Cyclist deliberately knocked off - driver banned for 6 months

Arjimlad

Tights of Cydonia
Location
South Glos
I thought this was interesting. The cyclist's mercy to the driver is admirable given the deliberate assault. The driver was lucky the cyclist was not badly injured and also lucky that the charges of making off from the scene of the accident & failing to report it were dropped as well.

It was a good job the rider had footage, though, I can't imagine that the driver would have been held accountable at all without it.

View: https://youtu.be/cLF93a5w7ko
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
the charges of making off from the scene of the accident & failing to report it were dropped as well.

I can never understand this, these are slam dunk convictions yet seem to be easily avoided. Same thing happened in a far more serious collision near me, where police spent a long time tracing the driver only for a paltry fine and points for careless driving to be the result. 🤬
 

ianrauk

Tattooed Beat Messiah
He deliberately drove into him. It could have ended up a far lot worse. Luckily it didn't. The driver deserved to lose his license. Not sure why the cyclist feels sorry for him. The driver bought it all on himself and perhaps in future, when he's driving again, he'll change his attitude towards cyclists on the road.
 
OP
Arjimlad

Arjimlad

Tights of Cydonia
Location
South Glos
Someone else has said that there is a tendency, which I also have experienced, to feel sorry for a driver facing the consequences of their actions. They can look so bewildered and helpless in court when confronted with video & the possible loss of their livelihood and mobility.

It should be resisted.
 

icowden

Über Member
Location
Surrey
The 6 month It seems to be down to the CPS decision as to which offences to prosecute. Quite why they only went for due care and attention rather than dangerous driving and didn't bother with failure to stop and failure to report is mystifying.

The maximum a magistrate can issue for Driving without Due care is a ban and a fine. The fine is based on relevant weekly income and goes from 50% to 700%.
So the magistrate went for the maximum sentence available which is a driving ban + fine.

These are the criteria. For me I would suggest that this is "overtaking dangerously". I suspect that due to the absence of front facing footage it would be hard to prove that the van hadn't been reacting to oncoming traffic and thus the knock off was accidental rather than deliberate. On the other hand there is clear evidence of the van dangerously overtaking twice in a period of about 30 seconds, while all the other cars manage it safely.
Careless behaviour
  • tailgating
  • failing to look properly
  • sudden braking
  • overtaking on the inside
  • turning into the path of another driver
  • having your attention diverted by a distraction inside the car, for example, using a mobile phone
  • having your attention diverted by a distraction outside the car, for example, 'rubber necking'
Dangerous behaviour
  • racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively
  • ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers
  • overtaking dangerously
  • driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs
  • driving while unfit including: having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking required prescribed drugs or being fatigued
  • driving whilst knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load
  • driving whilst distracted by, for example, reading a map, using a hand-held phone, lighting a cigarette
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Why TF is this a motoring offence rather than a serious assault meriting prison is beyond me. If you whacked someone with an axe it would be considered far more serious. An accident is a different thing however egregious the driving
 

figbat

Slippery scientist
No, like TWOC, its one of the few crimes for which the criminal attempts act does not apply.
Thinking logically, if a manslaughter were to be "attempted", this would imply intent, which would then imply murder rather than manslaughter, no? I suppose we're thinking more like "potential manslaughter", in which an unplanned event could have led to a death but didn't. I can see why this would be a tricky thing to prove. In this case there appears to be intent to cause harm or alarm, although I doubt the perp intended to kill.

Also, naughty Volvo overtaking on the zig-zags.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Poshshire
Its only an offence to overtake a motor vehicle on the ziggy zags, although that notnwothstanding the markings represent danger and the prudent driver would take heed and keep station until the crossing was behind them.

This kind of thing pithes me off. If I assaulted someone with my shotgun id be off to prison and would never see my licence again. Assault someone with a kinetic weapon and in 6 months hes free to carry on where he left off.

Its not easy to get a ban - it requires a concerted effort over a period of time, or a serious piece of offending. That being the case, a ban should be for life. You had the privilege, you went out of you way to abuse it, adios muchacho.
 

Solocle

Senior Member
Location
Dorset / Oxford
Its only an offence to overtake a motor vehicle on the ziggy zags, although that notnwothstanding the markings represent danger and the prudent driver would take heed and keep station until the crossing was behind them.
More precisely, it's only illegal for a motor vehicle to overtake a moving motor vehicle, or any stationary vehicle that has stopped to let pedestrians cross.
 
Top Bottom