Let's catch the scumbag who did this

[Simster]

Certainly not, I fully accepted the reasoned position is slap the scumbag.
And yes concealing the crime does make this driver impossible to defend, which is why I never have.

I was offering up an alternative non-scumbag perspective to bad driving.
As we have all had 'oh shit' moments, but in the main we have all 'got away with it'.
Granted that's not the debate to have a short period of time after watching the video, my mistake I 100% own that wrong.

There are over 3,000 deaths annually on the roads, not all of those responsible are scumbags, no matter how badly they act before, during and after the accident.
We drive around cocooned in 2 tonne death boxes, with all manner of distractions around us.


But once again I'll say, the police have the car, they will get the job done and assuming this driver is a scumbag I hope they get the full force of law.

I'm just catching up on this thread and have to say that what stands out is that you've posted tons yet added absolutely nothing to this thread, except to irritate everyone else with your usual meddlesome "voice of reason" bollocks. And yet again you're proved to be absolutely nothing of the sort. In this example, you hadn't even watched the footage and you quote nonsensical figures plucked out of your arse. Why the f*k do you bother posting on these things? I've lost count of the number of times on black and white issues that you've ended up saying "the point I am trying to make, but very badly is...". It's tiresome and dull having your inappropriately neo-liberal drivel derailing threads like this. Sometimes things really are as black and white as they first seem. If you've got insight as to why it might not be, then by all means post it, but please do everyone the courtesy of actually gaining a proper understanding of the issue in hand. Here, just watching the video would have saved everyone from reams of meaningless drivel.

 

[Sheebo]

So they don't think it was the fella they arrested last night then... Annoying

 

[StonehamPark]

So they don't think it was the fella they arrested last night then... Annoying

I don't know how to interpret it.

YESTERDAY: Sussex arrested a 31 year old guy for causing injury by dangerous driving.
TODAY: Crimestoppers offer a £1000.00 reward to catch/identify the driver.

It's worth noting that the 31 year old was evading Police capture.
There's also been no update as to whether he has been released without charge or Sussex's current line of inquiry.

My guess is that the Crimestoppers application was made a couple of days ago (before Sussex arrested the 31 year old) and the timing of the news article (release this morning) has confused the readers.

 

[GoingUp]

Blimey, hope the bloke makes a full recovery, that was crazy the car was going some speed.

It looks like a Fiat 500 so it must be a female driver or a bloke driving his female friends car, why they didn't stop is beyond me, it looks almost intentional (im sure it wasnt though).

With all the cameras in Brighton Im surprised they cant follow the car until they get out and then identify the driver, or at least follow the car and pick up the number plate.

Edit: just seen it looks like they caught them.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Just watched the pre-impact part of the clip again.
You can see the white Fiat approaching in the very top left corner of the picture just as the taxi pulls out.
The Fiat is going so fast that I think it would have hit the taxi - taxi misjudged approach speed when pulling out.
It is just possible that the Fiat driver took the left turn at the last second to avoid hitting the taxi.

Also, the victim never even turns round, he didn't see or hear the approaching Fiat so had no chance of even trying to get out of the way.

It's true what they say when reporting that speed is a factor in a high proportion [I'll let Stat Brother create the number] of road traffic accidents. I'd believe it more if it came from Edna.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Surely police can interrogate her?

I think they interview witnesses, not interrogate them, but then you never know...

[emoji38]

 

[BUTTERBALL]

This scumbag needs to go away for a very long time.

 

[StonehamPark]

53 year old Female - Bailed
31 year old Male - Still in custody.

The Argus - Update

 

[Sheebo]

Just watched the pre-impact part of the clip again.
You can see the white Fiat approaching in the very top left corner of the picture just as the taxi pulls out.
The Fiat is going so fast that I think it would have hit the taxi - taxi misjudged approach speed when pulling out.
It is just possible that the Fiat driver took the left turn at the last second to avoid hitting the taxi.

Also, the victim never even turns round, he didn't see or hear the approaching Fiat so had no chance of even trying to get out of the way.

It's true what they say when reporting that speed is a factor in a high proportion [I'll let Stat Brother create the number] of road traffic accidents. I'd believe it more if it came from Edna.

I don't think the taxi misjudged anything - the car suddenly appears going at a stupid speed. Can't fault the taxi drive. The car was stolen and being driven completely stupidly to 'get away' it seems... Makes the whole thing even worse - a thief and a bloody shit driving ****!

 

[symyjym]

Will be interesting to know how fast he was going. I reckon about 35mph as it approached the bend?

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I don't think the taxi misjudged anything - the car suddenly appears going at a stupid speed. Can't fault the taxi drive. The car was stolen and being driven completely stupidly to 'get away' it seems... Makes the whole thing even worse - a thief and a bloody shit driving ****!

Whoa, don't get me wrong here, I'm absolutely not trying to divert any blame away from the Fiat driver.
My point was that the Fiat driver MAY have decided at the last split second to swerve round the corner to avoid hitting the taxi.

Key point - excess speed by the Fiat was the root cause.

When driving, esp too fast, it's very easy to make a last second swerve to avoid hitting something right in front of you [reactionary] without having any awareness of what your sudden change of direction will then lead you on to hit.

Not in the same league, but my missus swerved to miss a fox one night about 10 years ago and hit the kerb breaking an alloy wheel. It's reactionary, but by missing one thing, you can easily hit something else. All I'm saying here is that if you look at the beginning of the clip again, frame by frame, if the Fiat's intention was to continue and not turn left, I think it would have hit the taxi, so may only have taken that left turn to miss the taxi but had the disastrous result of running the poor fella over. To reiterate, the excess speed of Fiat was the cause.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

Whoa, don't get me wrong here, I'm absolutely not trying to divert any blame away from the Fiat driver.
My point was that the Fiat driver MAY have decided at the last split second to swerve round the corner to avoid hitting the taxi.

Key point - excess speed by the Fiat was the root cause.

When driving, esp too fast, it's very easy to make a last second swerve to avoid hitting something right in front of you [reactionary] without having any awareness of what your sudden change of direction will then lead you on to hit.

Not in the same league, but my missus swerved to miss a fox one night about 10 years ago and hit the kerb breaking an alloy wheel. It's reactionary, but by missing one thing, you can easily hit something else. All I'm saying here is that if you look at the beginning of the clip again, frame by frame, if the Fiat's intention was to continue and not turn left, I think it would have hit the taxi, so may only have taken that left turn to miss the taxi but had the disastrous result of running the poor fella over. To reiterate, the excess speed of Fiat was the cause.

I got what you meant

I have no idea why people are feeling the need to shout down anyone that say anything other than the driver is scum or should get a slap

 

[dazzer6666]

None of that excuses not stopping afterwards

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Will be interesting to know how fast he was going. I reckon about 35mph as it approached the bend?

Sort of interesting, tho nobody going about their lawful business under any kind of influence would be doing that kind of speed in that place at that time tho eh? And nobody crossing a random street in the middle of town in the middle of the afternoon would expect such a thing to happen. Driver deserves every damn thing that's coming their way, and a whole lot more besides. Total c*nt.

 

[KingstonSeagull]

Whoa, don't get me wrong here, I'm absolutely not trying to divert any blame away from the Fiat driver.
My point was that the Fiat driver MAY have decided at the last split second to swerve round the corner to avoid hitting the taxi.

Key point - excess speed by the Fiat was the root cause.

When driving, esp too fast, it's very easy to make a last second swerve to avoid hitting something right in front of you [reactionary] without having any awareness of what your sudden change of direction will then lead you on to hit.

Not in the same league, but my missus swerved to miss a fox one night about 10 years ago and hit the kerb breaking an alloy wheel. It's reactionary, but by missing one thing, you can easily hit something else. All I'm saying here is that if you look at the beginning of the clip again, frame by frame, if the Fiat's intention was to continue and not turn left, I think it would have hit the taxi, so may only have taken that left turn to miss the taxi but had the disastrous result of running the poor fella over. To reiterate, the excess speed of Fiat was the cause.

When you're trying to avoid a collision you brake... This guy made no effort to brake what so ever.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

When you're trying to avoid a collision you brake... This guy made no effort to brake what so ever.

Possibly thought he'd successfully negotiated the corner (which he pretty much did) before finding his next obstacle.

 

[skipper734]

The victim can't remember the collision. Good job there's a decent lot of CCTV, he's now got the movie. I thought I was watching GTA6.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

When you're trying to avoid a collision you brake... This guy made no effort to brake what so ever.

Braking is one option, the other is to swerve. With the speed / distance / timing involved, the Fiat driver probably barely had time to lift off the accelerator before hitting the taxi - when faced with not enough time to brake to avoid the collision, instinct will cause you to swerve.

I have a strong suspicion that the Fiat driver saw the left turn out of his peripheral vision and made an instinct to turn at the very last second before hitting the taxi - he knew damn well if he just tried to brake he would have clattered the taxi.

I repeat, I'm not trying to defend the actions of the Fiat driver, I'm simply trying to analyse the visual evidence that led to the poor chap getting clobbered.

I'm sure when the OB interview the Fiat driver and establish his intended journey destination they will then know whether his intention always was to turn left or go straight on.
If I were a betting man, my money would be on straight on.

None of that excuses not stopping afterwards

100% agreed - don't see anyone disputing that

 

[Sheebo]

Whoa, don't get me wrong here, I'm absolutely not trying to divert any blame away from the Fiat driver.
My point was that the Fiat driver MAY have decided at the last split second to swerve round the corner to avoid hitting the taxi.

Key point - excess speed by the Fiat was the root cause.

When driving, esp too fast, it's very easy to make a last second swerve to avoid hitting something right in front of you [reactionary] without having any awareness of what your sudden change of direction will then lead you on to hit.

Not in the same league, but my missus swerved to miss a fox one night about 10 years ago and hit the kerb breaking an alloy wheel. It's reactionary, but by missing one thing, you can easily hit something else. All I'm saying here is that if you look at the beginning of the clip again, frame by frame, if the Fiat's intention was to continue and not turn left, I think it would have hit the taxi, so may only have taken that left turn to miss the taxi but had the disastrous result of running the poor fella over. To reiterate, the excess speed of Fiat was the cause.

Yeh sorry - wasn't suggesting you were doing that. Just didn't think the taxi mis-judged anything...

I got what you meant

I have no idea why people are feeling the need to shout down anyone that say anything other than the driver is scum or should get a slap

Sorry - wasn't my intention - just pointing out the Fiat appeared incredibly quickly.

 

[Mellotron]

Braking is one option, the other is to swerve. With the speed / distance / timing involved, the Fiat driver probably barely had time to lift off the accelerator before hitting the taxi - when faced with not enough time to brake to avoid the collision, instinct will cause you to swerve.

I have a strong suspicion that the Fiat driver saw the left turn out of his peripheral vision and made an instinct to turn at the very last second before hitting the taxi - he knew damn well if he just tried to brake he would have clattered the taxi.

I repeat, I'm not trying to defend the actions of the Fiat driver, I'm simply trying to analyse the visual evidence that led to the poor chap getting clobbered.

I'm sure when the OB interview the Fiat driver and establish his intended journey destination they will then know whether his intention always was to turn left or go straight on.
If I were a betting man, my money would be on straight on.

While I understand which angle you're coming at this from, I can't understand why?

What difference does it make whether he was planning on heading straight on originally or not? Either way the speed is many, many times in excess of what is acceptable and safe in that situation, so I don't quite understand what the route has to do with anything?