I'm afraid what everybody is mixing up is the difference between the action of the driver and its consequences. Leaving aside the matter of the helmet, (even that's a red herring in the story,) the driver cannot be found to have driven anything other than carelessly, and therefore even if the court had wanted to, it must consider the standard of driving, not what it led to. If there is no evidence that the driving was deliberately intended to cause the cyclist harm, then the evidence must be examined to consider reckless or careless driving. The standard of proof required to establish reckless driving is way above what has happened in this instance, and so the only legal option open is careless driving.
The range of punishments open to a court are limited, and no matter how much the populus of Cyclechat bay for blood, I'm afraid fines and penalty points are the only available sentences in this case.
Now, the driver has pleaded guilty, and been convicted, which is where civil action takes over. The cyclist will be able to make a substantial claim against the driver, which is likely to be contested only in the amount, not the purpose of that action. Any decent solicitor worth his or her salt will overcome the red herring of the helmet, because they know as well as we do that it's bollocks, and won't be taken into account in a civil claims case.
So, pitchforks back in the cupboards folks, this was a crap bit of reporting designed to get you all stirred up, and frothing at the mouth, and it seems to have worked. Subscription to the Daily Wail anybody?
