We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cyclist hit and run
Comments
-
AlanCarter wrote: »You really have no idea about the legal system and evidence have you?
It's nothing to do with the legal system.
The CPS dropped it because, quite rightly, they didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the offender was.
That lack of evidence lies firmly at the foot of the police who were investigating the incident.
In this day and age of mass CCTV, electronic transactions, etc it should have been very easy for the police to prove either who was driving the vehicle or if one of the suspects was elsewhere.
Debit card transactions for instance, cash withdrawals, mobile phone GPS, etc could have all placed one of the two possible suspects elsewhere and provided the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the offender was.
The police simply didn't carry out an investigation of any sort.0 -
It's nothing to do with the legal system.
The CPS dropped it because, quite rightly, they didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the offender was.
That lack of evidence lies firmly at the foot of the police who were investigating the incident.
In this day and age of mass CCTV, electronic transactions, etc it should have been very easy for the police to prove either who was driving the vehicle or if one of the suspects was elsewhere.
Debit card transactions for instance, cash withdrawals, mobile phone GPS, etc could have all placed one of the two possible suspects elsewhere and provided the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the offender was.
The police simply didn't carry out an investigation of any sort.
Another who doesn't understand. Have you considered the female maybe a suspect by virtue she is on the insurance but as she hasn't been named as a driver any RIPA application into her phone or bank activity is likely to be refused?0 -
I'm now firmly in the camp that motorised vehicles and cycles should not share the same road (at least in busy towns/cities)
^^this
It irritates me when I see cyclists are driving on road instead of using cycle paths besides which clearly exists.
On the other hand, law should be changed to that if registered keeper can't identify driver then keeper will be prosecuted assuming he/she is the driver.Happiness is buying an item and then not checking its price after a month to discover it was reduced further.0 -
Many if not most supermarket car parks have one way only lanes.diamond_dave wrote: »Got to put my 2pennies' worth! After watching that car crash programme on ITV I decided that I'd better put on high viz when I went for a short ride yesterday. Coming through a supermarket car park(not fast) a lady coming from the other direction decided to turn across me to get into a parking space. As she wasn't stopping, I had to remonstrate with her then went and parked up. On seeing her walking into the supermarket, I merely said" That's why cyclists get killed - you weren't looking." Her reply? " You saw me turning and just carried on going!!" I'm on a bike and you're in a big car turning across in front of me". ......
Were you in a two way lane and on the correct side of that lane?
(You possibly being in the wrong lane doesn't necessarily excuse her not seeing you nor her behaviour)0 -
It irritates me when I see cyclists are driving on road instead of using cycle paths besides which clearly exists.
And why ? Because the cycle lane is poor, so poor it is a worse experience than cycling with the traffic on the road.
One of the bits of the new London cycle superhighways that is completed runs by my office. All the cyclists along here ARE using it - because it is a BETTER experience than cycling with the traffic on the road0 -
It irritates me when I see cyclists are driving on road instead of using cycle paths besides which clearly exists.
Depends on the type of 'cycle path'.
If it's something like the London cycle Superhighways then in most situations I would use them.
If you're talking about cycle paths that are actually on the pavement then no I won't use them.
Why? because I usually travel at around 20MPH and weigh 15 stone. If I hit a pedestrian at that speed with the chunk of metal i'm riding then I will do a lot of damage and this type of path along with shared space cycling paths are not designed for a commuting cyclist
The reason cyclists do not use certain cycling facilities is because they are usually more dangerous than the alternative and also because we have exactly the same right to use the public highway as cars do.0 -
And why ? Because the cycle lane is poor, so poor it is a worse experience than cycling with the traffic on the road.
So what? Using that logic motorists should drive on footpath if road surface has potholes, mothers with pushchairs, mobility scooters should walk on roads if footpath is uneven etc. Motorists has to put up with bad roads, so cyclists have to put up with whatever cycle paths are offered.Happiness is buying an item and then not checking its price after a month to discover it was reduced further.0 -
It's nothing to do with the legal system.
The CPS dropped it because, quite rightly, they didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the offender was.
That lack of evidence lies firmly at the foot of the police who were investigating the incident.
In this day and age of mass CCTV, electronic transactions, etc it should have been very easy for the police to prove either who was driving the vehicle or if one of the suspects was elsewhere.
Debit card transactions for instance, cash withdrawals, mobile phone GPS, etc could have all placed one of the two possible suspects elsewhere and provided the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the offender was.
The police simply didn't carry out an investigation of any sort.
You can't convict someone on lack of evidence that they weren't there which is all credit card transactions etc. provide.
The problem that I see is the message going out that if you keep your mouth shut you can take a 6 point hit for S172 rather than risk a conviction for careless/dangerous/leaving the scene etc. which could have been a much worse outcome for the driver.
Only the keeper has to demonstrate due diligence, the speculative S172 sent to the partner can be relied to with "I don't know, and cannot provide further information as I wasn't there"
Maybe the S172 penalty should be a minimum of 6 points, and a maximum of whatever the penalty would be for the original offence, or seize & crush the vehicle maybe???I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science
)0 -
So what? Using that logic motorists should drive on footpath if road surface has potholes, mothers with pushchairs, mobility scooters should walk on roads if footpath is uneven etc. Motorists has to put up with bad roads, so cyclists have to put up with whatever cycle paths are offered.
No, cyclists and motorists can only go where they're legally entitled. In the case of the motorist, that's on the road. In the case of the cyclist that's on the road or the cyclepath. Both then choose the least worst of the options open to them.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards