Cyclist hit and run

[Deleted User]

Just look on the lower link of the first post. Interview shown in full of a pleasant young lad with his bike. Someone who maybe Johno100 would call " your local lycra warrior " while you re at it have a look at the hundreds of Youtube google blogs, its much more amusing, and read how what the rest of the world thinks about it rather than the biased views of a strictly motoring forum. Seems like 9 out 10 are livid and amazed at the injustice.

neilmcl

sacsquacco wrote: »

Seems like 9 out 10 are livid and amazed at the injustice.

Perfect right to be livid and perhaps the fine itself was too low but there's no need to be "amazed" about an "injustice". One thing you just don't seem to grasp is that the CPS can and will only prosecute when there's evidence to do so. No such evidence exists in this case to say who actually was behind the wheel.

Silver-Surfer_2

sacsquacco wrote: »

Just look on the lower link of the first post. Interview shown in full of a pleasant young lad with his bike. Someone who maybe Johno100 would call " your local lycra warrior " while you re at it have a look at the hundreds of Youtube google blogs, its much more amusing, and read how what the rest of the world thinks about it rather than the biased views of a strictly motoring forum. Seems like 9 out 10 are livid and amazed at the injustice.

Not really much of an interview was it? Anyone know what the further evidence was? Obviously still not enough for a prosecution.

I think the polices only failing here is not leaving him with a clear indication as to why they closed the case. Or maybe they did and that wouldn't make a good news story.

robbies_gal

terrible so all u have to do is not reply to who was driving and u can get away with anything

Silver-Surfer_2

robbies_gal wrote: »

terrible so all u have to do is not reply to who was driving and u can get away with anything

Only if they don't have any evidence to convict you. Happens every day of the week, if the police have no evidence any solicitor would advise no comment for an interview and the suspect walks. I'm not sure why so many are surprised at that.

facade

robbies_gal wrote: »

terrible so all u have to do is not reply to who was driving and u can get away with anything

That is why the s172 offence was created, with a 6 point penalty, and insurers really don't like to see it, as it means that you preferred to take a 6 point hit rather than admit that you were driving, so the offence you were ducking out of must have been Very Serious Indeed.

brat

facade wrote: »

That is why the s172 offence was created, with a 6 point penalty, and insurers really don't like to see it, as it means that you preferred to take a 6 point hit rather than admit that you were driving, so the offence you were ducking out of must have been Very Serious Indeed.

From my recollection the S172 penalty has evolved as a consequence of postal prosecutions for speeding offences. It used to be 3 points and £1000 max fine, but was increased about 8 years ago to 6 points to make drivers think twice about not replying to the speeding letter, or lie about their knowledge of who was driving.

It's always only going to be little more than an aid to identifying an offender; after all if you commit an offence while not in a motor vehicle, you don't bear a number on your back that might identify you. The recipient of the S172 letter has the opportunity to choose what is in their least worst interest.
I don't know the full circumstances, but the hirer and the other user are both suspects for this assault/ dangerous driving, so I'd have had both arrested and interviewed.

Silver-Surfer_2

brat wrote: »

From my recollection the S172 penalty has evolved as a consequence of postal prosecutions for speeding offences. It used to be 3 points and £1000 max fine, but was increased about 8 years ago to 6 points to make drivers think twice about not replying to the speeding letter, or lie about their knowledge of who was driving.

It's always only going to be little more than an aid to identifying an offender; after all if you commit an offence while not in a motor vehicle, you don't bear a number on your back that might identify you. The recipient of the S172 letter has the opportunity to choose what is in their least worst interest.
I don't know the full circumstances, but the hirer and the other user are both suspects for this assault/ dangerous driving, so I'd have had both arrested and interviewed.

By hirer and othe user do you mean the male and female suspects? The vehicle in this case appears to have gone through a number of hands. Out of interest what would be your necessity for arrest in these circumstances?

brat

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

By hirer and othe user do you mean the male and female suspects? The vehicle in this case appears to have gone through a number of hands. Out of interest what would be your necessity for arrest in these circumstances?

Apologies if I haven't followed the detail of this story, but if the video came to me and my investigations led to there being two suspects, namely those who had the legal use of the vehicle, they would be coming in under arrest on suspicion of a serious assault, the reason being that an effective investigation of this serious offence may benefit from them not having the opportunity to collude.

In my view it is inappropriate to rely on S172 as the investigative tool for this offence.

Silver-Surfer_2

brat wrote: »

Apologies if I haven't followed the detail of this story, but if the video came to me and my investigations led to there being two suspects, namely those who had the legal use of the vehicle, they would be coming in under arrest on suspicion of a serious assault, the reason being that an effective investigation of this serious offence may benefit from them not having the opportunity to collude.

In my view it is inappropriate to rely on S172 as the investigative tool for this offence.

Which part of the necessity test do your custody officers allow that to fall under?