CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 7 min ago

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 10:18pm
Hi,
Trouble is, is that if you say "I never saw them" that would be enough to get you off the hook even if the driver admits they were there.
A local person killed an old guy on a bike and did not leave the scene she was so shook up, and it went to court and she said that she did not see the cyclist even though she overtook and side swiped him, she got a fine only.

That's the point just like the Bin Lorry driver, who was not awake so he could not be accountable for his actions, despite he had lied again and again about his condition, I wonder who paid all the insurance claims for property etc

I know now that the law is an ass after my neighbour threatened to kill me an I have that on video, simply trying to protect my property.
The wife white, "Inferred" racism (he is black) and I get branded as a racist just because he is black.
The policeman who spoke to me on the phone said describe him?................"I know him" was his reply.
He came to my house but visited the offender first.
He laughed leaving my house and implied that the offender had a different culture.
I complained and after various comings and goings in which the copper denied knowing the offender.......................................................................................then he was promoted.............................

A police inspector spoke to me on the phone and said that I was made to feel like a criminal...........................................................................well I am now a CRIMINAL due to the corrupt POLICE

Whatever you do say nothing, and don't think you might receive some sort of protection even if you think you are connected because in my bitter experience ( I am not protected for sure) them lot fight amongst themselves and fall out big time too, not that you will ever notice.

Sorry I had to get that off my chest.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 7:36pm
In this case two drivers had access to the car. There is AFAIK no evidence they were both in the car at the time of the crash.

The video clearly shows the car number plate, but it was a hire vehicle and Nottinghamshire Police said it cannot prove who was driving.
Instead, a man who was eligible to drive the car has been fined £150 for failing to provide driver details.

If the man hiring the car is unwilling to say who was driving, he should be given the prison sentence, someone drove the car into the cyclist, failed to stop, ID not disclosed.
Either the person hiring the vehicle or using it needs to held accountable.

So your work hires a car. Various people use it. One of your workmates hits a cyclist and keeps quiet. Are you happy to get a conviction?
If the works hires a car, they have to keep records then of the time and area of use per driver, otherwise the management or owners of the works have to accept responsibility.

So, if 2 are in the vehicle and not disclosing who is driving both are guilty or conspiring, jail term automatic for both. OK sometimes two people will be in the vehicle and both will say the other was driving, both serve a term, one may be Innocent, but the other option is allowing for no effective measures.

If you have a soft system people will use excuses, nearly killing someone, £150 fine, a joke of a system.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 6:43pm
Steady rider wrote:If two people or more people are in a vehicle and no one admits driving, all should be charged with a joint offence and of conspiring together, penalty to include a prison term for all involved.

In this case two drivers had access to the car. There is AFAIK no evidence they were both in the car at the time of the crash.

Steady rider wrote:In this way anyone driving or a party to hiring the vehicle could be charged.

So your work hires a car. Various people use it. One of your workmates hits a cyclist and keeps quiet. Are you happy to get a conviction?

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 5:35pm
Samuel D wrote:Tom Richardson seems more concerned with whether the cyclist gets some cash than whether the perp gets punished and others are deterred from acting similarly in the future.



I'm pointing out that's the system that we have; that the law often allows motorists to bash into people so long as they pay compensation on assumption that cash will make things right. I'm pointing out that motorists who run into people have to pay compensation to make things right even if the criminal system does nothing. And I'm pointing out that despite the concern expressed in these forums many people say that they're reluctant to use the only redress often available to them when they've been run in to.

What I'm really getting at is that if you get run in to you should sue every time - sue like a motorist. Its often the only redress you will get but at least in theory it should be good enough to recompense and deter. It may be satisfying to see action by the criminal justice system as well but it makes little practical difference.

Think about strict liability - so often mentioned. It makes it slightly cheaper for a vulnerable road user to claim from a motorist who has run into them but those costs would be borne by the motorist anyway. The only practical benefit is that motorists know that if they run in to a vulnerable road user they're very likely to get sued. Do you think this motorist would have done that if they knew it would still land them with a £20k claim for loss, damage and expense even if they escaped criminal prosecution? Hard to say really I know; there are some total nutters out there but I reckon it would be a lot less likely. Don't wait for strict liability; sue like a motorist.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 5:35pm
If two people or more people are in a vehicle and no one admits driving, all should be charged with a joint offence and of conspiring together, penalty to include a prison term for all involved.

In this way anyone driving or a party to hiring the vehicle could be charged. An automatic maximum penalty could be applied, meaning disclosing who was driving would in most cases result in a lesser penalty. Some measure along theses lines are probably needed.

Re: Deliveroo

5 February 2016 - 4:44pm
Revolution wrote:Given that in Nottingham, you can have high quality video of attempted murder going unpunished, I decided not to waste my time reporting the incident.
Was there any doubt who was driving those scooters then? Send the photos to ASPolice, who weren't involved in Nottingham.

Re: Deliveroo

5 February 2016 - 3:43pm
I've seen a few motor scooters but more cycling. This is also in Bristol. If you want to see the Deliveroo cyclists, they hang out in front of the Victoria Rooms when they're not on a job. I don't know where the motorised ones congregate.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 3:41pm
One obvious conclusion is that the penalty for failing to identify a driver ought to be proportionate to the penalty for the offence being investigated.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 3:39pm
johncarnie wrote:Having read numerous articles on this, it would appear that there were two possible drivers - could they not be charged under the "joint enterprise" legislation?


No. They would need to be proved to be acting together. Like Chris Huhne and Vicky Price. Then there is the fact that as spouses they can not be compelled to give evidence against each other.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 3:28pm
Vantage wrote:More people on bikes is what we need and a better understanding of cyclists. Other countries figured it out. The UK is just full of eejits.
Even the eejits are cottoning on. The workman repairing (or not, but that's another story) something for me today was waxing lyrical about both his mountain bike and his new road bike, as well as enjoying trips out with his wife.

Don't despair: it'll come.

Re: Deliveroo

5 February 2016 - 3:23pm
Saw a cycling Deliveroo on Sauchiehall street in Glasgow the other day. Big box to carry on your back on a bike.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 3:05pm
Having read numerous articles on this, it would appear that there were two possible drivers - could they not be charged under the "joint enterprise" legislation?

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 2:59pm
simonineaston wrote: so spend all that money thinking of ways we could get rid of them some of them!"

May I suggest the following drivers...wvm, BMW, Audi, Merc, under 30's and over 55's and anyone daring to even consider an SUV, 4x4 or people carrier?

More people on bikes is what we need and a better understanding of cyclists. Other countries figured it out. The UK is just full of eejits.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 2:43pm
Samuel D wrote: Forensics could even get fingerprints and hair samples from the car interior, if push came to shove. Etc., etc.

Ah but could they? Lets not forget this was a hire car. Unless the actual owner/carer of the car has meticulously scrubbed every last mm with bleach between uses, there could be hundreds of different dna samples all over it. Mr and Mrs CyclistHater could have both driven it at different times.

Re: Deliveroo

5 February 2016 - 2:21pm
Heltor Chasca wrote:I've only come across cycling Deliveroos. I met and chatted to a Greek rider up at the top of Lansdown in Bath. He had cycled up from the centre to deliver food to the boarders at the school. RESPECT to him for getting up that hill with a massive box on his back!


I've seen the same guy in Bath. It was blowing a gale which was difficult in cross winds just riding a bike, I don't think that I would like to try in with a huge square sail on my back.

The were also plenty of these delivery cyclists in Manchester when I was there a couple of weeks ago.

Re: Deliveroo

5 February 2016 - 1:44pm
I've only come across cycling Deliveroos. I met and chatted to a Greek rider up at the top of Lansdown in Bath. He had cycled up from the centre to deliver food to the boarders at the school. RESPECT to him for getting up that hill with a massive box on his back!

Deliveroo

5 February 2016 - 1:35pm
I have recently notices a scourge of boys on motor scooters bombing about the streets of Bristol, all with enormous Deliveroo boxes on the back.
Yesterday I was forces to avoid collision with three of them riding side by side and shouting at each other. One then ran a red light while the other two stopped on an ASL - clearly oblivious to the meaning of the picture of a bicycle on the ground.
Given that in Nottingham, you can have high quality video of attempted murder going unpunished, I decided not to waste my time reporting the incident. My next thought was insurance - motor policies do not normally cover a vehicle for business purposes and a quick Google revealed that fast food delivery does indeed require the vehicle owner to inform the insurance company of the intended use - premiums are then adjusted. I find it hard to believe that the little tikes I encountered last night had gone to this trouble but I was told by Deliveroo in London that they used a 3rd party company to carry out background checks on all of their drivers before contracting them, these checks included verifying the employee had the correct insurance cover.
The up-shot of all of this is that I was advised that If I wanted to make a complaint about the behaviour of any of the Deliveroo employees I should email
driverops@deliveroo.co.uk
As this company runs operations in many cities across the country I would encourage anyone who encounters Deliveroo people riding dangerously or breaking the law to email the company - to complain that is, not to order a pizza

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 1:35pm
irc wrote:reohn2 wrote:And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

What is the alternative? Either we require a high standard of proof or more innocent people are convicted.


We need a higher(much higher) standard of policing investigation.And harsher penalties to make people such as these two think twice before committing such crimes.
I've already pointed out one possible step forward,that to leave the scene of an incident should cost the criminal(s) dearly.
But what seems to be the one thing that stands out(if my facts are correct) is that the car was rented to an individual with a second driver both of whom would be registered with the hire company,unless the vehicle was stolen,there doesn't seem to be a claim of that,then those two individuals are responsible for the vehicle.
That said IMHO it's reasonable(beyond doubt)to think one or the other were driving on that day,so summons the pair of them.Unless they can prove that neither were driving then both are guilty and should be jointly charged.
If the paperwork by the hire company is false or incomplete then whoever within the company is responsible,and the company itself should also be fined heavily for their involvement.

That's my unqualified assessment of it,but no doubt there'll be enough wriggle room for all parties to escape the justice they deserve.
And you'll most likely inform me of chapter and verse as to why it's so unreasonable to think the way I do.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 1:14pm
beardy wrote:It will have blown over in a week or two. The Police and CPS will still continue to exercise an "its only a cyclist policy" and just roll with the blow when occasional things like this happen.
Ain't that the truth.

The UK authorities prove yet again it isn't worth the time,money and effort to catch criminals.The cyclists claims off the insurance and gets paid out,seems to be the only justice worth persuing,meanwhile the guilty carry on as before.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

5 February 2016 - 1:13pm
Anyone who's recently climbed up the celebrated Ditchling Beacon in daytime: the key feature of the London to Brighton run, will know that that road has sadly turned into a rat run too. Even if you're a good grimpeur, I don't advise that road for inexperienced cyclists. Which is a great shame - when I was a lot younger I used to go up it quite often as an alternative commute, it was quiet back in those days.

My days of cycling up the Beacon are long done, but we walk up a nearby footpath quite often, from which you can see the road. We still watch plenty of cyclists piling it on, and having to let cars squeeze past every few seconds. A sad development.

pwa wrote:Sat Nav. That's the reason.Aha! Don't get me started on Sat Navs. Once when I was passenger on a business trip, I was charged with manipulating the satnav to try and navigate us to some obscure destination somewhere in Glasgow (the Satnav was installed on my colleague's smartphone, not a built-in unit). Anyway after several instructions to plough through roadworks, I threw the wretched thing down in disgust, and announced "from now on, if you want me to navigate, let's look at road signs." We arrived at our destination, an hour or two late. I shudder to think what would have become of us if we'd stuck to the satnav....

And there was the couple who hailed me from their car: the passenger was frantically poking at the satnav and the driver leaned out of the window: "Can you direct me to Hurstpierpoint College please?" Thing is, the encounter happened exactly here......

About

CTC

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions