Car rams cyclist, recorded by camera.

josip · 03-02-2016 10:58am #1

Innocent until proven guilty I suppose, but it's scary to think that the renter could only be done for failing to provide driver details.
Presumably he outright chose not to rather than just saying he didn't.
Couldn't he have been charged with being an accessory to GBH?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

Mods: couldn't find this in any other thread, please delete if it's already somewhere else.

RainyDay · 03-02-2016 11:35am

Strange that police couldn't or wouldn't use mobile phone history tracking to prove that people were at a certain location at a certain time.

josip · 03-02-2016 11:46am

RainyDay wrote: »

Strange that police couldn't or wouldn't use mobile phone history tracking to prove that people were at a certain location at a certain time.

And since it happened in Nottingham city centre, could they also have checked CCTV cameras to try to establish who was driving or where the car came from/went to?
They seem to be treating this the same as a burglary or car-car fender bender.
I'd be fairly gung ho and would accept the risks you take every time you get on a bike in traffic, but this was a premeditated hit and run.

Michael D Not Higgins · 03-02-2016 11:51am

What would the sentence have been if they could have positively identified the driver? £150 and 6 penalty points seems a little lenient for keeping mum.

Alanstrainor · 03-02-2016 11:54am

I hope the injured cyclist also pursued whoever was insuring the car at the time. You can bet that the insurance company would establish who was driving if there was a claim for 100,000 in for damages.

RainyDay · 03-02-2016 11:57am

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I hope the injured cyclist also pursued whoever was insuring the car at the time. You can bet that the insurance company would establish who was driving if there was a claim for 100,000 in for damages.

Cyclist is on Twitter and YouTube and has said that he's got nothing from insurance as yet.

Danjamin1 · 03-02-2016 12:02pm

That's an absolute disgrace. I got a speeding fine in a rented car in Zurich before based on the reg of the car and the details I provided when renting the car, how hard could it be to find the rental details of this car to determine who it was leased to at the time? I suppose there's a possiblility that it was not rented at that time but then surely the rental company's insurance HAS to cover it for being on the road?

traprunner · 03-02-2016 12:04pm

So it's that simple to potentially kill someone. Just don't tell the cops that you don't know who was driving the car?

seamus · 03-02-2016 12:09pm

Danjamin1 wrote: »

That's an absolute disgrace. I got a speeding fine in a rented car in Zurich before based on the reg of the car and the details I provided when renting the car, how hard could it be to find the rental details of this car to determine who it was leased to at the time? I suppose there's a possiblility that it was not rented at that time but then surely the rental company's insurance HAS to cover it for being on the road?

It sounds simple, but it may not have been a straightforward private rental. If it was part of a fleet scheme or a commercial rental, then the rental company may not have full or even nay details of the individual who rented it, and only company details.

Additionally in those cases the vehicle may be covered by a fleet policy rather than the rental company's policy (who will only have a separate policy covering damage or loss of their vehicle).

Which creates a rabbit-hole effect in all cases - having go through multiple layers of who did what and who's responsible.

The reason that the renter got away with a fine and points is because he got a non-criminal conviction. In practical terms these have a lower burden of proof than criminal convictions and practically all of them are heard in a non-jury court.
If you go for a GBH or hit-and-run conviction, you end up in a jury court and with a much higher burden of proof.

I think in this case the police themselves told the guy that if he accepted the non-criminal conviction that would be the end of it. It's a disgrace in itself that they wouldn't try to prosecute him fully, but the CPS may have already told them it was a non-runner due to the iffy evidence. So instead they called his bluff and went for the best prosecution they could manage.

TonyStark · 03-02-2016 12:15pm

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I hope the injured cyclist also pursued whoever was insuring the car at the time. You can bet that the insurance company would establish who was driving if there was a claim for 100,000 in for damages.

I think civil cases have a lower burden of proof in this case the cyclist should sue the owners of the vehicle for negligence. I think it's quite clear he was injured by the vehicle and that the buck stops with owners of the vehicle. up to them if they want to chase the driver.

It is clear that an offence was committed but the offence of keeping quiet carried less of a penalty than them admitting to mowing someone over - hence the loophole in the law.

I have to commend the bravery cyclist for sharing what is probably very traumatic footage.

josip · 03-02-2016 12:19pm

seamus wrote: »

It sounds simple, but it may not have been a straightforward private rental. If it was part of a fleet scheme or a commercial rental, then the rental company may not have full or even nay details of the individual who rented it, and only company details.

Additionally in those cases the vehicle may be covered by a fleet policy rather than the rental company's policy (who will only have a separate policy covering damage or loss of their vehicle).

Which creates a rabbit-hole effect in all cases - having go through multiple layers of who did what and who's responsible.

The reason that the renter got away with a fine and points is because he got a non-criminal conviction. In practical terms these have a lower burden of proof than criminal convictions and practically all of them are heard in a non-jury court.
If you go for a GBH or hit-and-run conviction, you end up in a jury court and with a much higher burden of proof.

I think in this case the police themselves told the guy that if he accepted the non-criminal conviction that would be the end of it. It's a disgrace in itself that they wouldn't try to prosecute him fully, but the CPS may have already told them it was a non-runner due to the iffy evidence. So instead they called his bluff and went for the best prosecution they could manage.

But if it was a company or fleet rental, wouldn't someone other than the driver know who was driving that car on that particular day?

Danjamin1 · 03-02-2016 12:41pm

seamus wrote: »

It sounds simple, but it may not have been a straightforward private rental. If it was part of a fleet scheme or a commercial rental, then the rental company may not have full or even nay details of the individual who rented it, and only company details.

Additionally in those cases the vehicle may be covered by a fleet policy rather than the rental company's policy (who will only have a separate policy covering damage or loss of their vehicle).

Which creates a rabbit-hole effect in all cases - having go through multiple layers of who did what and who's responsible.

The reason that the renter got away with a fine and points is because he got a non-criminal conviction. In practical terms these have a lower burden of proof than criminal convictions and practically all of them are heard in a non-jury court.
If you go for a GBH or hit-and-run conviction, you end up in a jury court and with a much higher burden of proof.

I think in this case the police themselves told the guy that if he accepted the non-criminal conviction that would be the end of it. It's a disgrace in itself that they wouldn't try to prosecute him fully, but the CPS may have already told them it was a non-runner due to the iffy evidence. So instead they called his bluff and went for the best prosecution they could manage.

Hadn't considered that,makes sense though

seamus · 03-02-2016 12:54pm

josip wrote: »

But if it was a company or fleet rental, wouldn't someone other than the driver know who was driving that car on that particular day?

Down the rabbit-hole.

- Is the company keeping records of who has what vehicle?

- What verification is in place, i.e. did the driver himself sign the vehicle out, or did someone else just say they saw him (hearsay)

- If the rentals are permanently assigned, do we know for a fact that he was driving, and it wasn't a colleague, or his wife, or someone that wasn't authorised to drive it?

The law does be getting awful complicated when it comes to these things. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions means you can easily cast doubt on who did what and when.

The sooner we get automated vehicles and self-drive are outlawed, the better.

the.red.baron · 03-02-2016 1:36pm

seamus wrote: »

Down the rabbit-hole.

- Is the company keeping records of who has what vehicle?

- What verification is in place, i.e. did the driver himself sign the vehicle out, or did someone else just say they saw him (hearsay)

- If the rentals are permanently assigned, do we know for a fact that he was driving, and it wasn't a colleague, or his wife, or someone that wasn't authorised to drive it?

The law does be getting awful complicated when it comes to these things. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions means you can easily cast doubt on who did what and when.

The sooner we get automated vehicles and self-drive are outlawed, the better.

Right, so I can go out tonight, knock someone down, car gets caught on camera, not admit to it, myself and my wife are eligible to drive my car, as is anyone with Third party cover on other cars and all I have to do is not admit it was me, or any other party, or provide details of who had the car. Sound pretty weak, as was the police work in this case.

laraghrider · 03-02-2016 1:42pm

A further point to be considered and seamus has alluded to it.

My brother used to work in a car dealership and I often asked him how he can just take a car home from work. He explained like this. They were company a (lets say naas road audi) who were a francise of company b (as previous audi). Apart from the for sale stock there were demo cars which were leased to company d from company c which was a leasing firm of company b. Company d was a leasing arm of company a and the reason it was setup that way was for accounting purposes. Keep the dead money off the books. As it was a dealership he never had to sign a car out. So you've 4 companies to search for the car ownership and in truth you end up at a point where there car wasn't even signed out!

Hope that's not too confusing but point of the matter is this. In court a good solicitor will play it that nobody could determine for sure who had that car on that specific date. With that, they'd win!

the.red.baron · 03-02-2016 1:50pm

Yeah, you would be well sure they would be listing everyone who would have access to the car and ruling them out.

I saw Johnny taking the car on the night in question is evidence, it can't just be discounted.

It would be down to you then to provide proof that it wasn't you.

In this case there were just 2 eligible who didn't cooperate.

I know we don't have the full facts.

Otherwise no one would ever get convicted of anything

seamus · 03-02-2016 2:13pm

the.red.baron wrote: »

Right, so I can go out tonight, knock someone down, car gets caught on camera, not admit to it, myself and my wife are eligible to drive my car, as is anyone with Third party cover on other cars and all I have to do is not admit it was me, or any other party, or provide details of who had the car. Sound pretty weak, as was the police work in this case.

That's not "all you have to do". But you have to remember that the case has to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In the scenario you describe, imagine your wife being cross-examined; she says that she was at home all night and didn't take the car out. And she remembers you leaving the house.

You say under cross examination that you don't remember if you took the car, but you don't remember the car being missing for any length of time and you remember being in place A, then in place B at or around the time of the incident.

There is no reasonable doubt that you were driving the car.

Now let's say your defence relies on the fact that you claim you definitely didn't have the car. You claim you were in the pub and you have 2 mates who back this up. A 3rd party (let's say a neighbour, child or good friend) has a spare key for your car and he tells the court he doesn't remember where he was or what he was doing that night, he was really drunk.

Now there's a reasonable doubt that you were driving at all. You're the one who's been charged, not this 3rd party. So with reasonable doubt that you were driving the car at all, you can get acquitted.

If you say, "it wasn't me or it wasn't my wife, someone else must have taken my car without asking, caused the accident and then put it back where exactly it was", it doesn't really work that way unless you can pinpoint that "someone else" who may reasonably have taken the car.

However, to kind of back up your post - it does happen not irregularly that someone gets involved in an accident, then drives off, abandons the car in a ditch, sets it alight and rings the Gardai the next day saying that their car was robbed last night while they slept. Without rock-solid evidence of the person in question sitting behind the wheel (or wasn't in bed at the time), how do you prove it was them?

Macy0161 · 03-02-2016 2:17pm

The solution may be to make the penalty for "failing to provide driver details" proportionate to the offence committed that is being investigated, for everyone who fails to cooperate.

Crocked · 03-02-2016 2:18pm

Woman was knocked down and died in Dublin a few years ago. The registered owner of the car said he sold it, the Gardai traced the buyer who says he wasn't driving it. End result is no prosecution is made. It was captured on CCTV but no way to verify who was driving, case closed.

Gardaí recovered the vehicle and, via DNA testing, confirmed it was the car that struck Ms Watkins.
Dr Farrell said it is his understanding that the registered owner of the car had sold it on and, when interviewed, the buyer said he was not driving the car.
Det Insp Liam Kelly said a person believed to be the driver was arrested and a file was sent to the DPP, who returned directions of no prosecution in the matter. The investigation remains open.

http://http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/woman-struck-in-hit-and-run-flung-9ft-into-air-inquest-told-1.2161754

Jimoslimos · 03-02-2016 2:24pm

I think that this is either a) laziness or b) lack of resources on the part of the police. I hope the latter.

I see what seamus is saying but if this vehicle was used in a bank robbery I can guarantee a lot more investigative work would be used to track down and identify the culprit - in addition to targeting his colleagues who are essentially conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

wally79 · 03-02-2016 2:30pm

They have no evidence of who was driving the car so they couldn't prosecute for the hit and run without an admission of guilt.

They fined for failure to disclose but outside of beefing up the penalty for that there isn't really much they can do.

If the two eligible drivers had blamed each other I assume they wouldn't even have been able to do that.

07Lapierre · 03-02-2016 2:53pm

"The law is an Ass!"

the.red.baron · 03-02-2016 3:26pm

seamus wrote: »

That's not "all you have to do". But you have to remember that the case has to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In the scenario you describe, imagine your wife being cross-examined; she says that she was at home all night and didn't take the car out. And she remembers you leaving the house.

You say under cross examination that you don't remember if you took the car, but you don't remember the car being missing for any length of time and you remember being in place A, then in place B at or around the time of the incident.

There is no reasonable doubt that you were driving the car.

Now let's say your defence relies on the fact that you claim you definitely didn't have the car. You claim you were in the pub and you have 2 mates who back this up. A 3rd party (let's say a neighbour, child or good friend) has a spare key for your car and he tells the court he doesn't remember where he was or what he was doing that night, he was really drunk.

Now there's a reasonable doubt that you were driving at all. You're the one who's been charged, not this 3rd party. So with reasonable doubt that you were driving the car at all, you can get acquitted.

If you say, "it wasn't me or it wasn't my wife, someone else must have taken my car without asking, caused the accident and then put it back where exactly it was", it doesn't really work that way unless you can pinpoint that "someone else" who may reasonably have taken the car.

However, to kind of back up your post - it does happen not irregularly that someone gets involved in an accident, then drives off, abandons the car in a ditch, sets it alight and rings the Gardai the next day saying that their car was robbed last night while they slept. Without rock-solid evidence of the person in question sitting behind the wheel (or wasn't in bed at the time), how do you prove it was them?

In your example, you need to have 4 people lying for you. They are providing the evidence, even if false that it wasn't you.

That's nothing like the details in the post above.

It wasn't me is not enough.

In the example above, is it reasonable to doubt the person above was driving the car unless they can back it up. If little Johnny spent the whole night with the accused, then that's a different matter.

The problem here is a lack of consistency in how the law is applied.

the.red.baron · 03-02-2016 3:32pm

Crocked wrote: »

Woman was knocked down and died in Dublin a few years ago. The registered owner of the car said he sold it, the Gardai traced the buyer who says he wasn't driving it. End result is no prosecution is made. It was captured on CCTV but no way to verify who was driving, case closed.

So who did they say was driving it? No details

Macy0161 · 03-02-2016 3:56pm

wally79 wrote: »

TThey fined for failure to disclose but outside of beefing up the penalty for that there isn't really much they can do.

If the two eligible drivers had blamed each other I assume they wouldn't even have been able to do that.

Should fine everyone who doesn't cooperate/ give an alibi in such circumstances!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-02-2016 4:12pm

seamus wrote: »

It sounds simple, but it may not have been a straightforward private rental. If it was part of a fleet scheme or a commercial rental, then the rental company may not have full or even nay details of the individual who rented it, and only company details.

Additionally in those cases the vehicle may be covered by a fleet policy rather than the rental company's policy (who will only have a separate policy covering damage or loss of their vehicle).

Which creates a rabbit-hole effect in all cases - having go through multiple layers of who did what and who's responsible.

The reason that the renter got away with a fine and points is because he got a non-criminal conviction. In practical terms these have a lower burden of proof than criminal convictions and practically all of them are heard in a non-jury court.
If you go for a GBH or hit-and-run conviction, you end up in a jury court and with a much higher burden of proof.

I think in this case the police themselves told the guy that if he accepted the non-criminal conviction that would be the end of it. It's a disgrace in itself that they wouldn't try to prosecute him fully, but the CPS may have already told them it was a non-runner due to the iffy evidence. So instead they called his bluff and went for the best prosecution they could manage.

Somebody somewhere should be held responsible, be it the rental company or the director of the company the vehicle was rented to.

I would say the outcome would be different if it was a member of the force on the bike.

Crocked · 03-02-2016 4:13pm

the.red.baron wrote: »

So who did they say was driving it? No details

I've no idea. Assume they just claimed they didn't know, keys were just laying around the house/pub or wherever and anyone could have taken the car.

It's sad state of affairs though when they can give you penalty points unless you can show you weren't driving the vehicle, but kill someone and they can do nothing.

bucketybuck · 03-02-2016 4:18pm

the.red.baron wrote: »

It would be down to you then to provide proof that it wasn't you.

I don't think the criminal justice system works like that...

NiallBoo · 03-02-2016 4:34pm

I wonder if it's possible to get these cameras with polarizing lenses?

Alanstrainor · 03-02-2016 4:37pm

NiallBoo wrote: »

I wonder if it's possible to get these cameras with polarizing lenses?

You can put a polarizing film over the lens. The problem is that this typically darkens the picture which makes night footage a lot worse.

seamus · 03-02-2016 4:58pm

Finley Famous Stampede wrote: »

Somebody somewhere should be held responsible, be it the rental company or the director of the company the vehicle was rented to.

He'll eventually track down someone who is civilly liable and get some compensation, but criminal liability isn't so simple. You have to have the actual individual who carried out the act. Someone can't be criminally liable by proxy.

Car rams cyclist, recorded by camera.

Comments