• Yeah, I get that. But at some point the crime musy be serious enough to warrant going round and knocking on the door rather than sending a polite letter.

  • As far as I'm aware they have to send the NIP to have a chance of prosecuting the registered keeper further down the line. It's not very polite, it's basically - you are going to court, unless we discover something that changes our minds.

    I suspect the problem they are facing is that they have no good ID on the actual driver at the time, so if they did pop over to the registered keeper's address, even if they looked like CCTV guy, there's every chance they'd be like "nah mate, you know what, someone I can't remember borrowed it that day, then miraculously I found it later in the evening!" And at that point they are kind of stuck.

    It's so fucking brazen they have to be crims. They'll know this.

    So I reckon this is an appeal for witnesses / the driver / passenger / repair shop to come forward.

    Will be interesting to see how it develops.

  • As far as I'm aware they have to send the NIP to have a chance of prosecuting the registered keeper further down the line. It's not very polite, it's basically - you are going to court, unless we discover something that changes our minds.

    Not at all it's just the way they deal with traffic offences differently to others. If they are looking at charging them for assault or attempted murder the self imposed traffic rules go out the window and they can boot the door in at 3am or do whatever. If they set the bar low and only aimed to go for "leaving the scene" which will get the driver 6 points and a small fine ignoring the cyclists injuries completely then that's another thing and they might actually be worse off in court not identifying a driver.

About

Avatar for Howard @Howard started