly not, I fully accepted the reasoned position is slap the scumbag.
And yes concealing the crime does make this driver impossible to defend, which is why I never have.

I was offering up an alternative non-scumbag perspective to bad driving.
As we have all had 'oh shit' moments, but in the main we have all 'got away with it'.
Granted that's not the debate to have a short period of time after watching the video, my mistake I 100% own that wrong.

There are over 3,000 deaths annually on the roads, not all of those responsible are scumbags, no matter how badly they act before, during and after the accident.
We drive around cocooned in 2 tonne death boxes, with all manner of distractions around us.


But once again I'll say, the police have the car, they will get the job done and assuming this driver is a scumbag I hope they get the full force of law.

Feck me, you are more boring than BG

I assume I must be on your ignore list as I once upset you on the bicycle thread

 

[edna krabappel]

As an aside, is not all evidence shared with the defence team in advance of a trial?

Yes, yes it is (the disclosure process). I should perhaps have specified: I meant prior to interviewing somebody. The police might withhold certain pieces of information as a means of testing the honesty of a suspect's account. Obviously if it went to trial, there would be full disclosure. What I meant was that, in a case where a trial might follow, they'd normally think carefully about making something like this public prior to any interview. In this case, they've decided the benefits outweigh the potential issues.

 

[drew]

Certainly not, I fully accepted the reasoned position is slap the scumbag.
And yes concealing the crime does make this driver impossible to defend, which is why I never have.

I was offering up an alternative non-scumbag perspective to bad driving.
As we have all had 'oh shit' moments, but in the main we have all 'got away with it'.
Granted that's not the debate to have a short period of time after watching the video, my mistake I 100% own that wrong.

There are over 3,000 deaths annually on the roads, not all of those responsible are scumbags, no matter how badly they act before, during and after the accident.
We drive around cocooned in 2 tonne death boxes, with all manner of distractions around us.


But once again I'll say, the police have the car, they will get the job done and assuming this driver is a scumbag I hope they get the full force of law.

Where did you get your stats from? 2013 there were 1,713 and in 2014 there were 1,775 of which 398 in 2013 were pedestrians and 446 in 2014..