Police say horrific Nottingham hit-and-run resulted in £150 fine

Damian M wrote:

I thought there was a law called joint enterprise that couldve dealt with this, or has that been scrapped?

Joint enterprise hasn't been scrapped but it doesn't cover this (and never has). Joint enterprise is where people do things together. So if you go in and rob a bank while I keep the motor running outside and drive us away, we are both guilty of robbery. Equally if two drivers are racing along a road, egging each other on, then whichever one hits the cyclist, both are guilty of death by dangerous driving.

That's not the case here. To make joint enterprise stick you'd have to prove that both played a part in the driving. They probably didn't (maybe the passenger said "go on, hit him" but you'd never prove that). Joint enterprise covers "both were involved, so both are liable for the direct consequences of each other's actions". It doesn't cover " one of them did it so let's punish both ".

Dan S wrote:

Found it!

Have fun watching!

ironmancole wrote:

For me I accept there are genuine accidents. However, tanking down a rural road in an impreza with scant regard for anyone else who might be around the corner before ploughing into them is categorically NOT an accident.

It's wantant recklessness in the same manner as leaving a loaded gun at preschool then claiming innocence when the inevitable happens. 

Claiming there was no intent is a cop out, someone might not go out thinking 'I'm going to kill someone today' but in the same way as leaving the gun is stupid the same applies with driving like a tit.

At some point it's more than likely that someone will pull the trigger...or indeed drive into someone. The continued insistence of society and the judiciary that such obviously reckless acts in motor vehicles are random and unpreventable thus low culpability is 90% of the problem. 

I don't see where "no intent" would arise there. Driving too fast, with no regard for vulnerable road users, makes it a category 3 death by dangerous driving. Starting point 3 years, range of 2-5, according to the guidelines.

Paulo47 wrote:

Cycle in this country at your peril. The Police treat cyclists as second class citizens and this only encourages the ignorant and aggressive attitude that some drivers have. The Police are there to support the status quo, the majority's right to  drive, or do anything the majority do, note the creeping acceptance of using mobile phones at the wheel. Don't expect any enlightened or progressive attitudes or justice from the police or CPS. Cars are status and power, a big part of the economy, It's not the Police's job to undermine a driver of the economy. 
I hope there's a private prosecution and I hope neither the driver\s or Police, CPS get away with this.
 

Stumps, you see my point?

stumps wrote:

Dan S - thank you for some very insightful comments and i hope a lot of people on the forum read and digest them before blaming all and sundry.

In the end its a public forum so people can feel free to vent their spleen in any way they wish.

Sure, but it's nice if they vent them in a factually accurate way!

Seriously, there are things to be angry about and things that could be changed but misdirected rants waste that energy and undermine the good points.

ironmancole wrote:

Points are increasingly meaningless so the fine, representing just 15% of what could have been ordered is pathetic. In an exam that percentage is a fail.

On the other hand, 15% is a brilliant success rate for faith healers causing limbs to grow back.  That fact is every bit as irrelevant as whether or not it's a fail at any particular test.  It is certainly, on the face of it, far too low a fine.  The points may or may not be meaningless, it varies from person to person.  For some it represents loss of their job and subsequent financial ruin.  But I'm sure you know this person's circumstances...

Quote:

Meaningless fines also aside the scariest issue I think is this 'lack of intent' ergo it's an accident nonsense.

There's only so much that the police, CPS or Parliament can do about the workings of the English language, in which, depending on which dictionary you consult, the definition is likely to be something similar to "something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone".

Quote:

As we've read here in other posts the example of a baseball bat wielding thug fracturing a skull then arguing it was an accident and there was no intent wouldn't wash in court.

Leaving aside the technicalities of s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, your analogy is inapt on its face because in your example the person deliberately hits the other with the bat but does not intend to fracture the skull.  That is not the same as somebody who is acting perfectly lawfully apart from a lack of care.  To suit the driving, the analogy would have to be with somebody playing cricket in the park who swings the bat and hits somebody walking behind them.  Certainly their fault but not intentional.

It is unhelpful to talk about intention without defining exactly what you mean:

1. Clearly if a driver intends to hurt somebody then that is dangerous driving and will also constitute an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act (which one depending on the injuries and precise circumstances).

2. If a driver intends to collide with somebody but does not intend to injure them then the same thing applies as in 1.  In that situation a lack of intention to injure is a defence only if they are charged with an offence that require such intention (such as attempts or GBH with intent (s18 OAPA)).  This is where your baseball bat analogy would fit.

3. If they intend to scare somebody but not collide with them then the same principle applies as in 2, since making somebody fear immediate violence is an assault.  Again, the lack of intent to injure is not generally relevant, unless the Prosecution choose an offence that specifically alleges it.

Those three are pretty obvious.

4. If the driver intends to make a manoeuvre (say, turning left) and does so quite deliberately without checking their mirror (essentially not caring whether somebody is there, as opposed to forgetting to check it) then you could make an argument for calling it an assault on a reckless basis (it would partly depend on traffic conditions etc) but it would certainly be dangerous driving.  Of course it's hard to think of a case where this would arise because it would be very difficult to prove that state of mind.

5. If the driver intends to make that manoeuvre but simply has a lapse of attention and doesn't check their mirror/blind spot (or does so inadequately) then clearly they did not intend to cause the crash any more than a cyclist who absent-mindedly half-wheels or swerves intends to do so.  You can talk about blame all you like but talk of intention here is unhelpful.  The analogy with the baseball bat does not cover this situation, which is more akin to playing baseball in the park when the bat slips from your fingers and hits somebody nearby.  Not a perfect analogy, of course, but better than yours for this situation.

6. Finally we have the situation where the driver's action is involuntary, whether because of some sudden emergency making him swerve, some involuntary spasm etc.  Clearly talk of intention is unhelpful here.

A final point: if you sentence the people under 5&6 in the same way as people in 1&2 then you dilute the opprobrium that rightly attaches to the worst acts of driving, by lumping them in with mistakes that everybody makes but usually gets away with.

Quote:

Politicians ignore most petitions. Do we instead need an intelligent and focused attack of all responsible bodies stating lack of equality and lack of justice as reasons to support a no confidence drive?

Possibly, although I won't pretend to understand what you mean...

Quote:

Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion

No, this is not fact, this is your opinion, based on either inadequate evidence or inadequate understanding (or possibly both).  It is not OK for a cyclist to be killed.  That's why there are laws against it.  You may not like the laws, you may not like the way they are applied (at least on those occasions when you see it) but the fact is that cyclists are protected in the same way that everybody else is.  You're not special.  It's not perfect protection by any means but that's not the same as saying that it's OK to kill people.

There are undoubtedly sentences passed that are too lenient.  This happens in relation to all offences.  I've seen robbers and drug dealers walk out, as well as drivers who killed.  Cyclists aren't special.

Equally undoubtedly (at least in my opinion), drivers who kill get lenient sentences more often than most other offenders.  This is for two reasons.  First, it is much easier for a judge to  think "there but for the grace of god..." about a driver making a mistake than about a drug dealer.  Second, most such drivers are decent people, no previous convictions, loving families, devastated by remorse etc.  They arouse more sympathy personally than the average robber.  That doesn't make it right to under-sentence, it's just what happens.  The point, however, is that this applies to drivers who kill other drivers, their own passengers, pedestrians, horse riders, motorcyclists and cyclists.  You're not special.

Quote:

It's a human rights issue, always believed it has been.

Old legal adage: "If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If the facts are against you, argue the law.  If the law and the facts are against you, say it's a matter of human rights".

Quote:

This lack of intent loophole is terrifying and will continue to be used to sidestep both punishment and deterrant that is currently absent.

There isn't a lack of intention loophole.  There is simply a system that distinguishes between people who drive deliberately badly and people who make mistakes.

Dan S wrote:

Quote:

Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion

No, this is not fact, this is your opinion, based on either inadequate evidence or inadequate understanding (or possibly both).  It is not OK for a cyclist to be killed.  

clearly it is not OK but when we have

cyclists killed and drivers not charged, despite the impact proving the car drove into the cyclist who was directly in front of the driver.

cyclists killed and drivers aqquited by juries despite the impact being shown to have happened from directly behind with no possible space between the vehicle and the edge of the carriageway for even a dangerous pass to have been possible, the drivers phone records showing a string of text messages in the moments leading up to the impacxt and the driver blatently caught out lying in court

cyclists killed and the driver convicted but excused a custodial sentance.

It certainly starts to look like it is considered regretable collateral damage and evertything is allowed to continue as before.

it seems that the driver will only face prison time if;

a) driving while disqualified

b) driving under the influence of drinj/drugs

c) driver is a foregin lorry driver.

if 2000 people a year were being killed in industrial accidents, major investigations would result in major changes to regulation or serious consequences for fimrs breaching current regulations

If 2000 people a year were dieing to terrorist action, can you imagine the government response?

but 2000 people a year are dying on the roads and nothing changes.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Quote:

Fact is as a cyclist you are fodder, it's essentially ok for you to be killed in the most arbitrary fashion

No, this is not fact, this is your opinion, based on either inadequate evidence or inadequate understanding (or possibly both).  It is not OK for a cyclist to be killed.  

 

clearly it is not OK but when we have

cyclists killed and drivers not charged, despite the impact proving the car drove into the cyclist who was directly in front of the driver.

cyclists killed and drivers aqquited by juries despite the impact being shown to have happened from directly behind with no possible space between the vehicle and the edge of the carriageway for even a dangerous pass to have been possible, the drivers phone records showing a string of text messages in the moments leading up to the impacxt and the driver blatently caught out lying in court

cyclists killed and the driver convicted but excused a custodial sentance.

It certainly starts to look like it is considered regretable collateral damage and evertything is allowed to continue as before.

it seems that the driver will only face prison time if;

a) driving while disqualified

b) driving under the influence of drinj/drugs

c) driver is a foregin lorry driver.

if 2000 people a year were being killed in industrial accidents, major investigations would result in major changes to regulation or serious consequences for fimrs breaching current regulations

If 2000 people a year were dieing to terrorist action, can you imagine the government response?

but 2000 people a year are dying on the roads and nothing changes.

I'm not saying that bad driving shouldn't be more heavily punished. The point is, as I believe I've mentioned, cyclists are not singled out. Everything you mention applies to all other road user deaths, from car drivers to riders and pedestrians.
Look at your own figures: 2000 road deaths (actually about 1700, according to the figures I've seen), of which a tad over 100 are cyclists.

Dan S wrote:

 I'm not saying that bad driving shouldn't be more heavily punished. The point is, as I believe I've mentioned, cyclists are not singled out. Everything you mention applies to all other road user deaths, from car drivers to riders and pedestrians. Look at your own figures: 2000 road deaths (actually about 1700, according to the figures I've seen), of which a tad over 100 are cyclists.

OK, so the point, perhaps, is that killing with cars appears to be ok. My focus is skewed because, as a pedestrian I am either not in the road, or when crossing I feel I have more control of the risks involved, when I am in my car I have a massive steel safety cage and air bags, I don't ride a horse, so I only feel at risk as a cyclist.

I would be interested to know the conviction rates of drivers who kill other drivers, drivers who kill pedestrians (or people in shops and cafes) and drivers who kill cyclists. If those rates are shown to be equal then the statement that cyclists are not singled out holds true.

the talk is of wanting more people to cycle because it is good for the economy, good for congestion, good for NHS costs. But every time cyclists go on the roads we put our lives in the hands of others, because you cannot avoid someone simply ploughing straighht through the back of you as in this incident. Yet it often seems that the rules of the roads are might makes right.

@Dan S - interesting to see this from a different point of view (presumably the other side of the thin blue line).

I feel that I should bring you up on your "more rabidly anti-car than cyclists" comment. In my mind, being an anti-car cyclist is a rational opinion as cars cause the majority of incidents for cyclists. For the record, I think most drivers are reasonably competent - it's a small minority that cause the problems even though speeding/phone use/jumping red lights is considered normal amongst drivers.

With regards to your "accidental" point - if a driver consistently doesn't use their mirror to check for other road users before making a turn, then I'd consider that to be dangerous driving and although the outcome is not directly "intentional", I wouldn't consider it to be accidental as they are deliberately not considering other road users.

Dan S wrote:

There is a certain proportion of cyclists who like to think that the police say "it's just a driving matter" and put it in the "not important" pile.  This is (at least in my experience and my area) nonsense.  It may determine which officer investigates it (although not always) but nothing else.  The road deaths investigation team in my local constabulary is one of the best and most thorough teams I've seen.  

 

I realise that the police are not completely homogeneous.  But in my dealings with them a large proportion are very anti-cyclist.  I've even been told that it's cyclists fault most of the time when they get run over. 

Dan S wrote:

Your first point is entirely valid.  I would be very surprised if the police did not treat this as an assault as much as a dangerous driving.  Importantly, that distinction basically makes no difference.  There is a certain proportion of cyclists who like to think that the police say "it's just a driving matter" and put it in the "not important" pile.  This is (at least in my experience and my area) nonsense.  It may determine which officer investigates it (although not always) but nothing else.  The road deaths investigation team in my local constabulary is one of the best and most thorough teams I've seen.  

The article certainly does not show that this case was in any way neglected because it was a driving case (or because a cyclist was involved).  It is perfectly normal for robbers, rapists, drug dealers etc to get away with things because they can't be traced.  I've just been involved in a drugs case this year where the police actually have video footage of several people dealing drugs.  One of them we can't identify.  That is neither sinister nor incompetent.  It's just shit that happens.

Your second point needs to be clarified.  First, the fact that bad driving often goes unpunished is nothing to do with cyclists.  The same complaint is raised by pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, motorcyclists, horse riders (the only group I've come across who are more rabidly anti-car than cyclists) and other drivers (personally I hate taxi drivers, but that's just me...).  So no, cyclists aren't special.  You probably have a disproportionate sense of their vulnerability because you are one and because you read road.cc, which reports cases against cyclists but not against the others

I don't  doubt for one second that other road users also feel threatened.  The fact that everyone who isn't  in a cage feels threatened and  under served by the legal system might give you pause?

Quote:

"Accidental" means, to most people, "unintentional".  Somebody turning left but forgetting, in a momentary lapse, to check their wing mirror, causes an accident.  Turning was deliberate but hitting the cyclist on their inside, while the driver's fault, is an accident.  It is often a matter of luck: everybody has such lapses, whether driving or doing something else.  I've seen professional soldiers fire their weapons by accident and professional horse riders fall from a walking horse.  It even happens among cyclists: somebody strays a bit forwards and overlaps wheels; somebody changes line, forgetting to signal; maybe somebody just randomly falls.  It happens.  The consequences can be horrible and certainly the crash is their fault but that doesn't make them bad cyclists and it certainly doesn't mean that it wasn't an accident.

Certainly there are cases of genuine bad driving and certainly they should be prosecuted.  Where an impact is deliberate it is often charged as an assault rather than a driving offence.  None of which provides the police or CPS with some mystical power to make evidence appear from thin air or to change the law at the drop of a hat.

Of course anyone can indeed do accidental things. But if the soldiers in question  consistently carried their weapons with safety off in public places, it would be rather unsurprising if an 'accident 'occurred, and  one would hope they'd be discouraged from doing so in time to prevent the accident.

oldstrath wrote:

I don't  doubt for one second that other road users also feel threatened.  The fact that everyone who isn't  in a cage feels threatened and  under served by the legal system might give you pause?

Certainly.  But having made something of a study of the legal system and keeping a balanced approach in mind I have yet to see a substantially better way of doing things.  By all means encourage better driving, improve infrastructure, increase penalties for bad driving etc but none of that would help in situations like this one.

Quote:

Of course anyone can indeed do accidental things. But if the soldiers in question  consistently carried their weapons with safety off in public places, it would be rather unsurprising if an 'accident 'occurred, and  one would hope they'd be discouraged from doing so in time to prevent the accident.

YI'm not sure what point you're making.  Soldiers do indeed get punished for negligent discharges, in public or otherwise.  Just like drivers do in fact get punished if there is an accident that is felt by the court to be their fault.  And that includes momentary lapses.  They may not always be convicted and the people who acquit them or who give them lenient sentences may not always do what you, after reading a 200 word article, think they should do.  But the penalty exists and if you think it never gets applied then you need to get some grasp on the realities of the criminal justice system over and above what you read in the papers and on forums.