"Taxi ran down cyclist on purpose"

[Crackle]

A Glasgow taxi driver who deliberately ran down a cyclist he thought had made an obscene gesture at him

Sheriff Andrew Mackie rejected his version of events and convicted Palmer of all three charges

A none argument. No obscene gesture. No wind up, just some f*ckwit in a taxi.

 

[hackbike 6]

For christ's sake Col, does that mean you can drive 3 tons of metal at someone with impunity?

People who drive are supposed to be grown ups, and not try to kill the people that upset them, it's in the highway code and everything.

.....and back in the real world.

 

[angusde]

Jeez that's my commute route.

....

However sentencing has been deferred for a month. I never understand why sentencing is deferred so often. ....

My understanding (from my wife, who used to work in the Glasgow Sheriff Court's Social Work office 20 odd years ago) is that the Sheriff will always defer sentencing for background (Social Work et al) reports, it's never done and dusted on the day.

But, hopfully that's one driver you'll never need to watch out for again!

Angus

 

[Keith Oates]

IMO whether he's fined or sent to prison for a while, a life time driving ban should be included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PBancroft]

IMO whether he's fined or sent to prison for a while, a life time driving ban should be included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've said it before, but I'm hoping against hope that one day they'll scrap this points malarkey.

If you do something stupid on the road, no matter what it is (speeding, driving without due care, while intoxicated) you should lose your license and have to retake the test to prove that you can now drive safely again.

The severity of the original crime would dictate how long before you were allowed to retake your test.

 

[killiekosmos]

He has been found guily of assault (with a taxi!), failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident. Are any of these offences punishable by disqualification? Also, should Glasgow City recind his taxi licence immediately?

Why no dangerous driving or attempted murder charges?

 

[Jake]

Sheriff will always defer sentencing for background (Social Work et al) reports, it's never done and dusted on the day.

oh great. so he will get off because they will dig up some report to say he was teased as a kid for having a pink bike or something, while coming from a poor family. This made him into this person and on this day he just had a flashback and snapped. It was a one off incident for which he is truly sorry for. Or maybe they will use the footballers get out of jail free. He was bursting for the loo and didnt even see the cyclist, he was just trying to get somewhere without wetting his pants. Or maybe he thought the cyclist was a fare and was pulling over for him lol

 

[magnatom]

Stop being a numpty mag.I dont dissagree about him being dealt with,but the cyclist might not have had the incident if he hadnt gestured.Its all about self preservation,we all know the taxi is in the wrong,but it prove s that this could be the outcame of winding idiots up.
If you cant see that,then carry on,and report here when you do have something similar happen,thats if your able

I'm certainly not being a numpty here. (Elsewhere maybe, but not here ).

Let me ask you this col, imagine you are driving your car/bus whatever. Imagine some other road user, say a cyclist, takes a dislike to you, for no reason at all. How much provocation would it take for you to swing your vehicle at the cyclist?

I'll answer that for you, assuming you are a law abiding, decent bloke (a stretch, I know...). You would under no circumstances swing your vehicle at the cyclist, because you realise that that would seriously threaten the life of the cyclist, possibly kill them.

So this is why I think provocation in this case is a red herring. Under no circumstances would any decent person swing a vehicle at a cyclist, knowing full well what the consequences would be. This 'driver' swung his taxi at the cyclist because he was a &^&%&^%$&. There is no logic in it.

Remember some people don't need provocation. Have a look at this. This is the extended version of my angry man video which I have posted previously. I challenge anyone to find where I provoked him. All I asked was, after I thought I heard him toot at me, 'what's the problem?'. Some folk don't need provocation.

 

[Lazy-Commuter]

oh great. so he will get off because they will dig up some report to say he was teased as a kid for having a pink bike or something, while coming from a poor family. This made him into this person and on this day he just had a flashback and snapped. It was a one off incident for which he is truly sorry for. Or maybe they will use the footballers get out of jail free. He was bursting for the loo and didnt even see the cyclist, he was just trying to get somewhere without wetting his pants. Or maybe he thought the cyclist was a fare and was pulling over for him lol

Wonder if his defence will have the audacity to go for the "but he'll lose his job if you ban him" card ? !

I must admit that a van did a similar overtake on me on the way home last night and I was tempted to "pat" his roof, then thought, "nah best not".

 

[MartinC]

Col, your post is pretty analogous to the cyclist's alleged obscene gesture.

The cyclist was reacting to something that had threatened his life. Maybe not helpful but understandable and certainly no justification for any illegal action by the driver.

Presumably your post is just a reaction to something you find irritating and made to provoke and irritate others. It's not helpful and I can't understand the need for it.

Whatever - it's pretty irrelevant to the substance of this case which is what the OP presumably wanted to discuss.

 

[col]

I'm certainly not being a numpty here. (Elsewhere maybe, but not here ).

Let me ask you this col, imagine you are driving your car/bus whatever. Imagine some other road user, say a cyclist, takes a dislike to you, for no reason at all. How much provocation would it take for you to swing your vehicle at the cyclist?

I'll answer that for you, assuming you are a law abiding, decent bloke (a stretch, I know...). You would under no circumstances swing your vehicle at the cyclist, because you realise that that would seriously threaten the life of the cyclist, possibly kill them.

So this is why I think provocation in this case is a red herring. Under no circumstances would any decent person swing a vehicle at a cyclist, knowing full well what the consequences would be. This 'driver' swung his taxi at the cyclist because he was a &^&%&^%$&. There is no logic in it.

Remember some people don't need provocation. Have a look at this. This is the extended version of my angry man video which I have posted previously. I challenge anyone to find where I provoked him. All I asked was, after I thought I heard him toot at me, 'what's the problem?'. Some folk don't need provocation.

Your missing the point mag,as some others seem to be,but i agree with you about everything,well almost But my point is that there are some out there that will run you over for the slightest excuse or reason,and reacting to bad driving or mistakes just might be your lucky day,so why do it?

Col, your post is pretty analogous to the cyclist's alleged obscene gesture.

The cyclist was reacting to something that had threatened his life. Maybe not helpful but understandable and certainly no justification for any illegal action by the driver.

Presumably your post is just a reaction to something you find irritating and made to provoke and irritate others. It's not helpful and I can't understand the need for it.

Whatever - it's pretty irrelevant to the substance of this case which is what the OP presumably wanted to discuss.

The reaction to threatened life seems to be the excuse most use to swear at drivers,if they make a mistake too,but when a driver reacts back to it,the cyclist is pleading wot did i do?
I agree its not justification for the driver,but telling the driver to eff off or other is eventually going to get this response as we all seem to know happens sometimes,so why do it?Thats my point.
And before the usual ones try to say im on the drivers side,im not,he should be locked up and banned for life,so the cyclist can do it again to someone else who cant control their tempers,and hopefully he will survive that too.

 

[Origamist]

And before the usual ones try to say im on the drivers side,im not,he should be locked up and banned for life,so the cyclist can do it again to someone else who cant control their tempers,and hopefully he will survive that too.

Do what again? The taxi driver's version of events were rejected by the Sheriff. Accusing the cyclist of giving him the finger was most likley a bit of back engineering by the cabbie in order to mitigate his cowardly and dangerous act.

 

[col]

Do what again? The taxi driver's version of events were rejected by the Sheriff. Accusing the cyclist of giving him the finger was most likley a bit of back engineering by the cabbie in order to mitigate his cowardly and dangerous act.

It could also have been the cyclist back engineering,realising what he had caused,and being cowardly didnt want to admit it.?

 

[Origamist]

It could also have been the cyclist back engineering,realising what he had caused,and being cowardly didnt want to admit it.?

Did you read Mr Taylor's account, he was a motorist who witnessed the incident? It tallies with the cyclist's version of events. However, I guess they were in cahoots eh, Col!

 

[magnatom]

It could also have been the cyclist back engineering,realising what he had caused,and being cowardly didnt want to admit it.?

Come on col, you are really stretching things now. The court has found in favour of the cyclist, the witnesses version of events tallies with the cyclists, so to the best of our and everyone else's knowledge the cyclist did not give any aggressive signs. You are just spinning this for your own purposes.