Hit & Run - No Proscecution

Johno100

esuhl wrote: »

It's a criminal offence to leave the scene of an accident.

Yes, unless you are a cyclist.

missile

esuhl wrote: »

It's a criminal offence to leave the scene of an accident.

It's shocking that someone responsible for driving a ton of metal into someone would just leave them laying semi-conscious in the road.

It's quite rightly criminal, and the driver should face justice for their actions.

We have only the OPs description and we do not have all the facts. It is possible that when the police interviewed the driver he claimed he was not aware that he had struck the cyclist.

Stoke

G_M wrote: »

What are you expecting them to prosecute the driver for? Dangerous driving? Undue care and attention? Failing to stop following an accident?

I suspect the police have dismissed the first two, since as you admit, you "cycled across the road when I shouldn't".

And the last option they probably decided it was not in the public interest, due to the cost in money and police/CPS time in bringing a prosecution, weighed against thhe fact that the first two offences were dismissed.

You can be sure they'd have spent the money had it been the sergeants son though.

Just saying like.

esuhl

missile wrote: »

We have only the OPs description and we do not have all the facts. It is possible that when the police interviewed the driver he claimed he was not aware that he had struck the cyclist.

Then that would be careless driving, and still an offence. If a motorist hurls a tone of metal down public roads without even being aware of all the objects he's crashing into, then regardless of it being criminal, he needs to be taken off the road permanently for everyone's safety.

unforeseen

esuhl wrote: »

Then that would be careless driving, and still an offence. If a motorist hurls a tone of metal down public roads without even being aware of all the objects he's crashing into, then regardless of it being criminal, he needs to be taken off the road permanently for everyone's safety.

Feel free to take out a private prosecution against the driver then as the police obviously think that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute for ANY offence.

Of course you know better because of the evidence in this thread that the police obviously aren't aware of.

esuhl

unforeseen wrote: »

Feel free to take out a private prosecution against the driver then as the police obviously think that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute for ANY offence.

Of course you know better because of the evidence in this thread that the police obviously aren't aware of.

How do you know that there is insufficient evidence?! Do you know something we don't?

You obviously have no idea how this works. The police may have all the evidence they need, and still choose not to prosecute. You can make an official complaint and ask them to review their decision.

A cyclist on another forum was deliberately driven into by a car when he was stationary -- he had it all recorded. Police chose to take no action. Cyclist complained, and the driver was prosecuted for careless driving, fined and given a driving ban.

House_Martin

esuhl wrote: »

How do you know that there is insufficient evidence?! Do you know something we don't?

You obviously have no idea how this works. The police may have all the evidence they need, and still choose not to prosecute. You can make an official complaint and ask them to review their decision.

A cyclist on another forum was deliberately driven into by a car when he was stationary -- he had it all recorded. Police chose to take no action. Cyclist complained, and the driver was prosecuted for careless driving, fined and given a driving ban.

Yes I remember that incident.It was a clear case of attempted manslaughter by some chav in a hire car.
Shame on the policewoman involved in that case who could nt be bothered to trace the driver for a month after the incident .Justice was nt done.
I offered my cash to the young lad to pursue a civil case against this lout who mowed him down on purpose. Reginald was harmlessly making his way through Nottingham when this car driver decided he had been held up too long by the "hated cyclist in his lycra uniform "
The usual "suspects " are still making the same comments now as they did against the poor lad who was badly injured .Nothing changes with these people.The cyclist is "the enemy "
Mention the word "cyclist " to some of these people and automatically out come the vitriolic posts to side with anyone but the cyclist
I m not sure what these people are doing on a cycling and public transport forum because its obvious these people are just here on the lookout for an anti cyclist rant any chance they can get.
.Johno100 was very also prominent in the big Reginald Scott thread despite the huge evidence of the rear video damning evidence. Once again they sit behind what the police say or do, which is normally nothing at all.. we all know how the police operate nowadays, normally they don t "operate " at all. Not enough money to run the business.

The name in Youtube is "Reginald Scott " in Nottingham where you can see a deliberate ramming from behind where he went up on the drivers windscreen but the driver continued on without stopping.Chav driver pleaded innocent because "he was blind and totally deaf " behind the wheel at the time and was nt aware he had upended a cyclist from behind and threw him into his wiper blades This incident seems similar in that the driver would have been aware of hitting someone on a bike and committed a serious crime by not stopping

antrobus

Mmm. Yes. Well.

miniphernalia wrote: »

I admitted fault crossing the shared ped/bike crossing when I shouldn't of but they chose not to pursue me as I have lost the use of my right leg. They told me they were hopeful in prosecuting the driver until they said they weren't going to bother.

OP has "admitted fault". I'm not sure why they want the driver prosecuted. Policemen may well indeed seek to comfort the afflicted with hopeful words.

I'm disinclined to jump to any conclusions. For all we know the driver gave a statement along the lines of, 'Well I saw this lunatic ride across the road in front of me, swerve and crash into a tree. Nothing to do with me guv. I was not involved in any accident'.

missile

esuhl wrote: »

Then that would be careless driving, and still an offence. If a motorist hurls a tone of metal down public roads without even being aware of all the objects he's crashing into, then regardless of it being criminal, he needs to be taken off the road permanently for everyone's safety.

That is a ridiculous statement.

esuhl

missile wrote: »

That is a ridiculous statement.

No, that^^ is a ridiculous statement! :rotfl: