sw20

'Brutal' cyclist hit and run captured on video - BBC News

absolutely unbelievable!

ultraman6970

This sucks. Who knows how is the law in the UK about it because you cant see who is driving the car. The car should have scratches of the accident but if they dont remember driving the car and hitting the guy sounds like a super lame xcuse IMO, this sucks for the rider

BillyD

Moving from General Cycling.

chasm54

It has nothing to do with who "remembers" driving the car. It is that the people who were, according to the hire company, eligible to drive have refused to confirm who was actually driving. That's a legal obligation, so they've been fined for that. However, it means that the police cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt who was the driver, so a prosecution for the hit and run would fail.

Mark Stone

It's a jungle out there

rydabent

This should not be a big deal to figure out who was driving. If it was a rental, who rented it at the time of the accident?

Or--------------charge the rental car company a huge fine unless they provide the name of the renter.

hatrack71

He needs a lawyer to file a civil suit against the rental company for pain and suffering and negligence.

chasm54

You don't get it. The rental company have provided the names of the hirers. But the two people they say were entitled to drive won't confirm which, if any of them, were driving, and the police are therefore unable to prove who is the guilty party.

hatrack71

Well, it had to be one of them. The car didn't drive itself now did it? If they don't know which one drove...try to have charges filed against both. Obstruction being one of them. Were either of the two drivers in the contract even called for questioning/interrogation? I mean..geez..somebody got hurt and nearly killed. And to be honest.. it almost looked intentional. If someone else was driving the car, they would know because I didn't read anywhere that it was reported stolen. Which makes them fully liable in my opinion. All names named on the rental contract. Something is seriously wrong with this situation. No way they should be able to let this slide.

chasm54

Why don't you read the article?

They've been fined for refusing to disclose the identity of the driver, which is a legal obligation. But to get a conviction for the hit and run, the police have to identify the driver beyond reasonable doubt, which they can't do.

hatrack71

Failure to provide driver details? I can't believe that applies in a case where permanent bodily injury was caused. That sounds like an admission of guilt to me. Also the fact that neither driver initially responded casts doubt. But it seems like they just want to treat this like an ordinary speeding ticket and let both driver's lies stand. Because holding back information is exactly the same as lying in this case. I do see what you are trying to say though.

asmac

Couldn't they charge the principal renter and call the other one as a witness? She'd have to lie under oath to get him off or admit she was driving.

hatrack71

That's what I don't get. They had to lie or obstruct under oath if they were indeed questioned in court. But how would they know which one was lying the most? :^) Because they both had to lie to some extent. Unless it was like an Ollie North trial that is. I say they should've sent them to Gitmo to get it out of them.

italianstallion

Absolutely unbelievable. He's no better off than if he didn't have any cameras on his bike. Disgusting, I hope this turns into some sort of outrage for the guy and it can't be ignored.

Seattle Forrest

Why are you being such a downer? Can't the police just declare one of them guilty? It doesn't really matter which one does it? We want justice!

FBinNY 

+1,

For a criminal charge to be prosecuted successfully, they have to put a driver into the car at the time. It has nothing to do with being pro driver or anti cyclist or both, it's simply how criminal law works.

There's a good basis to assume that it's either of the possible drivers, because Either or both drivers are within their rights to simply say "it wasn't me, must have been the other guy", and the prosecution have to crack that or prove both were in the car at the time to prove their case. I'm not sure what the "failure to provide" details fine is about unless one refused to at least name the other possible driver.

However, I assume that UK has civil process similar to the USA, so the hire car company would be responsible for financial compensation for the victim's damages.

italianstallion

I wonder if you could go to some tapes of the traffic cameras in the area and attempt to get a positive ID of who was behind the wheel at the time, either from the side or from the front with less glare on the windshield. Or maybe I'm giving big brother too much credit in the surveillance department here.

hatrack71

I was thinking facial recognition software as well. These two individuals made a mockery out of the poor guy who was injured, the police and government by getting away with it. Using some sort of version of the 5th amendment or whatever. They both lied by omission. All parties knew it had to be one of the two drivers. Pathetic.

Maybe a private investigator and better lawyer would help this guy? If the drivers weren't charged with anything other than not providing driver info it wouldn't be double jeopardy for any additional charges filed but that one. Am I wrong? At least with the PI, he can get closure with identifying who ruined his life. Man, the more I think about this.. the more I really feel for this cyclist. He got so effed over it's really sad.

Agent Cooper

Here's what I don't get about this. It's been a while since I rented a car, but I used to do it pretty regularly. And when you rent a car, you MUST give the rental company the name of the person driving the car. In your rental agreement it states very clearly that NOBODY ELSE is allowed to drive the car but the person renting it. (YOU)

And YOU, the renter, are responsible for the car. If you lend it to your uncle pookie and he wrecks it, guess who has to pay for it? YOU do. Because you signed the contract.

So why not go after the person on the rental agreement? Even if they weren't driving, they are still responsible. And going after them, they will probably testify to who was really behind the wheel to save themselves.

Yes? No? *shrug*

hatrack71

Problem is they both will not say who was behind the wheel. It's actually a childish little game when you think about it. So the prosecution can't put anyone there....without evidence. Hire a PI. The two drivers would never make the connection and might slip up and say something.

chasm54

There were two named drivers on the rental agtreement. The police did go after them, but were unable to establish which was driving. Hence no proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for a criminal conviction, was available.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Don't American courts require proof?

hatrack71

Where's the dirty cop to force a confession when you need him? :^) Sorta seems like the rental agency and two drivers had their way with the investigation team on this one. If there even was one.

italianstallion

I don't think that part is hard to understand. Its just like someone said its a specific loophole that just doesn't seem right.

FBinNY 

Half right.

Yes, you must identify yourself as the driver, and show your license.

BUT

You can also add other authorized drivers to the contract, and this is commonly done when for example a married couple rent a car for a long trip or when 2 businessmen rent together.

While it isn't made absolutely clear, this seems to be the case here.

FBinNY 

It's not a loophole. We have a case where one or the other must be guilty (by elimination) but have no proof which. Unless they were both in the car at the time, one is guilty, but the other is 100% uninvolved and innocent. If each say the other is guilty, there's no way the state could convict either, and closing the "loophole" by somehow convicting both would be a travesty.

Yes, it's unfair from the victim's standpoint, but it's the ONLY way our justice system could work.

BTW- If this happened in France, both could be charged and each would have the burden of proving his innocence.