ROAD RAGE incident - outcome

M

moneypit1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 January 2007
Messages
2,246
Location
North Devon
Visit site
For those of you who remember I was the victim of a road rage incident whilst riding my horse, here is the outcome. I had a visit last night from the officer that is dealing with the case. It seems the guy will get off with a warning about his driving and thats it. This is because I have been advised NOT to proceed with the prosecution as the guy will counter claim that I assulted him with my whip. Apparently should he win I would come worse off! Now in all honesty I have to say that I DID try and whack him with my stick to get him away from me, I am only sad I missed! At least he is getting an official warning which will stay on file and hopefully he has learnt from this and won't be tempted to do it again.
 
Yes...for god's sake how does that work????? So nothing ever happens to these people with no manners because they have a way out of it or a better 'arguement' than you!!! What sort of a justice system are we meant to have? I really hope he never troubles anyone again but it makes me mad that people get a slap on the wrist like that...
 
Tell me about it. Unfortunately in the lack of any independent witnesses this is how these idiots get away with it.
 
Yes ages ago I was getting hassled by some local idiot when out riding. I had enough when he screemed past me in his vehicle one day sending my horse sideways into a hedge, so I reported him to the police giving dates, times, reg number and even address as I knew where he lived. The police said that it was his word against mine and with no witnesses there was nothing they could do!!!!
I asked them whether that was always the case...so if some idiot saw me off my horse on some country lane somewhere and left me injured...would it be his word against mine...they said they would have to speak to the person then - if I was injured but it still would be difficult to prove!!! Which just gives these idiots cart blanch to drive how they like really!
 
Not a surprise outcome though is it? I have to say that despite all the "right" noises the police made when they interviewed me I had a feeling this would happen. Even the officer said the saying "the laws an ass" was very apt in this case. I hate to say it but you can kinda understand why sometimes people take the law into their own hands, I'm not saying thats right but "understandable". My husband was eager to deal with the situation himself but I felt I had to give the law a chance. If my horse had been hurt I think I might have taken it further but as it was we were all ok.
 
This is an unfortunate but forseeable outcome. When there are only 2 people involved in an incident & there is no independent evidence. cctv etc then it would be wrong to proceed with a prosecution. The court would have to decide why they should take the word of one person against that of another & invariably they will not. It would be a waste of money & court time to proceed with a case that had little or no chance of reaching a satisfactory outcome for you. Sorry but that's the way it is.
frown.gif


If he is accepting an official caution, then although it is not actually a conviction, it can be read out in court and is treated as one should he appear before the courts in the future. So when you take that into acount the result is not as poor as it may first look.
smile.gif


It was definately worth reporting the incident because, should this person do something similar to another rider & there is only him & the rider present therefore no independent evidence, the police can use the evidence from you (evidence of similar fact) to help gain a conviction. This is assuming the account of the other rider is extremely similar to that which happened to you.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Surely, The whip was for self defence? You felt threatened in a bad uncontrollable situation???

[/ QUOTE ]
ABSOLUTELY, even the police accept that. In fact the guy in question admitted his part fully as per my statement but it still didn't change the fact that he would probably have been found guilty with a fine and should I have been found guilty of assult with the whip (self defence or not) my sentence would of been harsher.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Surely, The whip was for self defence? You felt threatened in a bad uncontrollable situation???

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the details of the incident but it wouldn't be classed as self-defense in court. I was once told that you must not strike the attacker unless they have struck you...the key point is defense...to strike someone is to attack.

The law is very against the horse owners. The outcome is disgusting! The silver lining is the fact that this will stay on his record so he'll hopefully think twice next time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I was once told that you must not strike the attacker unless they have struck you...the key point is defense...to strike someone is to attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not disagree in with you, nor wanting to get into an arugement and I undertsnad that you dont make the law.
So for example. If some ones running at you with a knife, You can only retalliate once theyvve stabbed you?

So role play:
Can you please hit me, so I can hit you back.?
Taaa
*Trots on*
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was once told that you must not strike the attacker unless they have struck you...the key point is defense...to strike someone is to attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not disagree in with you, nor wanting to get into an arugement and I undertsnad that you dont make the law.
So for example. If some ones running at you with a knife, You can only retalliate once theyvve stabbed you?

So role play:
Can you please hit me, so I can hit you back.?
Taaa
*Trots on*

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely!! If someone came at me with a knife...and I had a large metal pole in my hand...i'd beat them senseless!!!

But that's why self-defense tutors/martial arts teach you how to deflect an attack rather than strike. If someone comes at you with weapon, they train you the best way to disarm them.

Sadly we live in an unfair world where wrong-doers have more 'rights' than the rest of us!!
 
Sorry to hear this, seems once again the law comes down in favour of the aggressor when an element of doubt gets thrown in.

The problem with anything like this is the burden of proof. A criminal court has to prove something happened 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

At least you had a go and showed him he can't just bully riders/women. He might think twice in future
 
You think thats bad? My ex was hit by a car when he was out cycling. I was cycling 200m behind him and witnessed it. It was a bright sunny day on a quiet wide straight road and the guy just drove into him. The wing mirror broke his arm, a few cm closer and he would have been dead. The police took statements, the guy admitted it, only thing is I am pretty sure they didnt test him for drugs (cannabis). Bear in mind I am also a solicitor! Police sent their report to the PF, months later PF wrote back saying it was not in the public interest to prosecute!

I sued him for my ex in civil law and he got £3,500 which is pretty standard for that type of injury, through his insurers. He shoudl have been charged though; that area (Grampian) has one of the highest statistics of not proceeding with charges and are notoriously under-staffed (and badly organised?).
 
Well done on getting the compensation, however it is worth remembering that the weight of evidence required is less in a civil court than in a criminal court (I assume that this is the same throughout the UK even if Scottish legislation differs)

As a matter of interest on what grounds do you believe the Police should have tested the driver for cannabis
 
Yes, but generally to prove something beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal standard of proof) you need corroborated evidence ie 2 independent witnesses. In this scenario this was provided by the victim and myself. I can see no difficulty with the prosecution, so either they decided not to prosecute because they are under-staffed, or because the driver was the local bank manager.

From comments the driver made to my ex before driving off and his generally slightly befuddled state, we suspect he may have partaken in cannabis. Not that uncommon. Yes he should have been tested for drugs. I'm not involved in criminal law at all, no idea why they didnt.

The compensation was a given, as he clearly admitted being at fault and there were witnesses. I can see no reason why it should not have been in the public interest to prosecute, other than cyclists not being considered very important and almost deserving of being driven into and nearly killed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
From comments the driver made to my ex before driving off and his generally slightly befuddled state, we suspect he may have partaken in cannabis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, you would have to be going some to prove being unfit through drink/drugs from these 'symptoms' alone. I take it they did a roadside breath test and he was negative?

I find it laughable they didn't summons him given the circumstances you describe but then we are talking the good old CPS or whatever it's called in Scotland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top