Company director jailed for pushing e-cyclist off his bike.

[al78]

I wonder what the sentence would have been had the assailant been in a car and the injuries to the cyclist the same.

I can't help but think it wouldn't even have involved a custodial sentence.

It would if it had been a deliberate attack. Malice is treated more seriously than carelessness.

 

[Drago]

I think the courts would have frowned very deeply at the use of a car on shared use path.

Or perhaps not, looking at some of the miserly sentences and almost rputine second-chances that 4 wheeled criminals seem to earn.

 

[mjr]

I think the courts would have frowned very deeply at the use of a car on shared use path.

Every road is a shared use path, technically.

 

[Profpointy]

It would if it had been a deliberate attack. Malice is treated more seriously than carelessness.

I would hope so, but I seem to recall a number of reports of seemingly deliberate knocking into cyclists treated as "dangerous driving" (if even that).

 

[steveindenmark]

6 months is a reasonable verdict. The injury compensation claim will be massive.

 

[Pale Rider]

I wonder what the sentence would have been had the assailant been in a car and the injuries to the cyclist the same.

I can't help but think it wouldn't even have involved a custodial sentence.

Appropriate offences against the person charges are occasionally considered when the car is the weapon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-56846688

 

[Drago]

Part of the issue is satisfactorily proving 'intent'. Punch someone in the chops, your intent was pretty clear - you intended to give them the old 5 finger poke. Running someone over, without some other decent nugget of information to prove intent, is not so clear.

You can recklessly assault someone, ie, be doing something so daft it seems obvious to any normal person that it could end with someone getting hurt. For example, randomly throwing a brick in public - you may not be intending or even wanting to have it smack someone in the face, but its pretty obvious to anyone with a braincell that is a likely outcome. That would be an assault.

However, get reckless (or careless) behind the wheel and that falls firmly within the realms of a motoring matter, and moves away from assault. If intent can't be proven (be aware thet knowing something and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a Court are different things entirely) , the dibble have to rely on recklessness, and where a vehicle is involved there is a specific set of laws for that

Im not saying I agree with it - the law as it stands is long overdue an overhaul on this one. However, because of the above I do have sympathy with the prosecuting agencies, because unless that specific intent to assault a person can be solidly and unchallengably proven then the flowchart moves them towards the motoring offences whether they like it or not.

 

[al78]

Every road is a shared use path, technically.

But we are not taking about roads, we are talking about the pedestrian footpaths where cycling is permitted.

 

[al78]

I would hope so, but I seem to recall a number of reports of seemingly deliberate knocking into cyclists treated as "dangerous driving" (if even that).

That might be an issue of evidence or a poor judge/jury, although I understand dangerous driving is more seriously treated than careless driving. Maybe dangerous driving overlaps in some cases where the driver was deliberately trying to hit the victim, but I think it more likely to do with burden of proof e.g. if the driver claims in court they didn't intend to hit the victim and there are no witnesses. Does anyone know what the sentences for dangerous driving are typically?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

But we are not taking about roads, we are talking about the pedestrian footpaths where cycling is permitted.

Nope we are talking about a shared use greenway. An old disused railway.

 

[hatler]

Part of the issue is satisfactorily proving 'intent'. Punch someone in the chops, your intent was pretty clear - you intended to give them the old 5 finger poke. Running someone over, without some other decent nugget of information to prove intent, is not so clear.

^ ^ This is what I was getting at. ^ ^

 

[mjr]

Nope we are talking about a shared use greenway. An old disused railway.

Now a bridleway. Not a footpath where cycling is permitted and cyclists must bow and scrape.

 

[Pale Rider]

That might be an issue of evidence or a poor judge/jury, although I understand dangerous driving is more seriously treated than careless driving. Maybe dangerous driving overlaps in some cases where the driver was deliberately trying to hit the victim, but I think it more likely to do with burden of proof e.g. if the driver claims in court they didn't intend to hit the victim and there are no witnesses. Does anyone know what the sentences for dangerous driving are typically?

Generally, anything from a short stretch to double figures, depending on the circumstances.

I've seen a couple where the defendant has avoided immediate custody, but that's rare.

The good thing about death by dangerous is no intent needs to be proved.

The prosecution has only to prove two things, the driving was 'far below the standard of a careful of a competent driver' and the other person is dead.

Proving murder is a lot harder, although it's worth bearing in mind only intent to cause 'serious harm' needs to be proved not intent to kill.

But the problem of proving intent - what was in another person's mind - is still there.

Reckless act manslaughter would be easier with a driving case, but the sentences are not so very different, and a death by dangerous driving conviction means the defendant can be banned from driving for a long as the judge likes, and must take an extended driving test if he ever wishes to drive again.

Neither of those penalties would be easily available following a manslaughter conviction.

 

[mjr]

Neither of those penalties would be easily available following a manslaughter conviction.

Unless sentencing guidelines or maybe legislation was changed, which it would need to be to remove the drivers' friend offences.

 

[Chromatic]

GPS only records position not speed. There is at least a 3-5m error in the position accuracy. So you can get an approximation if you take two positions relatively far apart compared to error margin. But you can’t get an exact speed at a precise position from the GPS data.

The speed quoted by prosecution or wherever it came from was just an attempt to prove the offender had some justification. If queried I’m sure the accuracy of the speeds at time of passing could easily be called into doubt.

You are Werner Heisenberg AICMFP