The Cycling Lawyer - assaulted

[downfader]

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/12/police-caution-for-unprovoked-assault.html

So even with an independent witness and injuries the Police decided to go for a caution. Such is their faith in the local CPS, perhaps?

To me that is at the very least attempted manslaughter, the driver knew what he was doing and the ramifications of pushing someone into oncoming traffic.

 

[gaz]

Shouldn't such car drivers receive bans for a certain period. Clearly the driver has displayed that there driving is sub standard. how else could the cyclist damage the car whilst cycling along. and he let his anger take over him.

IMO there should be no place for people like this in the road, there is a reason we have public transport and he should be forced to use it!

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The pertinent passage -

In law there is no real doubt that the assault amounted to one occasioning actual bodily harm, though I am told that under CPS guidelines it would be likely to be regarded as a ‘common’ assault. I was told it was not a serious enough matter to be referred to the CPS.

I must be out of touch with the practicalities of the criminal law as, I have to confess, it had never occurred to me that a caution would be thought a suitable disposal for an offence of unprovoked violence even assuming (as I must) that the offender has an unblemished record. I was also surprised that I was not informed of the possibility of a caution before it happened, so that I could make a representation about it.

Roadrage is dangerous and far too prevalent. Roadrage directed at vulnerable road users is especially dangerous. I regard it as a severely aggravating feature. Sadly ‘it’s just roadrage’ seems to be regarded too often as an exculpatory explanation. I do not think it very reassuring that someone is violent only in the vicinity of his car.

I am, not for the first time, disappointed in the level of protection that our criminal justice system provides to cyclists.

Cyclists seem to be caught in the pincer movement of increased hostility and impatience from drivers, and a reluctance of the police and the CPS to apply a sufficient deterrent to those who act, or are minded to act, unlawfully towards them.

 

[Dan B]

Realistically, though: the offender has admitted guilt, the caution will stick on his record (shows up in CRBs etc) and he's just made it a lot more complex to get into the US if he needs/wants to. A much better result than getting off in court because of CPS incompetence

And if Martin now wants to post the car reg details and say "driven by a man who has criminally assaulted cyclists" he is probably perfectly at liberty to do so - it's a matter of fact, so no defamation comeback

 

[downfader]

Realistically, though: the offender has admitted guilt, the caution will stick on his record (shows up in CRBs etc) and he's just made it a lot more complex to get into the US if he needs/wants to. A much better result than getting off in court because of CPS incompetence

And if Martin now wants to post the car reg details and say "driven by a man who has criminally assaulted cyclists" he is probably perfectly at liberty to do so - it's a matter of fact, so no defamation comeback

Whilst a caution will show up on record it is a less serious matter for many employers and countries you might travel to. IIRC yes the USA will have some issues, but only a court conviction will stop entry.

Perhaps we need to give power to the Police for short term bans? Or would that be too much admin and socially?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

part of me says the first guy should have twatted beamer man, hard, after the first push.

maybe then he would have thought twice about trying to push someone into the path of an oncoming car.

beamer man sounds like he'll 'go postal' someday soon at another road user. a menace to everyone.

 

[HJ]

Shouldn't such car drivers receive bans for a certain period.

How about life...

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

IMO there should be no place for people like this in the road, there is a reason we have public transport and he should be forced to use it!

Why thankyou, you are so charming! I am never done anything like this but still use Public Transport. Before I do use it the next time, what do you suggest I do?? run down an old lady with my bike??

 

[pshore]

Perhaps we need to give power to the Police for short term bans? Or would that be too much admin and socially?

How about this ... taking away a vehicle for even a small amount of time is really going to give some time to reflect.

What road offences result in vehicle seizure?
The police have the power to seize a vehicle if it’s being used in an anti-social manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress). This includes inconsiderate driving and unauthorised off-road driving of cars, motorbikes etc.

http://www.homeoffic...s/road-traffic/

 

[Peter10]

How about this ... taking away a vehicle for even a small amount of time is really going to give some time to reflect.

What road offences result in vehicle seizure?
The police have the power to seize a vehicle if it’s being used in an anti-social manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress). This includes inconsiderate driving and unauthorised off-road driving of cars, motorbikes etc.

http://www.homeoffic...s/road-traffic/

True, it is from section 59 police reform act. However, the driver must receive a warning first, then the car is seized. So for example, a driver can be seen driving in a manner that can cause alarm, harassment or distress and in an anti-social manner they can be stopped and given a warning which lasts for 12 months on the Police National Computer. If this car is seen to be driven in such a way again THEN it can be seized. The good part of this law is that it doesn't matter who is driving the car on the second warning, it could be a friend or relative. On the flip side, if the driver of the original warning is stopped driving another car in the same manner, the car can be seized also.

However, part of this law is that the car must be seen to be driving without due care an attention. If a driver is reported for driving without due care and attention in the first place it carries a higher penalty. The section 59 warning is a good piece of legislation which can be used if an officer doesn't deem it serious enough to report for summons but worthy of a warning.

 

[gaz]

Why thankyou, you are so charming! I am never done anything like this but still use Public Transport. Before I do use it the next time, what do you suggest I do?? run down an old lady with my bike??

I think you misunderstood where i'm coming from. Not that public transport is bad, but more the fact that a lot of people don't use it where it is a perfectly acceptable and fast way to travel.
My point is more so that driving should be a privilege, for the people that are well behaved and drive in a safe manor, and not given out to any plum that can take a test and then puts all road users in danger by being reckless.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

My reply was toungue in cheek, I would never run a little old lady over, steal her money for bike things, yes, but not run her over.

 

[asterix]

Why thankyou, you are so charming! I am never done anything like this but still use Public Transport. Before I do use it the next time, what do you suggest I do?? run down an old lady with my bike??

Most people use public transport. What's different about you?

 

[DrSquirrel]

True, it is from section 59 police reform act. However, the driver must receive a warning first, then the car is seized. So for example, a driver can be seen driving in a manner that can cause alarm, harassment or distress and in an anti-social manner they can be stopped and given a warning which lasts for 12 months on the Police National Computer. If this car is seen to be driven in such a way again THEN it can be seized. The good part of this law is that it doesn't matter who is driving the car on the second warning, it could be a friend or relative. On the flip side, if the driver of the original warning is stopped driving another car in the same manner, the car can be seized also.

However, part of this law is that the car must be seen to be driving without due care an attention. If a driver is reported for driving without due care and attention in the first place it carries a higher penalty. The section 59 warning is a good piece of legislation which can be used if an officer doesn't deem it serious enough to report for summons but worthy of a warning.

Interesting etc.

Stuff like this is the reason why more people should report offences that they don't think aren't that bad... so they have previous intelligence logged against them hopefully... OR they may already have a caution...

 

[Lizban]

Sadly this is what I would expect the outcome to be in a case like this. The fact it was a cyclist is only relevant to make it newsworthy on here - Had the victim been a ped or another car driver do you really think that it would have been a harder punishment?

Saddened but not suprised that it was dealt with by a caution.

On the entry to America issue how does America know if you have a record - clearly there are no fly lists but they can't have access to every citzen in the world and their criminal history?