The Law is an ass.

[tut]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35472617

Unbelievable that with this evidence they could not convict the driver. He was in a hire car so they had the drivers details, it has to be close to manslaughter as he deliberately drove into him at speed so could have killed him, and they then charge him with not supplying driver details.

Am I missing something or are they really as inept as they appear?

tut

[Dominic]

Totally agree. Seems like they can't be bothered prosecuting. I'm sure if he had been speeding they would have gone to great lengths to prosecute.

So the moral of the story, if you want to be above the law and untouchable, use a hire car.

[BiggestNizzy]

It is a problem the same goes if there are 3 people in a room and one person kills another. If there is no other evidence other than the statements of the witness who says the killer did it and the killers who says the witness did it. Both go free.

[tut]

I was going to say the same Dom but it could sound like sour grapes.

I never had a problem with my pull, straightforward and deserved for unengaging brain, and although there are two sides to every story, I fail to see the other one in this case.

tut

[David]

Maybe not relevant to this case, but you do sometimes have to question the motive for cyclists recording such comprehensive multi cam action of their journeys. The growing use of cameras by the 'self-righteous' to provoke, enrage, and then entrap others for a bit of social media notoriety is a worrying trend. I think the police, and legal system, is well aware all may not be as it seems.

[tut]

Difficult to find a reason for a motorist to deliberately drive into a cyclist and put him in Hospital for four months David.

He had a rear facing camera on his bike just as many us have a front facing one on our cars. easy to see why in this case.

tut

[j2 lot]

I'm sure a bit of digging and viewing cameras in the surrounding area might have shown photos or video of the driver. Police in Glasgow regularly come to us to view CCTV for images after incidents that might be on our system.
All too frequently Policing in some areas is reactive and there's no real attempt made to investigate.

[Ferg]

It might be that the cyclist didn't have a sign saying cctv in operation in order to make it admissible in court? Yes, I'm serious. lol I may have half an end of the wrong stick though. We have some wearable CCTV experts in our midst so interesting to hear from them?

[Shug]

It might be that the cyclist didn't have a sign saying cctv in operation in order to make it admissible in court? Yes, I'm serious. lol I may have half an end of the wrong stick though. We have some wearable CCTV experts in our midst so interesting to hear from them?

Plenty of convictions in the public domain from dashcams, so one can only assume the footage wasn't clear or good enough?

[Lazydonkey]

Maybe not relevant to this case, but you do sometimes have to question the motive for cyclists recording such comprehensive multi cam action of their journeys. The growing use of cameras by the 'self-righteous' to provoke, enrage, and then entrap others for a bit of social media notoriety is a worrying trend. I think the police, and legal system, is well aware all may not be as it seems.

I don't commute by bike but on the rare occasions when i do happen to be on my bike at commuting hours and can totally see why you'd want a cam to record stuff in case something liek that happens. Yes there are wankers on bikes who post stuff on youtube to enrage the masses, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

There are plenty of car and truck owners recording their journeys now and i don't see similar rage at them. The taxi company i use in landan now has video in all cabs.

[BigD]

Clearly feel really sorry for the guy but if there's not enough evidence to convict then there's not enough evidence to convict. We still go on the premise of innocent until proven guilty which is a good thing. J2 Lot makes a good point about other CCTV in the area, surely there must've been something somewhere that showed the driver?!

What goes around comes around though.......

[Corranga]

Clearly feel really sorry for the guy but if there's not enough evidence to convict then there's not enough evidence to convict. We still go on the premise of innocent until proven guilty which is a good thing. J2 Lot makes a good point about other CCTV in the area, surely there must've been something somewhere that showed the driver?!

What goes around comes around though.......

There is evidence though. There is someone who signed a contract to hire that car. They must know who was driving it, otherwise they will have broken the contract with the hire company / someone would be driving without insurance etc.
A 6 points and a £150 quid for essentially withholding evidence on a serious crime like this since is pathetic and does nothing to make other cyclists feel safer on the roads.

TBH, I'm surprised the hire car company don't want to pursue and hand out mega bills for vehicle damage / the hirer letting someone else drive the car / potential uninsured driver / breaking the hire contract...

[tut]

Another example of why respect for the Police combined with the PF/CPS is being lost.

tut

[David]

It's up to the police to prove an offence has been committed.

We are luck to have a legal system that allows us to stay silent where an answer might incriminate ourselves. The alternative is a step closer to a state where interrogation and torture are the primary tools for crime solving. Extreme example maybe, but I'd rather not go there. It's better to let 100 guilty people off than convict one innocent person on the basis of hearsay, or a poorly worded answer. Just my opinion though.

[robin]

To be honest it does sound like with effort it should have been possible to prove the renter was the driver but it just didn't happen. Anyway, lesson learned - if you have an accident, drive off. Then refuse to say who was driving the car. 150 quid and 6 points and you're off into the sunset