Bizzare laws these days
Discussion
I had a friend cycle to visit me a few months back (all the way from Bristol, I live in London) and he got within 1 mile of my house and got knocked off on a roundabout by a car exiting from the wrong lane who didn't see him. All witnesses said that he was in the correct position and the driver was in the wrong. He broke his elbow in several places, has had a plate put in and has about 20% movement in it at the moment. Plus more improtatntly he spent the weekend in hospital instead of drinking down the pub with me 
The police investigation has finally come through and they have decided not to prosecute the driver (despite the witnesses statements) because it will cost too much to persue. The police were at the accident and know the driver of the car was driving at the time and that the car was his, so no get outs.
Really I am confused how if you run someone off their bike you get no penalties, but if I drive at 80 on a motorway, without hitting anyone, I will get 3 points and a fine... bizzare... and rant over!
The police investigation has finally come through and they have decided not to prosecute the driver (despite the witnesses statements) because it will cost too much to persue. The police were at the accident and know the driver of the car was driving at the time and that the car was his, so no get outs.
Really I am confused how if you run someone off their bike you get no penalties, but if I drive at 80 on a motorway, without hitting anyone, I will get 3 points and a fine... bizzare... and rant over!
RacingPete said:
Really I am confused how if you run someone off their bike you get no penalties, but if I drive at 80 on a motorway, without hitting anyone, I will get 3 points and a fine... bizzare... and rant over!
drive at 80 on a motorway = Send a letterrun someone off their bike = Requires effort to prosecute
He is going to procede for damages, not something I really agree with the "have a claim, then someone to blaim" type things, but sometimes its needed.
I get the costs thing, but really the laws on speeding are to prevent accidents, and then when you have one they cant be bothered to prosecute.
I get the costs thing, but really the laws on speeding are to prevent accidents, and then when you have one they cant be bothered to prosecute.
RacingPete said:
The police investigation has finally come through and they have decided not to prosecute the driver (despite the witnesses statements) because it will cost too much to persue. The police were at the accident and know the driver of the car was driving at the time and that the car was his, so no get outs.
Really I am confused how if you run someone off their bike you get no penalties, but if I drive at 80 on a motorway, without hitting anyone, I will get 3 points and a fine... bizzare... and rant over!
You've answered your own question (see my emphasis above).Really I am confused how if you run someone off their bike you get no penalties, but if I drive at 80 on a motorway, without hitting anyone, I will get 3 points and a fine... bizzare... and rant over!
3 point and a fine for little or no effort gets them the money for the fine and looks good for their published results.
Prosecuting the driver who knocked down your friend costs them money, is not guaranteed to lead to a conviction anyway, and doesn't make their published results look as good.
Shitty, isn't it?
sometimes...paulsm said:
RacingPete said:
Really I am confused how if you run someone off their bike you get no penalties, but if I drive at 80 on a motorway, without hitting anyone, I will get 3 points and a fine... bizzare... and rant over!
drive at 80 on a motorway = Send a letterrun someone off their bike = Requires effort to prosecute
Don't prosecute, perhaps driver thinks he's got away with it, and carries on driving like a prat, next time he kills someone, then what?
Taking the OP's account at face value, as of course we should, (please note certain posters, it seems that a good rounded whole account has been presented), then it beggars belief why there has been no prosecution over this. And certain BiB wonder why the driving public may occasionally have a less than rosy picture of roads policing.
Please note I am NOT commenting on the comparison between probability of the speeding conviction and conviction in a case like this, before certain posters accuse me saying that I am. This accident case stands on its own.
The money for prosecutions comes from a fixed pot. In this case there appear to be no other factors such as drink / no insurance / no licence / made off from scene. Decision as such will have been that the insured will face higher premiums (financial penalty) the biker will get full recompense for his injuries that the extra cost involved of prosecuting would probably see 3 points maybe 6 and a small fine for careless driving which would have meant a court case, 2 officers at least for a day and then the court costs that would not have been refunded all money that could be spent elsewhere. If the driver had no insurance or no licence then this case would have gone through. These days due to time and money constraints if parties are insured unless there is a serious ammount of injury/damage or the driving was so awfull then these sort of crashes won't be prosecuted. Rather have the officers out on patrol and the money to prosecute another more 'deserving' case.
Its not perfect but if we prosecuted for every crash then we would always be at court. You have to draw the line somewhere as to what cases you persue and those you don't.
Its not perfect but if we prosecuted for every crash then we would always be at court. You have to draw the line somewhere as to what cases you persue and those you don't.
RacingPete said:
He is going to procede for damages, not something I really agree with the "have a claim, then someone to blaim" type things, but sometimes its needed.
I get the costs thing, but really the laws on speeding are to prevent accidents, and then when you have one they cant be bothered to prosecute.
But it costs the driver very little as all costs are paid by his insurance, and (I am testamany to this) Crashing and causing 3rd party injuries do not make your insurance go up - mine went down !!! I get the costs thing, but really the laws on speeding are to prevent accidents, and then when you have one they cant be bothered to prosecute.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Its not perfect but if we prosecuted for every crash then we would always be at court. You have to draw the line somewhere as to what cases you persue and those you don't.
I agree with the line being drawn somewhere. My point was the difference between the ease to prosecute speeders who haven't actually done any harm, and those that have actually casued a crash.Maybe there should be more paperwork or resources for speeding offences, taking into account weather, road conditions, traffic conditions, car make and model... and then only the ones that were truly henious will be prosecuted.
What is the additional cost for prosecution though (compared to speeding) to automatically send a NIP to anyone who caused an accident?
The speeding NIP is to fine you "as you are more likely to cause an accident" whilst when you had one, you get away with nothing (most of the time). Strange ...
The speeding NIP is to fine you "as you are more likely to cause an accident" whilst when you had one, you get away with nothing (most of the time). Strange ...
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Its not perfect but if we prosecuted for every crash then we would always be at court. You have to draw the line somewhere as to what cases you persue and those you don't.
i've got to protest at this - just because the money comes from one pot? Then the system is screwed, and offenders get off the hook. Ridiculous.I had personal experience of being knocked off my bike at Marble Arch recently. Driver cut across three lanes from the lights, hit me, then did a runner, so to speak. Lots of footage from the cameras and witnesses, yet the decision was made not to prosecute. My blood is boiling just thinking about it again.
DirkDiggler said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Its not perfect but if we prosecuted for every crash then we would always be at court. You have to draw the line somewhere as to what cases you persue and those you don't.
i've got to protest at this - just because the money comes from one pot? Then the system is screwed, and offenders get off the hook. Ridiculous.^Slider^ said:
From what i have read the economic costs are roughly:
£1,312,260 per fatality.
£147,450 Per serious
£11,370 Per slight
I would presume that this is the cost of investigation / prosicution etc as well as cost to the economy.
That has been proven to be complete nonsense.£1,312,260 per fatality.
£147,450 Per serious
£11,370 Per slight
I would presume that this is the cost of investigation / prosicution etc as well as cost to the economy.
It also includes a subjective cost for the families' "hurt feelings, etc.".
lunarscope said:
^Slider^ said:
From what i have read the economic costs are roughly:
£1,312,260 per fatality.
£147,450 Per serious
£11,370 Per slight
I would presume that this is the cost of investigation / prosicution etc as well as cost to the economy.
That has been proven to be complete nonsense.£1,312,260 per fatality.
£147,450 Per serious
£11,370 Per slight
I would presume that this is the cost of investigation / prosicution etc as well as cost to the economy.
It also includes a subjective cost for the families' "hurt feelings, etc.".
Each crash is different. Some fatal crashes possibly cost millions in terms of the impact of the crash on the road system and the follow through into the economy of that. EIther way they all cost lots so best avoided.
DirkDiggler said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Its not perfect but if we prosecuted for every crash then we would always be at court. You have to draw the line somewhere as to what cases you persue and those you don't.
i've got to protest at this - just because the money comes from one pot? Then the system is screwed, and offenders get off the hook. Ridiculous.I had personal experience of being knocked off my bike at Marble Arch recently. Driver cut across three lanes from the lights, hit me, then did a runner, so to speak. Lots of footage from the cameras and witnesses, yet the decision was made not to prosecute. My blood is boiling just thinking about it again.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Don't get punished by the courts. Do face increased insurance premiums that will far exceed the few hundred pound fine. As I said depends on the surrounding factors what part each party had to play. In the same way cyslists who don't have insurance or any kind of licence can escape prosecution entirely as you can never trace them. It is a number of factors, severity of injury, how bad the decision that lead to the crash was, consistant bad driving or momentary lapse of concentration. Offenders for other offences don't get off the hook but are put before the courts. What happens from then I cannot defend always.
i'm confused, bear with me.are you saying that if you get knocked off a bike you should persue the driver privately? furthermore, are you saying that because cyclists get away with it, so should drivers?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff