Cyclist Vs Car (again!)

[pb21]

So because the police can't prove who was driving they can't prosecute, other than for not providing details?

So what would happen if this driver had actually intended to murder and did kill the cyclist, would they still get off with a £150 fine and six points? If so seems a cheap way to bump someone off!

I kind of see the logic behind it, I.e. Innocent until proven guilty, but it seems to easy to get away with all manner of crimes!

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I can't be arsed to get involved today.

 

[BrightonCottager]

I was cycling round the Aquarium roundabout coming from the Kemptown direction and heading up the Old Steine this morning. It was broad daylight, I clearly signalled where I was going, was wearing a flouro jacket and had lights on. A driver going east to west on the A259 was waiting at the stop line. He clearly saw me (our eyes met - something I always try to do in situations like this), but he pulled out in front of me regardless. I had to brake sharply while giving him a mouthful and then the V (not) for victory sign. However you look at this, he made a decision that it was more important for him to get out onto the roundabout and endanger me than wait a second longer. All road users (including cyclists) need to be a bit more human-spirited about sharing space.

 

[portslade seagull]

Thanks Reginald for your self righteous video ... I will remember that when I watch cyclists going through red lights, riding two abreast, under cutting lorries and buses, & riding on the pedestrian footpaths when there is perfectly good cycle lane or road.

Do you have to take a test to ride a bicycle ? No thought not, until that day....

As he says though their lives do matter, no less, or no more than anyone else though....

What about insurance on no they don't have that either. One went into the back of my son whilst he was stopped at red lights dented the car and had the cheek to say he never saw him. All cyclists on the road should have insurance

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I was cycling round the Aquarium roundabout coming from the Kemptown direction and heading up the Old Steine this morning. It was broad daylight, I clearly signalled where I was going, was wearing a flouro jacket and had lights on. A driver going east to west on the A259 was waiting at the stop line. He clearly saw me (our eyes met - something I always try to do in situations like this), but he pulled out in front of me regardless. I had to brake sharply while giving him a mouthful and then the V (not) for victory sign. However you look at this, he made a decision that it was more important for him to get out onto the roundabout and endanger me than wait a second longer. All road users (including cyclists) need to be a bit more human-spirited about sharing space.

Now if only I could fit that aquarium in my front room...[emoji57]

 

[Seasidesage]

As a cyclist myself, I see some remarkable acts of stupidity on the road every day. As others have said, everyone is guilty of it. I see stupidity from bus drivers, from taxi drivers, from general motorists, emergency services, cyclists, pedestrians... we're all at it, myself included. It's very easy to lose focus for a moment and make the wrong instinctive decision. Someone nearly took me out turning left at a junction last night, he came around my outside and then turned into my path forcing me to brake with severe desperation. He stopped, rolled down the window and apologised, which I accepted and we moved on. Last week I wasn't really paying attention to my route and made a late decision to turn a corner, a pedestrian stepped out and I nearly hit him - I apologised immediately for my late decision to turn, which he couldn't have seen me signal, it was my error. Personally, I think that everyone should share the road and the responsibility for everyone staying alive - there are times when cars should let me go through, and other times when I could stop and them go to do the safest thing for everyone but in reality, not everybody has the same outlook on the road, all of the time.

Accidents will happen, the question is what people do when they've made them and whatever else you can say, the driver should have stopped in this case.

This. The road is full of twats, driving all sorts of vehicles. But it's mostly full of ordinary people going about their business on overcrowded roads, under time and life pressures, with all kinds of distractions at play. We all make mistakes, most of the time we are not doing it because we hate cars or bikes or pedestrians. We are doing it because we made a mistake, something we are not allowed to do anymore...

That said the video looks completely the opposite, it looks deliberate or at the least seriously negligent. The video however, just makes the cyclist look a ****...

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I have sympathy for anyone involved in an "Accident" . As I stated it is just another one caused by driver error as cyclists make them too. However when I had an accident in on my scooter when a van pulled out in front of me, I did not post a video on youtube expecting sympathy or wanting the government to educate people it was an accident.

I just don't like the holier than thou attitude of the video using the environment, we are people etc..... yes we know that, and there are tv advert's, billboards posters signs everywhere urging us to be cautious & courteous to cyclists, motorbikes and other road users.... why do some people think they are on a crusade.... It was an accident & if not I am sure he would have gone to the police and they would have warned him not post the video as it may affect the case.....

Simple question then, why didn't the motorist stop? they would have known that they had hit someone

The cyclist has posted this because they are frustrated that someone has gotten away with this (at a minimum, failing to stop following an accident)

It shows that someone can get run over (pedestrian) / knocked off their bike (cyclist / motorbike, etc) or crash into another vehicle and the Police are unable to always find those responsible (despite living in an age of cctv, go pro mounted cameras, dash cameras, etc) and in this case, having the vehicle details and that it is very easy for someone to escape justice (again, at a minimum of failing to stop following an accident)

However, it also shows that people can get away with failing to identify the driver, and that people may use this method if the consequences of admitting guilt will be greater than if they don't identify the real driver, be it them or someone else driving that vehicle with their consent at the time of the incident - where is the incentive for anyone to stop and admit their mistake / wrongdoing?

 

[father_and_son]

My argument would be that it's reasonable to expect that the owner of the vehicle or the person hiring it was driving it, or that if they weren't they could provide details of the person who was. If they weren't driving they would state who was or provide evidence that they weren't, and by not providing the details the owner/hirer should be considered guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty. You are actually proposing to overturn the single most important tenet of UK law? It is in no way reasonable to make such an assumption.

Fleet vehicle... Company pool car... trade plated... with a garage... stolen...

The list of legitimate reasons why you might not know who was driving a car registered in your name is substantial enough to mean that you cannot legislate in the way you suggest, over and above the fact that it goes against the basic principles behind our legal system.

I'm not saying it is right, but it is no different to any other case where the prosecution have to identify the person who committed the actual criminal act when any of a group of people might have been the one.

You can be prosecuted for failing to give the identity of the person driving the vehicle when an offence is committed... "MS90 Failure to give information as to identity of driver", which typically carries a fine and 6 penalty points on your licence [which is pretty much the typical points for Dangerous Driving anyway]. But this, if defended, still needs to go to court and the defendant has the right to explain why there is "reasonable doubt" as to why they could give the information.
Together with one or other of...
AC10 Failing to stop after an accident Fine plus 5-10 points
AC20 Failing to give particulars or to report an accident within 24 hours Fine plus 5-10 points
(Or the ---2 or ---4 codes of "Allowing..." or "Aiding and abetting..." which have the same penalty)

Over 12 points then you will get the additional "Totting Up" endorsement which will include a Fine and Driving Ban.


Nothing mentioned in this thread or included in the cyclist's video isn't already cover under UK law.


I ask again... What loophole needs to be closed here?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Several years ago there was a genuine loophole in this, whereby people could get away with saying they had no idea who was driving a vehicle, and nothing would happen. The offence of failing to provide driver details was instigated as a means to deal with this, which is why the guy who hired the car in this case received a fine and six points on his licence. I can't remember who it was, but there was some quite famous MP years ago who avoided a speeding fine by claiming he couldn't tell if it was him or his wife driving at the time (one of the Hamiltons maybe?). Now, he'd get points and a fine for that.

I'm not sure what else could be done here- as with any offence, be it assault, theft, or whatever, if you can't prove who did it, then you cannot find them guilty of THAT offence.

For what it's worth, looking at that footage and reading the facts as given by the guy who posted it, had the driver been identified, the most he could have been summonsed for is driving without due care & attention, and failing to stop/report. I'd be amazed if the CPS authorised anything above that (i.e. dangerous driving), and it certainly wouldn't fit the (legal) criteria for any kind of assault, or even attempted murder as has been suggested on here.

The penalty for careless driving is a fine & between three & nine points on your licence. In the event that you're charged with two offences, the court can only impose penalty points for the more severe of the two, so in this case, the careless driving offence rather than the failing to stop.

Thus had he been confirmed as the driver, he'd have faced a fine (which he got) and up to nine points (he got six), which in reality, isn't far removed from what he received anyway. He might have got a bigger fine, though they're means tested, so equally, he might not.

I can totally appreciate why the cyclist is fuming (I've got several incidents like this on my workload at the moment, and it drives me nuts when the spineless shits run away from crashes, usually because they're pissed or unlicensed), but realistically, the outcome would barely have been any different whichever way this had panned out.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Simple question then, why didn't the motorist stop? they would have known that they had hit someone

The cyclist has posted this because they are frustrated that someone has gotten away with this (at a minimum, failing to stop following an accident)

It shows that someone can get run over (pedestrian) / knocked off their bike (cyclist / motorbike, etc) or crash into another vehicle and the Police are unable to always find those responsible (despite living in an age of cctv, go pro mounted cameras, dash cameras, etc) and in this case, having the vehicle details and that it is very easy for someone to escape justice (again, at a minimum of failing to stop following an accident)

However, it also shows that people can get away with failing to identify the driver, and that people may use this method if the consequences of admitting guilt will be greater than if they don't identify the real driver, be it them or someone else driving that vehicle with their consent at the time of the incident - where is the incentive for anyone to stop and admit their mistake / wrongdoing?

They don't always get away with it ...

watch this

Goes on a bit but worth a watch if you think someone can get away with it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

They don't always get away with it ...

watch this

Goes on a bit but worth a watch if you think someone can get away with it.

Seen that video before. If the car filming it hadn't chased after the person committing the hit and run and filmed the driver, who's to say that the guilty party wouldn't deny it and make up a claim about it not being them behind the wheel / it was stolen. They may have got away with it if it wasn't for that member of the public filming them

 

[Garage_Doors]

So because the police can't prove who was driving they can't prosecute, other than for not providing details?

So what would happen if this driver had actually intended to murder and did kill the cyclist, would they still get off with a £150 fine and six points? If so seems a cheap way to bump someone off!

I kind of see the logic behind it, I.e. Innocent until proven guilty, but it seems to easy to get away with all manner of crimes!

He still got a bigger fine and more points than the guy who knocked my boy off his bike, bearing in mind he won't be able to walk for at least 18 months, so the penalty was not small.