Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[Sara_H]

Apparently the driver was not alone in the car, she had her kids with her.

Child Protection proceedings for emotional abuse may also ensue then.

 

[Tin Pot]

So a half crazed man on a bike attacks a mother of five in her car, causing her to lose control and crash into the bike and shop?

This kind of aggression against women needs to be made an example of.

 

[Cycleops]

I do like this in the comments:
"Bit of a generalisation and borderline sexist but in my experience women driving Q7's are usually half witted, gormless bringers of death. Usually wearing big sunglasses, talking on a phone, stroking a stupid small dog or shouting at a small child they resent having for stealing their youth.
See also the Porsche Cayenne and BMW X5"

 

[oldstrath]

I understand where you are coming from, but there is insufficient evidence here of any intent even to cause serious harm, let alone more.

By over hyping the story bandying about murder or attempted murder without any evidence to back it up all we end up doing is alienating people and not getting the public support we should get.

She drove her car at a cyclist and you think there was no evidence of intent to cause harm? What exactly do I have to do to make a lawyer believe I intend to harm someone? Write down "I plan to hurt this person" before belting them with an axe?

 

[slowmotion]

This comment's rather good...
Shouldn't it be "Hair salon involved in collision with car"?

 

[spen666]

She drove her car at a cyclist and you think there was no evidence of intent to cause harm? What exactly do I have to do to make a lawyer believe I intend to harm someone? Write down "I plan to hurt this person" before belting them with an axe?

An intention to cause harm is not sufficient to bring a charge of attempted murder

 

[oldstrath]

An intention to cause harm is not sufficient to bring a charge of attempted murder

I'm sure you are correct, but you said that there was 'insufficient evidence of intent to cause serious harm", and that's what I have a problem with. If I belted someone with an axe (or a d lock) surely no one would doubt that I intended to cause harm. Hitting someone with a car is clearly worse, but somehow doesn't count as evidence of intent to hsrm seriously. This baffles me.

 

[PK99]

I'm sure you are correct, but you said that there was 'insufficient evidence of intent to cause serious harm", and that's what I have a problem with. If I belted someone with an axe (or a d lock) surely no one would doubt that I intended to cause harm. Hitting someone with a car is clearly worse, but somehow doesn't count as evidence of intent to hsrm seriously. This baffles me.

We don't know from the reports the detail of what happened, driving into and over a bike from behind on one extreme with a clear intent to injure to moving across from along side with and intent to stop someone who had kicked her car at the other.

 

[spen666]

I'm sure you are correct, but you said that there was 'insufficient evidence of intent to cause serious harm", and that's what I have a problem with. If I belted someone with an axe (or a d lock) surely no one would doubt that I intended to cause harm. Hitting someone with a car is clearly worse, but somehow doesn't count as evidence of intent to hsrm seriously. This baffles me.

I did say that

You however are confusing an intent to cause serious harm with an intent to cause harm. Only the former is sufficient to ground a charge of attempted murder.


The fact you use a weapon to cause injury is not of itself evidence of an intent to cause serious harm. Why do you think there are 2 offences of grevious bodily harm?
S20 is causing GBH and S18 is causing GBH with intent

You are I think confusing the actus reus and the mens rea (actions and mental state/intention)

 

[MattE72]

Having children in the car is not evidence of attempted murder or attempted GBH, in fact it appears on the face of it that its not evidence of anything other than they had children in the car

Did I mention attempted murder or GBH anywhere in my post?

 

[jefmcg]

I visited the crash scene today. We are lucky there were not a number of fatalities .... here's what it used to look like

Now, bay window totally demolished

Van is still there, too. not so badly damaged.

 

[Crankarm]

I did say that

You however are confusing an intent to cause serious harm with an intent to cause harm. Only the former is sufficient to ground a charge of attempted murder.


The fact you use a weapon to cause injury is not of itself evidence of an intent to cause serious harm. Why do you think there are 2 offences of grevious bodily harm?
S20 is causing GBH and S18 is causing GBH with intent

You are I think confusing the actus reus and the mens rea (actions and mental state/intention)

You see in your legal spin you are being too generous to your client sorry this woman driver. She may well have had intent to kill as any REASONABLE person would think driving a normal car at a cyclist may well result in death of the cyclist. She was driving a frikin' great tank so serious injury and or death were extremely likely to happen. It is pure luck that this did not happen as she crashed into the shop instead. If I said to you, if you drive your car at a cyclist what are the likely outcomes in injury going to be? I bet you and most of Britain would say probably death or serious injury resulting in serious disability, coma, broken bones, life in a wheel chair or drinking through a straw. So in this instance even though the cyclist only sustained relatively minor injuries this was because of good fortune not because she lacked intention to kill or cause very serious injury. She clearly had intention or was RECKLESS as to causing serious harm or killing the cyclist. This is because she practically demolished the front of the shop and also caused serious damage to the large van. So she did have intention or was reckless imho opinion. The kids all 5 of them may well be her nemesis and saviour. With skilful interviewing it could be revealed what if anything the nutz woman said before she drove at the cyclist such as "Die you f****r, I am going to run you down! However in sentencing the court is going to look sympathetically on her as it could mean that 5 kids go into care if the father(s) is or are absent and unable to take care of the sprigs so she will avoid a custodial sentence. My guess is her punishment will be derisory - 3 penalty points and a £100 fine as she will previously been of good character, an exemplary mother and have done lots of charity work.

 

[Profpointy]

You see in your legal spin you are being too generous to your client sorry this woman driver. She may well have had intent to kill as any REASONABLE person would think driving a normal car at a cyclist may well result in death of the cyclist. She was driving a frikin' great tank so serious injury and or death were extremely likely to happen. It is pure luck that this did not happen as she crashed into the shop instead. If I said to you, if you drive your car at a cyclist what are the likely outcomes in injury going to be I bet you and most of Britain would say probably death or serious injury resulting in serious disability, coma, broken bones. So in this instance even though the cyclist only sustained relatively minor injuries this was because of good fortune. She clearly had intention or was RECKLESS as to causing serious harm or killing the cyclist. This is because she practically demolished the front of the shop and also caused serious damage to the large van. So she did have intention or was reckless imho opinion. The kids all 5 of them may well be her nemesis and saviour. With skilful interviewing it could be revealed what if anything the nutz woman said before she drove at the cyclist such as "Die you f****r, I am going to run you down! However in sentencing the court is going to look sympathetically as it could mean that 5 kids go into care if the father(s) is or are absent and unable to take care of the sprigs so she will avoid a custodial sentence. My guess is her punishment will be derisory - 3 penalty points and a £100 fine as she will previously been of good character, an exemplary mother and have done lots of charity work.

Sadly, I think you are right

 

[Crankarm]

Or, more likely, she will reply "no comment".

Yebbut, the kids might incriminate her …….. Young kids are very good at telling the truth …….. "Mummy was really rather angry, "Die you f****r, die!" she screamed as she drove into the man on his bike." I think this would prompt a "No further questions from the prosecuting barrister."

 

[slowmotion]

If it ever comes to court, the defence will be that "she panicked when the angry cyclist booted her vehicle, feared for her own safety and that of the dear children in her care, and tried to get away from the threat as quickly as possible. Unfortunately she lost control of the vehicle and accidentally destroyed a small part of Richmond and almost a silly cyclist in the process."

If I sent this to the Chambers of her barrister, would I get a huge cheque?