- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Car involved in Nottingham hit and run (taken from YouTube video).jpgNottingham hit and run victim believes driver could have been identified if investigation had been widened sooner
The cyclist involved in a horrifying hit and run in Nottingham for which the driver was not prosecuted has expressed frustration at the pace and scope of the police investigation. Reginald Scot believes that the driver responsible could have been identified had the investigation been widened sooner.
Two people were permitted to drive the vehicle on the day of the collision and Scot says their defence basically amounted to being unable to remember who was behind the wheel. However, The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the prosecutions for failing to stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident on the grounds that there was not enough evidence. A 54-year-old man who was eligible to drive the car received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details.
Scot suggests there may have been an early assumption that his own video footage would have been enough to secure a conviction. In a recent YouTube update he adds that a heavy reliance on paperwork slowed the police investigation and resulted in further potential evidence being lost.
He describes the officer involved in the investigation as ‘one of the good ones’.
“If people think I’m directly criticising her, I’m not. What I’m criticising – if I do have any criticism of the police in general – is the formulation of the way they set out their investigation.
“Basically, I think what it is, is that all investigations, when they’re established, they have to follow almost a tick sheet. So each officer has a set of requirements they have to go through – a set of rings they have to jump through – and that makes it very restrictive for them to complete a decent investigation, in my opinion.”
Scot says the responses he got when making suggestions how to advance the investigation were that either there wasn’t the time or money, or that the officer would be required to complete certain other steps first.
For example, he believes there was at least one other camera which captured footage of the crash. He says that a nurse who came to see him when he was lying in the street did so after been called out by a security guard who had seen the incident on the CCTV of a nearby NHS centre.
Scot says this footage was lost due to the time that passed before the police realised they needed further evidence.
He quotes the officer involved as having at one point said: “I cannot speed up the process that I have to follow and it may seem that things are a little quiet but that is only because I am waiting on paperwork.” He says she later added that if police had been dealing with a more serious injury or fatality, they would have been ‘trawling through every CCTV camera in the area’ – “However, in this situation I intend to keep enquiries proportionate and realistic.”
Duncan Dollimore from CTC’s Road Justice Campaign said the case highlighted the need to fully investigate road collisions, and not just treat them as minor road traffic offences.
“The driver of this vehicle has not been identified, but it is unclear whether attempts were made to interrogate the mobile phone record of the person who hired the vehicle in question, which could have identified whether he made or received any calls within the immediate area of the collision at the relevant time.
“Given the location of the collision it would also seem likely that CCTV footage from or near the scene would have been available, however there appears to be some suggestion that this was lost because it was not viewed or seized quickly enough, which highlights the need for thorough and expeditious investigations in these cases.
“Secondly this case highlights a significant problem with the current legislation, where the relatively minor penalty for failing to disclose the name of the driver of a vehicle arguably presents an incentive to drivers to leave the scene of an incident if there are multiple users of a vehicle and a possibility they might not be identified.
“The Government needs to reconsider the penalties when the registered owner, keeper or hirer of a vehicle fails to provide the drivers details, and effectively make this a more serious offence. Perhaps they could do this within their long promised review of motoring offences and penalties, the review the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling promised in May 2014, and which we are still waiting for.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Zebra 3 sec ago
One thing which will influence me next time I buy new wheels is the noise which the freehub makes - how loud it is. I have tinitus and am quite...
- David9694 48 min 19 sec ago
More notice needed for Remembrance Sunday road closures...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 29 min ago
This is an impressive new way of avoiding work by the police! Several crimes here (eg. phone use) - so is the new game "if we can identify *one*...
- HeadDown 1 hour 52 min ago
Which explains a lot. I reckon the standard of driving in the UK has noticeably decreased in the last 5-10 years. A host of factors no doubt, but I...
- Keykey1985 2 hours 27 min ago
He wasn't brake-checking me, he was trying to get me to stop. Nothing good would have come from me stopping.
- PRSboy 2 hours 45 min ago
It was designed around 28mm tyres but there's lots of clearance and could certainly take bigger tyres.
- Cugel 2 hours 48 min ago
A dinosaur version is shurely for the kiddies. Myself I'd like The Hindenburg. There may be The Freisian, filled with methane rather than hydrogen,...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 2 min ago
When I see SLOW HORSES I always think ah, so this is where the ones I bet on are kept...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 43 min ago
No great mystery in either case, surely? Both US politician and the motor trade say "choose us and your life will be better and easier!" And other...
- stonojnr 5 hours 55 min ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
Add new comment
30 comments
Idle thought.
I open my iPad with my thumbprint (and make purchases too), to access a lot of construction sites from the welfare you use a finger-print or face-recognition turnstyles and lots of office buildings either use finger-print or face recognition entry systems. So how difficult would it be to fit to a car so that only the authorised driver can drive.
I know it's not foolproof as there is nothing to stop the authorised driver standing outside the vehicle and reaching in to activate the ignition for an unauthorised driver but it would be a start.
Yes but there were TWO authorised drivers. That's the whole point. So it could be either. So your thumb idea wouldn't help unless it recorded times and dates of access.
Sorry! I'm that used to these systems keeping a time log that I didn't feel it necessary to specifically mention it.
These systems record times so that in the event of a situation requiring evacuation of the site/building a printout is obtained so a roll call can be taken.
Therefore the main means of circumventing the system is the one I detailed. However, if the person who activates the ignition is deemed to be the driver at the time of any incident then someone is always able to be held to account even if they swap over with the engine running.
I hope this has added some clarity.
Were both of the registered drivers in the car at the time of the collision, or just one?
Its pretty impossible given the video evidence to suggest it did not happen. Its pretty impossible to say it was another car. Which leaves "who was driving"... if they had tripped a speed camera they would not have got away with it by claiming they "didn't remember speeding". The CPS and Police frankly don't give a toss - its the only explanation.
So from the article and the points made in comments, anyone who shares a car can do whatever they like whilst driving it and as long as the driver at the time cannot be identified, the worst that'll happen is a fine and 6 points?
"Did you murder Jane Doe?", "erm I can't remember". "Fair enough, case closed". I'm sure when I started driving in the late 70's failing to stop at the scene of an accident "hit & run" was considered a serious offence. Seems to be no penalty for this now.
How to identify the driver? 2 registered possible drivers. Time of accident recorded by the video I assume. Investigate where the 2 people were at that time? Can anyone or any instrumentation be produced to prove they were elsewhere at the time of the accident?
Out of interest Is the registered keeper the hire company, ie the owner, or the driver who hired the car?
yepp, my understanding of the law is that if I own a car then I am obliged to provide details of it, etc. If there was an accident involving my car at 9am then I can use the defence of "I cannot remember" when asked who was driving it at that time. I would then be liable for the 6 points/fine but not any charges arising from how the car was being driven at that time.
If you think about it, it is a plausible defence in some instances since the actual driver might swap over many times on a journey so it might not be possible to accurately say who was driving at any specific time but the registered keeper remains liable for not recording that detail rather than any crimes commited.
Seems valid for speed camera offence, but knocking a cyclist flying and not remembering defies belief.
There seems to be some confusion. As I understand it the registered owner responded to the NIP and gave the names of the couple who registered to drive the car. The couple simply claimed to have no recollection of the incident or who was driving so the CPS decided they could not prosecute the driver for any driving offence as they could not make a positive identification.
There is. It's not clear whether the registered keeper was the person who copped the fine or some other person. The implication from the "eligible to drive" suggests the latter.
The registered owner is the hire company which owns the vehicle. I thought the man who hired the car was fined, presumably as the temporary registered keeper.
There are so many articles it's hard to know what is true or not. Elsewhere, I am sure that the "couple" had said neither could be sure. So, on that basis, it's hard to know how he copped it rather than her. It's not very clear and I guess never will be. It's possible that they are the keepers of the car at the end of whatever complicated line there is.
by putting the image through some photoshop filters, although not definitive to my eyes it certainly looks like there is a male driver looking down to his right as impact happens and a female passenger looking out of her righthand side window. Totally wrong that they should get off so lightly
Which man and woman are they?
I'm sure the police know which man and woman they are, but can't prove who was driving, as I said it's by no means conclusive. Still it's academic now that CPS have decided no further action.
The s172 notice goes to the registered keeper. The registered keeper is generally eligible to drive. That person, quite clearly, pleaded guilty to the offence and did not, for example, it seems, use the defence of due dilligence.
While the victim is keen to avoid blaming the police and the specific officer in charge of the case, if this quote is accurate then I place the blame squarely on her:
Her judgement is that it is not important that someone drove a dangerous vehicle, in broad daylight into another road user.
Sounds to me like she's just another jobsworth that doesn't give a damn that thousands of people are killed and many more seriously injured by the use of vehicles.
Probably the victim should have reported that it was a foreigner in a hijab riding a bicycle that crashed into him. Then they could deploy some armed police to the scene and deploy spy cameras all over the country. "They'll be so useful in deterring street crime."
In reply to MALDIN's question,
Surely the punishment for this incident would have been more than 6points and £150?
Going by past sentences that have been reported on here probably not.
Why not make it part of the car hire agreement that the first named driver is assumed, in the event of collision or traffic offence, to be the driver unless evidence can be provided otherwise?
Clearly the law is flawed - the penalty for failing to identify the driver (if it wasn't you) should be the same penalty as that of the possible crime committed! Surely the punishment for this incident would have been more than 6points and £150? in which case, as things stand, simply refusing to cooperate and taking the 6points is an easy loop hole get out of a more serious charge. It seems to me that it's more difficult to get out of a parking ticket than it was for this driver to get away with what they did.
I must be misunderstanding something: how can the driver be given six points on their license if they refuse to provide details of who they are?
The driver "can't remember" if they were driving... The police think they know who was driving but when they asked the driver denies everything and the whole thing falls apart.
So yes the law needs to be changed, make "forgetfullness" as punished as the act you claim not to remember.
OK. Got it. Thank you. So "failing to provide details" does not mean, as I had thought, refuses to provide insurance and ID, but rather "details of where X was at a specific time and date".
Nearly. They don't have to say where X was, they have to confirm who was at the wheel of the car. So if the police ask me where my wife was at 10am this morning I don't have to tell them anything; if they ask who was driving my car at 9am I have to tell them it was my wife.
And, as has just been shown, if you've got a spare £150 (Though better make it a grand, just incase you get a magistrate in a bad mood.) and don't mind taking six points (Though could be less, again at the whim of a magistrate.) you don't even have to tell them that.
Because the fine and points aren't awarded to the driver, they're awarded to the registered keeper of the vehicle (or the hirer in this case), who has a duty to provide details of the person driving the car, whether that is themselves or someone else.
Edit: I type too slowly.
So, is the hirer an individual person, or is it a company?
If it's an individual, then it seems inevitable that they would accumulate an unfathomable number of points because it's just the nature of the beast. And if that's the case does it mean that manager of the local branch of the hire company, or whereever has essentially the expectation that s/he will be banned from driving at some point?
If it is a company or corporation, then do they have the same number of points as Joe Blow? And does it mean that they are simply kicked out of the hire trade? Does the company/corporation actually have a driving license, or is it a license to hire or somesuch?
Thanks for all the answers. As is obvious, I am completely ignorant on this. I want to understand whether this is a weird anomaly or a completely predictable outcome of the current rules.
Still not very impressed with the officer in charge of this case though. Sounds like a decision which could only be taken by someone who is not taking it very seriously.
Yet if you try hit, yet miss, someone with a baseball bat in the high street they will surely be looking at all possible cctv footage!?