Not enough evidence
Discussion
Apparently there 'isn't enough evidence' to make a prosecution stick on what from the footage looks like deliberately driving into the back of a cyclist
http://rate-driver.co.uk/WF64WRK#c17106
Now I always try to see both sides of these issues but based on the lack of aggression shown at the previous set of lights I'd say this is pure and simple 'didn't see you mate' busy texting type 'love tap' but to then not stop puts it in a different class.
So if you see a grey Volvo XC60 WF64 WRK about the Nottinghamshire area 'watch out'
http://rate-driver.co.uk/WF64WRK#c17106
Now I always try to see both sides of these issues but based on the lack of aggression shown at the previous set of lights I'd say this is pure and simple 'didn't see you mate' busy texting type 'love tap' but to then not stop puts it in a different class.
So if you see a grey Volvo XC60 WF64 WRK about the Nottinghamshire area 'watch out'
F**king shocking!
I hope he managed to at least claim for bike repair (and personal injury) from the vehicles insurance.
As for not being able to trace the driver why can't a NIP be used and at least fine/punish the owner (or company secretary) for failure to furnish.
I hope he managed to at least claim for bike repair (and personal injury) from the vehicles insurance.
As for not being able to trace the driver why can't a NIP be used and at least fine/punish the owner (or company secretary) for failure to furnish.
Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Tuesday 2nd February 17:43
Fluffsri said:
BBC link ive seen this morning say the owner was fined £150 for failure to supply driver details. Disgusting!
He got 6 points as well - that'll learn him 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
Sadly nothing will surprise me now, when I read about the guy who got away with killing a cyclist by claiming that the sun dazzled him as he came over a brow and he didnt see the cyclist, I just give up having any faith in the justice system or thinking that the courts, the police and the lawyers will do anythign but side with the motorist.
pablo said:
Sadly nothing will surprise me now, when I read about the guy who got away with killing a cyclist by claiming that the sun dazzled him as he came over a brow and he didnt see the cyclist, I just give up having any faith in the justice system or thinking that the courts, the police and the lawyers will do anythign but side with the motorist.
Honest your honour, the sun dazzled me and I didn't see the "30" sign and that's why I was doing 70 when I was stopped.Yup right, that will work.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
That is un believable why on earth can't they simply charge both the potential drivers under joint enterprise. pablo said:
Sadly nothing will surprise me now, when I read about the guy who got away with killing a cyclist by claiming that the sun dazzled him as he came over a brow and he didnt see the cyclist, I just give up having any faith in the justice system or thinking that the courts, the police and the lawyers will do anythign but side with the motorist.
Most police I think are quite neutral on this. It's the courts that seem very biased against cyclists. They genuinely seem to think cycling is a minority oddball activity.I really can't believe our so-called justice.... I bet the next thing to happen will be the owner of the car successfully claiming compensation because his registration number is all over the 'net and his 'uman rights have been infringed!
Despite what some (either car-obsessed or anti-cyclist) comments on youtube that the bike was 'holding up the traffic' (clearly not the case), there is NO excuse for this behavior - even if the traffic had to wait hours that would be not excuse for trying to murder someone. If the owners of the vehicle don't (won't) reveal the driver, and it wasn't stolen then they should be locked up. Hope this goes really viral and Notts Police/CPS are made accountable and a real case is tried.
Despite what some (either car-obsessed or anti-cyclist) comments on youtube that the bike was 'holding up the traffic' (clearly not the case), there is NO excuse for this behavior - even if the traffic had to wait hours that would be not excuse for trying to murder someone. If the owners of the vehicle don't (won't) reveal the driver, and it wasn't stolen then they should be locked up. Hope this goes really viral and Notts Police/CPS are made accountable and a real case is tried.
Criminal. Literally.
I despair with the state of our policing and legal system. Too many loopholes, too lenient much of the time. A "can't be bothered" attitude by the police/CPS. Maybe they are understaffed and under resourced, in that case re-allocate some resources. I guarantee that a five man team with enough empowerment could find the driver. Who does the car belong to? Who could have been driving at the time? Witness statements, alibis (is that right?) etc. Can be done.
I despair with the state of our policing and legal system. Too many loopholes, too lenient much of the time. A "can't be bothered" attitude by the police/CPS. Maybe they are understaffed and under resourced, in that case re-allocate some resources. I guarantee that a five man team with enough empowerment could find the driver. Who does the car belong to? Who could have been driving at the time? Witness statements, alibis (is that right?) etc. Can be done.
Just saw this on the BBC site, the Police apparently identified 2 possible drivers. I am speechless that they cannot charge them both and drag them in front of a Judge and Jury, surely one would crack before sentencing and dob the other in for a proper sentence- ie, prison time.
After all, it looks like Attempted Manslaughter to me.
After all, it looks like Attempted Manslaughter to me.
scubadude said:
Just saw this on the BBC site, the Police apparently identified 2 possible drivers. I am speechless that they cannot charge them both and drag them in front of a Judge and Jury, surely one would crack before sentencing and dob the other in for a proper sentence- ie, prison time.
After all, it looks like Attempted Murder to me.
Fixed that for you After all, it looks like Attempted Murder to me.
Screw the cost covering - it's in the public interest so should come out of central funds. These people are salaried regardless so it's sunken costs - maybe switch off the m25 speed cameras for a week to free up some admin manpower. If I walk into a bank and rob it at gunpoint, leave and spend all the money, I should still be pursued regardless of if there's any money left to recover. Else it sets a precedent that there's no consequences and will happen again and again.
There must be some footage of the car, with the driver visible, from local recorded CCTV or traffic cameras. Not going to the trouble of investigating properly to bring a prosecution only encourages other psychos to do the same or other victims to deliver justice themselves, which is exactly what I would be doing following this farce. Knowing full well who the perpetrator is (why would someone else be using his hire car?) I would make them my pet project until the misery and suffering I had brought to them was enough to make them think twice about repeating the incident. But that's just me.
It's a shame the law isn't along the lines of failing to provide a breath specimen - if you don't provide the details of who was driving then the responsible person (registered keeper, company secretary, whomever) gets held accountable for the actions and consequences of the vehicle when used. That would certainly tighten up record keeping!
AW10 said:
It's a shame the law isn't along the lines of failing to provide a breath specimen - if you don't provide the details of who was driving then the responsible person (registered keeper, company secretary, whomever) gets held accountable for the actions and consequences of the vehicle when used. That would certainly tighten up record keeping!
I think that would be a top idea, and why not? Unless my car is stolen, I know who's driving it, don't we all? I certainly wouldn't want anyone I didn't know of driving my car. Whilst I understand people's anger, what can you do? There is nothing to say that they are not saying who was driving, just that they cannot prove who was. It could be that both are accusing the other when it came to questioning. One is lieing, but if they can't prove who, it would not be appropriate to charge both. Ask yourself, if you were a passenger in a car and the driver accused you would you be happy?
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff