Kobus47 Posted November 12, 2018 Share After reading about numerous hit-and-runs over the last couple of weeks where the drivers, as usual, failed to stop at the scene of the accident the following question came to mind: Should the courts assume a driver was driving under the influence when they fail to stop at the scene of the accident? I would like to know my fellow hubbers think about this. Is this something we as a cycling community can lobby for? What would the legal ramifications of something like this be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoo Posted November 12, 2018 Share No not necessarily under the influence. There are other motives, maybe unlicensed driver or vehicle, drug possession, warrant for arrest, panic and fear of getting charged, just plain lack of morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted November 12, 2018 Share After reading about numerous hit-and-runs over the last couple of weeks where the drivers, as usual, failed to stop at the scene of the accident the following question came to mind: Should the courts assume a driver was driving under the influence when they fail to stop at the scene of the accident? I would like to know my fellow hubbers think about this. Is this something we as a cycling community can lobby for? What would the legal ramifications of something like this be?No. That would be unconstitutional, and subvert the presumption of innocence. Rather campaign for a stiffer punishment (and enforcement thereof) for leaving the scene of an accident. That way, even if the dude was dronkies and left, you'd be able to get him on one count instead of them having to prove that they weren't drunk (which is an impossibility) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbradd Posted November 12, 2018 Share I think that in Hit&Run they should be assumed to be driving under the influence, in possession of illegal substances intended for distribution, in possession of illegal firearms and ammunition, and holding a hostage captive. Until the law starts actually punishing perpetrators (of any discretion), things will only get worse. Edit: Spelling + Add that the charge should be upped to murder/attempted murder rather than manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stretch Posted November 12, 2018 Share As everyone says... You cannot assume. I'll give you a case that happened here recently. A runner was killed by a guy driving with a demerited driving licence. He was driving illegally therefore. Not under the influence. He fled the scene and then took his car to a discreet location and burned it. Wracked with guilt he turned himself in the next day. The runner however was running with headphones and crossed the road on a corner. He came round the corner and saw him too late. While he was in the wrong for driving illegally, the accident could not have been avoided. Guilty.. But not a deplorable drunk driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbradd Posted November 12, 2018 Share As everyone says... You cannot assume. I'll give you a case that happened here recently. A runner was killed by a guy driving with a demerited driving licence. He was driving illegally therefore. Not under the influence. He fled the scene and then took his car to a discreet location and burned it. Wracked with guilt he turned himself in the next day. The runner however was running with headphones and crossed the road on a corner. He came round the corner and saw him too late. While he was in the wrong for driving illegally, the accident could not have been avoided. Guilty.. But not a deplorable drunk driver.Lost his license due to excessive demerits.... So someone with a history of being caught driving recklessly eventually hits someone, and skips the scene.... I have no sympathy for someone like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJR Posted November 12, 2018 Share The court should NEVER be allowed to ASSUME guilt. The whole point of a fair court process is to present proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Always be remember that todays' accuser may well be tomorrows accused.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porqui Posted November 12, 2018 Share If the law and the authorities just did what they are supposed to do it would do miracles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milosh Posted November 12, 2018 Share While I believe in the presumption of innocence , leavening the scene of an accident should be considered an admission of guilt and be so heavily punished that no one does Ie staying and sorting it out is the easier thing to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobus47 Posted November 12, 2018 Share I'm not trying to argue that we should randomly go and assume people are guilty left and right. The argument I'm trying to make is that when you fail to stop (and potentially to save somebody's life by calling an ambulance) you forgo your right to innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbradd Posted November 12, 2018 Share The court should NEVER be allowed to ASSUME guilt. The whole point of a fair court process is to present proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Always be remember that todays' accuser may well be tomorrows accused.)I really want to agree, and the common sense in me does. I do however think that in the event that someone deliberately leaves the scene, they forfeit their opportunity to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were innocent. Maybe I'm just getting sick of the bad guys having more rights than the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted November 12, 2018 Share The court should NEVER be allowed to ASSUME guilt. The whole point of a fair court process is to present proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Always be remember that todays' accuser may well be tomorrows accused.) Except for the failure to control animals (both domesticated and wild). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummibear Posted November 12, 2018 Share Punishment for driving away from accident should be the same as DUI sentence if found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoo Posted November 12, 2018 Share Just like cptmayhem said, stiffen the punishment for fleeing a scene. If the punishment for that is more severe than any motive then theres no reason to try. Then theres no unconstitutional assumptions of guilt, problem solved. If the perpetrator gets caught, he'll get booked for a few counts anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted November 12, 2018 Share I really want to agree, and the common sense in me does. I do however think that in the event that someone deliberately leaves the scene, they forfeit their opportunity to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were innocent. Maybe I'm just getting sick of the bad guys having more rights than the victims. Shock might easily cause the driver to flee the scene even in an instance where the driver is without fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted November 12, 2018 Share I'm not trying to argue that we should randomly go and assume people are guilty left and right. The argument I'm trying to make is that when you fail to stop (and potentially to save somebody's life by calling an ambulance) you forgo your right to innocent until proven guilty.Again, for the same reasons, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.