Should courts assume a driver was under the influence when they fail to stop at accidents?

[scotty]

I agree that hit and run should should carry harsher sentences, but there are instances where it would be safer to carry on to nearest police station and report it. In Boksburg we have a stretch of road along Main Reef road called Angelo with informal shacks near the edge of the road and a bottle store and shebeen on the side as well as spaza shops and all sorts of other informal business's. The speed limit is 60 but I travel no more than 40kmh at most, dicey area as people including young children cross over from side to side. There have been numerous traffic incidents there and some motorists involved have been accosted by the residents. 

[Vetseun]

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)

Ja, true what you say here. The drunk driver that hit us was arrested within an hour or so of the hit and run. That being due to a sheep herder who witnessed the hit and run, recognising his vehicle and telling the SAPD who arrived on the scene. The person was well known to the SAPD and they were able to drive to his house at once. They could see the vehicle parked in the garage but he refused to unlock. The fire dept had to be called out to cut the lock.

When they opened the garage, a piece of my training partners assos bibs was still hanging on the broken side mirror.

The guy was arrested and taken for blood tests. He was way over the legal limit.

His defense in court was that he was so rattled and shaken by the incident that he acted out of pure instinct by fleeing the scene, when he got home, he climbed into the booze to calm himself down. And that was the reason for him being over the limit upon his arrest.

[reteid]

the presumption of being innocent is one of the pillars of a democracy.when you start assuming things it can only end bad for everyone.the person who leaves an accident scene for any reason is still an ass in my opinion.

[GrahamS2]

Ja, true what you say here. The drunk driver that hit us was arrested within an hour or so of the hit and run. That being due to a sheep herder who witnessed the hit and run, recognising his vehicle and telling the SAPD who arrived on the scene. The person was well known to the SAPD and they were able to drive to his house at once. They could see the vehicle parked in the garage but he refused to unlock. The fire dept had to be called out to cut the lock.

When they opened the garage, a piece of my training partners assos bibs was still hanging on the broken side mirror.

The guy was arrested and taken for blood tests. He was way over the legal limit.

His defense in court was that he was so rattled and shaken by the incident that he acted out of pure instinct by fleeing the scene, when he got home, he climbed into the booze to calm himself down. And that was the reason for him being over the limit upon his arrest.

What was the outcome in court?

[Vetseun]

What was the outcome in court?

Case was eventually withdrawn after about 3 years due to the advanced age and ill health of the driver. He has subsequently passed on.

[Dirkitech]

With only reading page 1 thus far, I have these questions:

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?

What's the correlation between assuming driving under the influence and fleeing the scene of an accident?

 

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.

Why do you think fleeing the scene of an accident automatically applies guilt?
What about all the insurance scammers we see in videos, leaping onto cars, dragging themselves underneath stationary vehicles, etc?

[Chris_]

I love questions like this on the hub. You get proposed a situation. Click vote and see the scenario in your mind - its so clear cut.

 

Then personal stories come out. Variables you didn't think of. There is SO MUCH grey area.

 

I would hate to work in law, it must be terrible to dehumanize situations so you can apply 'rules'.

[Quagga]

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.

Maybe then all of the above should be assumed. NOT stopping should carry 1 year jail MIN I dont care why you did not stop.

[Eldron]

Perhaps a mandatory 2 year suspension of your drivers license for leaving the scene of an accident?

 

That way the court can do its work while the rest of us are safe on the roads.

[Dadbod Racing]

My vote would be for stiffer sentences for fleeing the scene but if you feel that the area in which the accident has occurred is not safe for you and you go to the nearest police station to report it is that deemed fleeing from an accident? 

[IanC]

I think a driver can already be charged for leaving a scene of an accident. Like some said maybe the sentence for leaving a scene of on accident should be stiffer. And then maybe an assault charge should be added and if the person that was hit died a charge of murder as if the driver stopped he might have alerted emergency services and the victim could have been saved.

[Dirkitech]

I understand all the reasoning put forth by those advocating harsh sentences for fleeing the scene of an accident and while I agree with it to an extent, I think it opens up dangerous avenues for exploitation.
Someone you dislike? Simples. scratch your leg on a rough brick and say the person grazed you with the car and drove off. Boom 1 year jail sentence.
Drive a pranged up taxi/car and want to get even with someone? Blame them, boom, 1 year jail sentence.
Obviously I pulled these examples from a smelly place, but it serves to prove a point. Fleeing the scene of an accident is a crime and should be charged and defended appropriately, but slapping jail time on every offence like this isn't smart and not necessarily justice either. Some people will learn the lesson through a hefty fine and penalty, without jail time. And pls, no assumptions, things like manslaughter etc. obviously don't fall into this description.