Criminal and Civil

Just putting this up because of some comments in a recent Rider Down thread and it's a bit of a subject that is common in that sub-forum. Caveated that IANAL and this is just my interpretation of these the current system functions.

Thread here:http://www.lfgss.com/thread119901.html

In that thread the partner of the victim has updated that the driver has been convicted and given five points on their license and a fine. As part of their update they said that the law is an ass in response to the relatively low value of the fine compared to the extent of the injuries that were incurred by the victim. I'm somewhat inclined to agree but, to me, it's a bit of a yes and no situation. Partly this is because of how thing get divided between criminal prosecutions and civil prosecutions. This perhaps particularly affects vulnerable road users because driving offences aren't really treated and perceived in the same way other criminal convictions are.

For the points and fine that has been handed out, this doesn't really relate to the severity of the injuries that have been incurred by the victim. This is simply the punishment for having failed to observe the rules of the road and is regardless of the consequences of their actions. In theory (rarely in practice) they should have received the same penalty even if no injuries had occured. This then leaves the victim, or in worse circumstances, to pursue damages through civil prosecution.

To me, this isn't ideal, but there are some pros and cons compared to having damages tied in with the criminal prosecution. Whilst the victim does now have to go through court again in a potentially protracted claim, it can mean that they have a better chance of success. If the two were tied together then the criminal defence would be less likely to enter a guilty plea and perhaps more vigourous in trying to absolve the defendant of any blame because they would have more to lose at that stage. It could also significantly protract criminal hearings which isn't likely to be in the best public interest.

Whilst I agree that it can be preferable to handle damages seperately, I also agree that the fine handed out is paltry. It's one of those situations where we should be campaigning to make penalties more meaningful and hold drivers to better account.

Was this the incident where the driver involved was working for P&J Ellis?

I wonder when P&J Ellis will make a statement about the outcome of this case and what they are going to do to ensure that their drivers adhere to a high standard of safety in future.

www.pjellis.co.uk

Yes, although AIUI Googles mechanisms now prevent googlebombs from being created by multiple links on a single site. Links from individual pages on multiple other sites to the Rider Down thread is much more likely to achieve the desired result.

So do we need to put all the links in for people to realise P&J Ellis still employ dangerous drivers even after conviction?

http://www.lfgss.com/thread119901.html

http://www.pjellis.co.uk/

Just putting this up because of some comments in a recent Rider Down thread and it's a bit of a subject that is common in that sub-forum. Caveated that IANAL and this is just my interpretation of these the current system functions.

Thread here:http://www.lfgss.com/thread119901.html

In that thread the partner of the victim has updated that the driver has been convicted and given five points on their license and a fine. As part of their update they said that the law is an ass in response to the relatively low value of the fine compared to the extent of the injuries that were incurred by the victim. I'm somewhat inclined to agree but, to me, it's a bit of a yes and no situation. Partly this is because of how thing get divided between criminal prosecutions and civil prosecutions. This perhaps particularly affects vulnerable road users because driving offences aren't really treated and perceived in the same way other criminal convictions are.

For the points and fine that has been handed out, this doesn't really relate to the severity of the injuries that have been incurred by the victim. This is simply the punishment for having failed to observe the rules of the road and is regardless of the consequences of their actions. In theory (rarely in practice) they should have received the same penalty even if no injuries had occured. This then leaves the victim, or in worse circumstances, to pursue damages through civil prosecution.

To me, this isn't ideal, but there are some pros and cons compared to having damages tied in with the criminal prosecution. Whilst the victim does now have to go through court again in a potentially protracted claim, it can mean that they have a better chance of success. If the two were tied together then the criminal defence would be less likely to enter a guilty plea and perhaps more vigourous in trying to absolve the defendant of any blame because they would have more to lose at that stage. It could also significantly protract criminal hearings which isn't likely to be in the best public interest.

Whilst I agree that it can be preferable to handle damages seperately, I also agree that the fine handed out is paltry. It's one of those situations where we should be campaigning to make penalties more meaningful and hold drivers to better account.

I read this as ...

You get smashed off your bike by a vehicle.
The driver accepts liability/is prosecuted because they have broken the law e.g. careless/dangerous driving.
They get a fine/ban/training course.

The resultant cost to life/limb/livelihood is dealt with separately by your lawyer in a compensation case.

Something like that ?

In my experience, that's right ^

Pretty much the situation as I understand it.

It gets a bit more complicated with the mandatory presence of driver's insurance which may eliminate the need for a civil claim through the courts.

I thought that it might be helpful to put up something that helps explain why fines often seem so low in relation to the impact of the offence. This news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27774455
suggests things may change but IMO probably not enough. I'd like to see, at the very least, fines for driving offences reflecting the burden imposed on the emergency services and the NHS. Ongoing costs may still be better as a matter for civil cases and insurance claims

@The Seldom Killer; I agree with you, but the law won't press heavy charges against shit drivers because the prisons would be bursting at the seams, and we're constantly told that they are already full.

There are too many people pushing their case on the net for safer roads, and getting nowt changed. What is needed is one organisation to press against parliament for change and justice, but Blighty's residents are more interested in what's happening on Eastenders.

I remember seeing a news article about some poor sod whom was knocked off his bike and left with such a severe injury, that he lost his house because he couldn't work. The twat whom knocked the cyclist off, got a slap on the wrist and a paltry fine.

My mate was killed by another twat with no licence, no insurance, no MOT, no fucking morals and actually couldn't be arsed to arrive at court and guess what?

The twat walked free, and was ironically banned from driving!

I see twats driving 4x4's with coffee cups and mobile phones in use as they drop their cherished ones off to school every morn, and I can't understand how they can afford a £40k+ car, but can't get a bluetooth handsfree for a tenner off ebay!

There are a lot of twats making a lot of money off twats whom can't drive properly.

It's just a game and cyclists are the losers...

Not to derail this very important thread, .

Instead of pointlessly derailing this thread, why not start a PJ Ellis google watch thread? Or are you planning on posting this in threads all over the forum?

I thought that in addition to discussion of legal obligations in this particular case, there was also a effort to highlight the company in question, and their lack of accountability. If I got it wrong, apologies.