Cyclist hit and run

AlanCarter

londonTiger wrote: »

I guess our Justice system is becoming like Chinas, in china if you run over a pedestrian, you better go back and run over them again and make sure they're dead. If they survive you have to pay for their care for the rest of their life. If you kill them you can say it was an accident and get locked up for 2-3 years.

Had the driver waited they would have been identified, prosecuted and had their license revoked. But since they were not identified the registered keeper gets 6 points and a paltry fine. You get a bigger fine for not paying your tv license.

Only if the were a new driver and got six points or more. Even then they get a provisional licence straight away.

Retrogamer

edgex wrote: »

err, was this the two that were 'authorised' to be driving the car?
If so, how was the car there at that time?

They claimed someone else must have taken it out a drive without them knowing and without their consent.

[Deleted User]

Retrogamer wrote: »

They claimed someone else must have taken it out a drive without them knowing and without their consent.[/QUOTE
Where did you see the "undeniable " evidence that the the two who initially hired the car were not driving it at the time of the attack on the cyclist ?

Retrogamer

sacsquacco wrote: »

Where did you see the "undeniable " evidence that the the two who initially hired the car were not driving it at the time of the attack on the cyclist ?

I didn't see the "undeniable" evidence"but i read it was provided on one of the many websites & blogs the details of the case were posted.

Johno100

sacsquacco wrote: »

Where did you see the "undeniable " evidence that the the two who initially hired the car were not driving it at the time of the attack on the cyclist ?

You are still struggling with this aren't you. The question should be, where is the undeniable evidence that one of them was driving the car.

As for "attack on the cyclist" have you never heard of Hanlon' razor?

[Deleted User]

Sorry if the words "attack on a cyclist " wound you up johno( I thought it would ) but I m only repeating what the cyclist involved thought of it when he commented on the youtube blog describing it as a " senseless and brutal attack on a fellow human being " He also added that the police told him they did nt have the funds to continue the investigation further and that had he been killed more would have been done.
I hope the police had the sense to do a mobile phone track on the pair who hired the car. There is evidence that two people were in the car and that one would ve most probably had a mobile phone switched on.

AlanCarter

sacsquacco wrote: »

Sorry if the words "attack on a cyclist " wound you up johno( I thought it would ) but I m only repeating what the cyclist involved thought of it when he commented on the youtube blog describing it as a " senseless and brutal attack on a fellow human being " He also added that the police told him they did nt have the funds to continue the investigation further and that had he been killed more would have been done. You can't blame them for being honest.
I hope the police had the sense to do a mobile phone track on the pair who hired the car.RIPA probably wouldn't allow that and it's already been covered. There is evidence that two people were in the car Where has that come from? Anyway it's still not evidence it's the two suspects. and that one would ve most probably had a mobile phone switched on.Thats just speculation.

Is this a genuine lack of understanding in your part?

neilmcl

sacsquacco wrote: »

Sorry if the words "attack on a cyclist " wound you up johno( I thought it would ) but I m only repeating what the cyclist involved thought of it when he commented on the youtube blog describing it as a " senseless and brutal attack on a fellow human being " He also added that the police told him they did nt have the funds to continue the investigation further and that had he been killed more would have been done.
I hope the police had the sense to do a mobile phone track on the pair who hired the car. There is evidence that two people were in the car and that one would ve most probably had a mobile phone switched on.

Would have proved nothing. Sorry but you've really been clutching at straws throughout this thread.

[Deleted User]

Reginald Scot did an interview with BBC news on 3 rd Feb when he said that the two occupants of the car both admitted to being in possession of the car on that day and admitted driving it on that day but just that both claimed they did nt remember hitting anyone.
The cyclist go s on to say that weighing 70kg, bike 10kg it would be hard not to notice and that the two were just being dishonest and says the police and CPS could ve done more.

Silver-Surfer_2

sacsquacco wrote: »

Reginald Scot did an interview with BBC news on 3 rd Feb when he said that the two occupants of the car both admitted to being in possession of the car on that day and admitted driving it on that day but just that both claimed they did nt remember hitting anyone.
The cyclist go s on to say that weighing 70kg, bike 10kg it would be hard not to notice and that the two were just being dishonest and says the police and CPS could ve done more.

He's wrong about the CPS. Do you have a link to his interview? Surely he'd be able to say whether a male or female was driving. If he can't then maybe the police were right in not doing more. CCTV a mile from the scene is no good as the drivers could have swapped between that point and the accident.