# Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2014)

http://road.cc/content/news/120748-...-missed-and-crashed-hair-salon#comment-262197

Got to be attempted murder, whatever the provocation.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

No doubt the perp will get off with some piffling charge, but their insurance company should have a perfect get-of-paying excuse as they insure against accidents not deliberate acts. Even better, I think they can re-claim their 3rd party payout to the shop-owner from the driver too.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (8 Jun 2014)

Kingston Gate... use that road all the time on the bike... there are some right nutty drivers out there... still, arrested for attempted GBH... if they hadn't caused any damage to property I doubt the police would have turned up at all...


----------



## slowmotion (8 Jun 2014)

I couldn't help but notice the model of the car.


----------



## Sods_Laur (8 Jun 2014)

Sadly I suspect the fact the car driver will only get charged with driving without due care and attention and the fact the cyclist allegedly kicked the car beforehand will serve as mitigation. 

5 points and £250 fine. I hope their insurance company refuses to pay out.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

User said:


> This instance deserves to get included in this, CTC to debate penalties for driving offences.



The key thing, is it shouldn't even be considered a driving offense -should be assault (at least)


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2014)

Judges who know about best cycling practise.


----------



## mickle (8 Jun 2014)

Good grief.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Judges who know about best cycling practise.



now that's crazy talk


----------



## Sara_H (8 Jun 2014)

Reading between the lines of the Road.cc article, it's the cyclist thats been arrested, not the driver.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Jun 2014)

slowmotion said:


> I couldn't help but notice the model of the car.


Audi f**k do these people get allowed on the roads?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jun 2014)

Sara_H said:


> Reading between the lines of the Road.cc article, it's the cyclist thats been arrested, not the driver.



Unless there was some other attack by the cyclist that hasn't been reported, I'd say kicking a car wouldn't justify an arrest for attempted GBH.

GC


----------



## jefmcg (8 Jun 2014)

Something is odd. The witness was sure the driver was a woman, but a man has been arrested. Either it was the cyclist, or the witness' testimony is worth nothing.


----------



## Sara_H (8 Jun 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Something is odd. The witness was sure the driver was a woman, but a man has been arrested. Either it was the cyclist, or the witness' testimony is worth nothing.


Or there was a male passenger. Either way, if the information in the report is correct, it isn't the driver that's been arrested.


----------



## Tin Pot (8 Jun 2014)

Eyewitness testimony is usually shoot.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Jun 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Eyewitness testimony is usually ****.


Agreed, but here and on the road.cc article, a lot of opinions are being formed on the basis of hearsay testimony from someone who mayn't even be able to tell a man from a woman.


----------



## sidevalve (8 Jun 2014)

Usual story - we only have half a tale. Witnesses/cyclist/driver ? Who did what to who when and where ?


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (8 Jun 2014)

Latest news from the scene is that the car now has a short back and sides...


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2014)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Latest news from the scene is that the car now has a short back and sides...



.... or the driver will have when they meet the prison barber?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2014)

Don't forget that "arrested" is not the same as "guilty"

It merely confers a certain legal status that can protect the individual and also the POlice


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2014)

"He booted my car and I panicked".


----------



## Tin Pot (8 Jun 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Agreed, but here and on the road.cc article, a lot of opinions are being formed on the basis of hearsay testimony from someone who mayn't even be able to tell a man from a woman.


Indeed, but it's all niceties because here at cyclechat we know the driver is guilty and the cyclist is always the oppressed hero. I don't know why we need "evidence", or the "rule of law". 

Can we track the driver by their license plate and get it over with?


----------



## Origamist (8 Jun 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Indeed, but it's all niceties because here at cyclechat we know the driver is guilty and the cyclist is always the oppressed hero. I don't know why we need "evidence", or the "rule of law".
> 
> Can we track the driver by their license plate and get it over with?



It appears someone has been arrested and I doubt it is the "oppressed hero". I'd leave it to police and CPS and save some pixels.


----------



## mr_cellophane (8 Jun 2014)

If she is such a bad driver that she hits a building by mistake, what hope is there for a cycist ?


----------



## slowmotion (8 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I imagine that the cyclist stood in front of the building holding his bike like a matador holds his cape, pulling it away and stepping to one side at the last moment.


 ....with perfect lycra-clad legs.......


----------



## mickle (8 Jun 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Indeed, but it's all niceties because here at cyclechat we know the driver is guilty and the cyclist is always the oppressed hero. I don't know why we need "evidence", or the "rule of law".
> 
> Can we track the driver by their license plate and get it over with?



Who's farking side are you on?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Jun 2014)

mickle said:


> Who's ****ing side are you on?










I am on the side of Truth and Justice.......


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> Oh dear, I thought after that TV programme we'd agreed it wasn't a war?


I'm afraid I'm getting very close to vigilante tactics. It's my bonhomie/anomie balance that needs special medication these days. The inevitable ''I lost control of my car'' defence, and the lenient sentence that will follow can only add to my anomie imbalance.


----------



## donnydave (8 Jun 2014)

Terrible incident of course but I think we are overlooking the comedy genius lurking in the comments at the bottom of the story in the link - contributory negligence by the hair salon for not behind painted in high viz


----------



## slowmotion (8 Jun 2014)

donnydave said:


> Terrible incident of course but I think we are overlooking the comedy genius lurking in the comments at the bottom of the story in the link - contributory negligence by the hair salon for not behind painted in high viz


 The hair dryers might count as helmets though?


----------



## stephec (8 Jun 2014)

slowmotion said:


> The hair dryers might count as helmets though?


Did they have a CE mark on them though?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2014)

story's been updated:

In a statement emailed to road.cc, the Metropolitan Police said:

Police were called at around 18:00hrs on Saturday, 7 June, to a collision between a car and a cyclist in Park Road, Kingston-upon-Thames.

The car was subsequently in collision with a hairdresser's shop.

Officers and London Ambulance Service attended the scene. The male cyclist was taken to hospital with a small cut to his arm. He was discharged that evening.

The driver of the car, a 30-year-old woman, was arrested on suspicion of attempted GBH. She was taken to a south-west London police station and bailed to return on a date in September.

At this early stage, officers believe there had been a heated argument between the cyclist and the driver while both were stationary. During the course of the dispute, the cyclist kicked the car, an Audi Q7. The woman drove the car away and was in collision with the cyclist and then the shop.

Officers from Kingston CID are investigating. Enquiries continue to establish the full circumstances.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Jun 2014)

GBH. That seems right.


----------



## Crankarm (8 Jun 2014)

This story is simply hair raising. Imagine if she had struck the cyclist, he would have no doubt been killed. She should be charged with attempted murder. Why he felt the need to kick the vehicle is a mystery. She must have done/said something very bad.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Jun 2014)

Trust me...
The driver will walk.
"Panic, fear of assault, lost control of vehicle , angry cyclist, blah blah"
Just for a giggle, somebody really should start a CC poll on the outcome.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (9 Jun 2014)

It's on a local FB group. Most people on there unfortunately go from saying it was an overreaction to that as cyclists are aggressive around the park it was only a matter of time and bring in compulsory registration for bikes, most of them shouldn't be on the road etc. very sad response but not unique amongst many people...


----------



## jdtate101 (9 Jun 2014)

I'd love to see her insurance claim form:

Her :"I was trying to run over the cyclist, but didn't mean to hit the other car and building"

Insurance Clerk :"Errm...p*ss off love, we're not paying for your stupid tank."

On a serious note, I hope she gets the book thrown at her. I can't imagine her insurance will payout for her Q7, but should for the Shop, other car & bike. A Q7 is very expensive and assuming it's on an HP deal, she will be paying for that for YEARS, plus any insurance renewal will be sky high. Can't say I feel sorry for her one bit.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Jun 2014)

jdtate101 said:


> I'd love to see her insurance claim form:
> 
> Her :"I was trying to run over the cyclist, but didn't mean to hit the other car and building"
> 
> ...



Her insurance probably will go up, but by a strange logic, if it's not an "accident" then they won't have to pay, so presumably her "no claims" remains intact
(glossing over any claim by the shop here of course)


----------



## jdtate101 (9 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Her insurance probably will go up, but by a strange logic, if it's not an "accident" then they won't have to pay, so presumably her "no claims" remains intact
> (glossing over any claim by the shop here of course)



I'm sure they have a clause about "deliberate acts of aggression" ie road rage, and can refuse payout for all but the 3rd parties. (off to google it now...), this claim for the 3rd parties WOULD effect her no claims I'm sure.

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/road-rage-your-car-insurance-rights

This seems to suggest that a refusal would be pretty standard in this case...although it does depend upon each insurer.

Whatever happens, she is looking at either time at HM pleasure and/or a large fine, but will have serious financial consequences for years to come (and rightfully so).


----------



## vickster (9 Jun 2014)

If she has to pay to fix a totalled Q7 w**k panzer, I expect any minor savings offset by not losing her ncb will offer scant discomfort. Also, if prosecuted she'll have to tell her insurance company which won't be pretty either in terms of impact on premiums.

Insurance companies are programmed to pay out as little as they can get away with, so hopefully they'll give her a suitably rough time. As will big Donna in Pentonville hopefully!


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Jun 2014)

My totally unbiased and in no way probably accurate speculation on events

Close pass/MGIF
Debate at lights
1st attempt to drive car at cyclist, met by fend off kick
Cyclist rides off ahead of car
2nd more serious attempt ends in car crashing into shop.

Kick will be used to mitigate in court. Driver will have felt threatened inside her 2 ton steel vehicle.

This is attempted murder, again touching peoples cars is again the seemingly the most heinous thing you can do to someone, they will literally lose it. Do not do it.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...cked-off-bike-in-road-rage-crash-9511055.html

*Motorist arrested on suspicion of attempted grievous bodily harm after 'autistic' cyclist is knocked off bike in 'road rage' crash*


----------



## vickster (9 Jun 2014)

How can it be attempted Gbh if she hit him and he cut his arm. Hopefully, he'll take some legal action for the injury too


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Jun 2014)

vickster said:


> How can it be attempted Gbh if she hit him and he cut his arm. Hopefully, he'll take some legal action for the injury too



It can't be much else.

To prove attempted murder, the Crown would have to convince a jury the woman wanted to kill the cyclist.

We don't know the circumstances, but if she ran him over once and stopped, she's not - beyond reasonable doubt - trying to kill him - why not reverse and have another go?

However, anyone who deliberately drives a car into a cyclist - even if 'only' once - is almost certainly trying to injure the cyclist.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

Quick Googling shows the charge in similar cases is often attempted murder, especially if the victim is a police officer. If the cyclist has been trapped between the building and a two ton car I'm pretty sure it would have been a fatality.


----------



## Ganymede (9 Jun 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> It can't be much else.
> 
> To prove attempted murder, the Crown would have to convince a jury the woman wanted to kill the cyclist.
> 
> ...


I think vickster means it can be "attempted" GBH if she did actually harm him - it's just "GBH".


----------



## vickster (9 Jun 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> It can't be much else.
> 
> To prove attempted murder, the Crown would have to convince a jury the woman wanted to kill the cyclist.
> 
> ...


It was more the attempted Gbh rather than actual Gbh I was querying


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2014)

Ganymede said:


> I think vickster means it can be "attempted" GBH if she did actually harm him - it's just "GBH".



Gbh depends on the actual injury. If that was minor, a gbh charge would fail.


----------



## .stu (9 Jun 2014)

PK99 said:


> Gbh depends on the actual injury. If that was minor, a gbh charge would fail.



Which is why it is "attempted gbh". The police obviously believe the driver attempted to injure the cyclist using their car as a weapon, which would likely result in serious injury, just the same as attempting to stab someone with a kitchen knife. Just because she failed, doesn't mean she didn't try!


----------



## spen666 (9 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/120748-...-missed-and-crashed-hair-salon#comment-262197
> 
> Got to be attempted murder, whatever the provocation.


 
Why? Where is the evidence of the intent to kill?


It is a serious matter and one which hopefully will be dealt with severely (if driver is guilty of an offence), but to call it attempted murder on basis of what is in story or to suggest driver tried to kill is helping no one


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Jun 2014)

It's an interesting question, if I attempt to harm you in way which is very likely to result in your death, but at that time my mental state is not decided on if I want to kill or just injure you i.e. I am just in an uncontrollable rage. Is it attempted murder or not?


----------



## Ganymede (9 Jun 2014)

.stu said:


> Which is why it is "attempted gbh". The police obviously believe the driver attempted to injure the cyclist using their car as a weapon, which would likely result in serious injury, just the same as attempting to stab someone with a kitchen knife. Just because she failed, doesn't mean she didn't try!


Yes I see - I found the definitions on the CPS website and the injury has to be much worse for GBH:

"Grievous bodily harm means *really serious* bodily harm. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is *really serious*. However, examples of what would usually amount to *really serious* harm include:


injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement;
broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull, compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc; 
injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
serious psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a15


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

The cyclist was at fault for not being a police officer.


----------



## BSRU (9 Jun 2014)

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


----------



## 4F (9 Jun 2014)

The standard article seems to suggest she had children in the car as well:- 

Angela Bulbeck, who has owned The Park Salon for 17 years and worked there since she was a teenager, said she spoke to the motorist shortly after the crash.
She said: "She kept saying repeatedly that she was sorry. I just said it didn't matter if there was no loss of life. We are just hoping she is insured. She drives a very fancy car. I think that is what saved her children's' lives."

Beaten to it by BRSU....


----------



## Ganymede (9 Jun 2014)

4F said:


> The standard article seems to suggest she had children in the car as well:-
> 
> Angela Bulbeck, who has owned The Park Salon for 17 years and worked there since she was a teenager, said she spoke to the motorist shortly after the crash.
> She said: "She kept saying repeatedly that she was sorry. *I just said it didn't matter if there was no loss of life.* We are just hoping she is insured. She drives a very fancy car. I think that is what saved her children's' lives."
> ...



WTFFFFFFF?


----------



## BSRU (9 Jun 2014)

4F said:


> The standard article seems to suggest she had children in the car as well:-
> 
> Angela Bulbeck, who has owned The Park Salon for 17 years and worked there since she was a teenager, said she spoke to the motorist shortly after the crash.
> She said: "She kept saying repeatedly that she was sorry. I just said it didn't matter if there was no loss of life. We are just hoping she is insured. She drives a very fancy car. I think that is what saved her children's' lives."
> ...


Five children in the car.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Jun 2014)

She drove her car at a cyclist when she has her 5 children in it? She needs help.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Jun 2014)

There's a good argument for treating it (deliberately targeting someone with a car) more like arson, than as minor traffic offense. Even when people are injured, the motorist usually gets let off. And if they are killed, then the suicide-death-swerve defence works pretty well


----------



## MattE72 (9 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...cked-off-bike-in-road-rage-crash-9511055.html
> 
> *Motorist arrested on suspicion of attempted grievous bodily harm after 'autistic' cyclist is knocked off bike in 'road rage' crash*


It says in the article that she had children in the car! As she wasn't a big enough t*** already!!


----------



## spen666 (9 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> It's an interesting question, if I attempt to harm you in way which is very likely to result in your death, but at that time my mental state is not decided on if I want to kill or just injure you i.e. I am just in an uncontrollable rage. Is it attempted murder or not?


 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.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Jun 2014)

How? She was scared for her children's safety and attempted to ram him with a car? I think that's bullshit but I bet that what the defence is once the dust has settled.


----------



## spen666 (9 Jun 2014)

MattE72 said:


> It says in the article that she had children in the car! As she wasn't a big enough t*** already!!


 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


----------



## spen666 (9 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> How? She was scared for her children's safety and attempted to ram him with a car? I think that's bullshit but I bet that what the defence is once the dust has settled.


 How what?


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

Apologised at the scene, which is not what insurers advise.


----------



## BSRU (9 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Apologised at the scene, which is not what insurers advise.


No that's admitting liability is not allowed, even when it's clearly your fault.


----------



## Sods_Laur (9 Jun 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> It can't be much else.
> 
> To prove attempted murder, the Crown would have to convince a jury the woman wanted to kill the cyclist.
> 
> ...


Exactly, which is why a charge of attempted GBH is often preferred to, and easier to convict for, than attempted murder.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

BSRU said:


> No that's admitting liability is not allowed, even when it's clearly your fault.



Yeah, an apology implies fault, I'm sure it says in the docs don't apologise but it's too hot to Google.


----------



## BSRU (9 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Yeah, an apology implies fault, I'm sure it says in the docs don't apologise but it's too hot to Google.


Understandable


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Jun 2014)

That bus driver got 17 months for GBH for a very similar incident.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> That bus driver got 17 months for GBH for a very similar incident.



yes, but he's working class, so needs keeping in his place. A well-to-do middle class mother defending her children against a lycra lout - he had it coming


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

She'll get killer driver Dr Helen Measures' brief, the one who specialises in this sort of stuff.

The "in fear for my family's life" excuse seemed to have worked for that New York Range Rover driver who fled some bikers, killing one. That was a bunch of bikers though, not a disabled chap on a bike.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Jun 2014)

Was that the one where a gang of bikers were brake testing him and when he hit the bike, they tried to enter the vehicle?


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jun 2014)

Yeah, completely different I know but I wonder how far you could take the argument, say the Range Rover driver ploughed through a school playground to escape? Where do you draw the line.


----------



## Markymark (9 Jun 2014)

I saw that clip of the guy in America (assuming its the same one). I'd have feared for my safety and got the hell out of there too. He didn't ram them on purpose but he fled without worrying who he knocked off. They surrounded his car and were banging on the windows if I remember.


----------



## Sara_H (9 Jun 2014)

BSRU said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

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 (9 Jun 2014)

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 (9 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

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


----------



## spen666 (9 Jun 2014)

oldstrath said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

oldstrath said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

oldstrath said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

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 (9 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (9 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

User said:


> 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 (9 Jun 2014)

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?


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jun 2014)

User said:


> What a marvellous imagination you have.



Or she could claim she had a sleeping disorder such as sleep apnea like some woman who was driving a Range Rover who knocked down and killed a couple who were cycling approaching a roundabout. She claimed she momentarily fell asleep or blacked out. Case dismissed on medical grounds.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jun 2014)

User said:


> What a marvellous imagination you have.



You think so .


----------



## slowmotion (9 Jun 2014)

_"Clearly, had the hair salon not had an unusually large projecting bay window so close to the carriageway, this unfortunate accident might never have occurred"_


----------



## Crankarm (10 Jun 2014)

slowmotion said:


> _"Clearly, had the hair salon not had an unusually large projecting bay window so close to the carriageway, this unfortunate accident might never have occurred"_



It was the salon's fault ……….an unauthorised hair extension.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Jun 2014)

Very good!


----------



## mr_cellophane (10 Jun 2014)

Didn't it say she was 30, so unlikely that all 5 kids were her's.


----------



## MisterStan (10 Jun 2014)

mr_cellophane said:


> Didn't it say she was 30, so unlikely that all 5 kids were her's.


They're probably her grand children.


----------



## vickster (10 Jun 2014)

Although she lives in a fairly posh bit of SW London, not S Wales


----------



## Tim Hall (10 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Could we possibly ditch the casual sexism, classism, etc. and stick to the points at issue?


Ever the optimist.


----------



## Beebo (10 Jun 2014)

mr_cellophane said:


> Didn't it say she was 30, so unlikely that all 5 kids were her's.


 
If those 5 kids arent all hers, there will be some serious questions to answer from the parents.
If someone drove like that with my kids in the back I would go mad.


----------



## jarlrmai (10 Jun 2014)

Maybe she's a nanny...

5 kids and 30 sounds very much as if at least one of the kids was not hers, this changes things because the parents of that child are going to be involved in the case.

Unless she had triplets and then twins or something or took on her husbands children from a previous marriage.


----------



## Cycleops (10 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Could we possibly ditch the casual sexism, classism, etc. and stick to the points at issue?


But it wouldn't be so much fun then.


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> 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.


 

You are confusing opinion and law.

I have not expressed an opinion on her intent or lack of it.

I have said she did or did not have intent.

I am talking of what the legal position is rather than ranting about my personal opinions or views of her


----------



## Crankarm (10 Jun 2014)

5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever


spen666 said:


> You are confusing opinion and law.
> 
> I have not expressed an opinion on her intent or lack of it.
> 
> ...



How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> ...
> 
> Unless she had triplets and then twins or something or took on her husbands children from a previous marriage.



you do realise that a normal human pregnancy is around nine months... one child a year is entirely possible.


----------



## Profpointy (10 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> 5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever
> 
> 
> How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.


 ummm - Spen's explaining the legal position not defending the woman's actions. no need to have a pop at the messenger if you don't like the law


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> 5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever
> 
> 
> How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.


 
You need to take a step back.

I have not expressed a view on what her intent was.
I have no idea what it was.

I have said that in the information available publically there is no evidence of her intewnt to kill or cause serious harm.



fortunately for society, and unfortunately for some on here, we have a judicial process where people are innocent until proven guilty. IE there needs to be evidence to convict someone. An internet rant is not evidence. Personal prejudices are not evidence. Revulsion at horrific injuries / damage are not evidence that will convict someone


----------



## jarlrmai (10 Jun 2014)

Yeah I wouldn't want to be her if she's a nanny..


MontyVeda said:


> you do realise that a normal human pregnancy is around nine months... one child a year is entirely possible.



I know just seems unlikely, entirely possible of course. We shall see.


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> 5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever
> 
> 
> How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. *You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that*, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.


 

I'm so much of a defence lawyer that I work for a prosecuting authority, but please don't let that stop you in your confusing the statement of the law I make with your own personal opinions


----------



## Markymark (10 Jun 2014)

Doesn't make the consequences legal or acceptable though.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3126052, member: 30090"]If you want to kick out at a car then prepare for the consequences. Simples.[/QUOTE]

Interesting choice of words, considering the alleged victim had - again, allegedly - a serious enough mental disability to have to wear a badge. As he does not seem to be a danger to anyone, he should be able to go about his business without anyone attempting to kill him because he over-reacts to a situation.

(It's also a sobering reminder to me that getting in a row with a driver does not prove I am clever.)


----------



## cisamcgu (10 Jun 2014)

We have no idea at all what the altercation was about - for all we know the cyclist leaned into the car, smiled and whispered "I'm going to kill you all, slowly, one by one...every time I kick the car, one of you will die ..."

OK - unlikely verging on the ludicrous, but until we know what happened I don't think we can attribute blame, cause or anything.


----------



## mickle (10 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3126052, member: 30090"]If you want to kick out at a car then prepare for the consequences. Simples.[/QUOTE]

Really? Is that how it works in your world?


----------



## glenn forger (10 Jun 2014)

cisamcgu said:


> We have no idea at all what the altercation was about - for all we know the cyclist leaned into the car, smiled and whispered "I'm going to kill you all, slowly, one by one...every time I kick the car, one of you will die ..."
> 
> OK - unlikely verging on the ludicrous, but until we know what happened I don't think we can attribute blame, cause or anything.



Ok, we'll go with that, so the driver then how she has to explain why, if she felt the children were in danger, she thought the best option was to drive off the road and into a house. When transporting children it's best to keep the smashing of buildings with your vehicle to an absolute minimum.


----------



## Crankarm (10 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Ok, we'll go with that, so the driver then how she has to explain why, if she felt the children were in danger, she thought the best option was to drive off the road and into a house. When transporting children *it's best to keep the smashing of buildings with your vehicle to an absolute minimum*.



Yes one would have thought so ….


----------



## Markymark (10 Jun 2014)

...actually, the times I want to smash the car into a building is WHEN I have children inside.

Sorry, flipant.


----------



## procel (10 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> You are confusing opinion and law.
> 
> I have not expressed an opinion on her intent or lack of it.
> 
> ...



It isn't coming across as that, by the way. I think most people who have read the thread have grasped the basics of the position the law takes, including @jarlrmai who asked the initial question which this sub bit of the thread has sprung from (which you didn't really answer, just saying "you understand where s/he's coming from").

What your writing suggests is that rather than explaining the law, you are defending the position the law takes. Other people are suggesting that if this is the position the law takes, then (not to put too fine a point on it) then the law is an ass.

I have some sympathy with the latter. Let's take some problem examples:
• If Alice lunges at Betty with a knife and kills her (then in the absence of premediation or self-defence etc) she is guilty of voluntary manslaughter _if she intended to harm, whether or not that intent went so far as to intend killing._
• If Alice lunges at Betty with a knife and fails to kill her then (in the absence of any evidence of intent) she is guilty of (attempted) GBH.
• _The extent of the intent being irrelevant to guilt or innocence depending on - essentially - luck means the law fails to be consistent._

• Of course, the injury caused may itself be evidence of intent: if Alice stabbed Betty in the arm, it would be more difficult to prove intent than if the injury was in the upper torso and Betty was medically lucky to survive.
• Then the weapon used may also be evidence of intent. Use of a gun (ignoring the illegalities around carrying one for the moment) would strongly suggest intent unless Alice could prove she was a crack shot who was supremely confident of her ability only to wound, even while extremely emotional.
• Or perhaps Alice and Betty have an argument on the edge of a precipice. Alice pushes Betty off. The drop is 180m (the same as the height of The Gherkin) so Betty hits the ground after 6 seconds at 215kph. She weighs 70kg so she hits the ground with approx kinetic energy of (70 x 215sq) 3200 kJ. What jury in their right mind is going to think that Alice did not have intent to kill?
• Betty and Alice are working on a demolition site and communicating via radio. Alice is in control of a 2000kg wrecking ball. They have an argument over the radio and Alice deliberately releases the wrecking ball in Betty's direction. The ball travels from stationary to 40kph in under 2 seconds and hits Betty's arm with a kinetic energy of (2000 x 40sq) 3200 kJ. I _suppose_ Alice can claim to the jury she only intended to hurt or scare Betty but I would have my doubts about the success of that strategy.

So in the case of a defendant who drives a motor vehicle directly at another person, it should be shown how a 3200 kJ impact with a motor vehicle is safer than the same impact with a wrecking ball. How undertaking that deliberate act is lesser evidence of intent to kill than pushing someone off The Gherkin. And how operating a bulky motor vehicle while under the influence of the red mist, in order to deliberately injure, takes less skill than firing a gun to wound in the same state of mind.


----------



## procel (10 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> ...fortunately for society, and unfortunately for some on here, we have a judicial process where people are innocent until proven guilty...



Except what we're talking about is_ mens rea_, which many jurisprudential scholars do not consider a essential part of the principle. Innocent until proven guilty is about proving that the defendant did the action they were claimed to have done. Otherwise, in the absence of declarations (such as "die you bastard, die") from the defendant it would never be possible to infer intent - and courts which currently do would be engaging in outrageous evidence constructions. Also, Parliament would be perfectly entitled to create a strict liability offence for situations like this with no interference from Article 6 of the ECHR (not that I'm suggesting it does).


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

procel said:


> Except what we're talking about is_ mens rea_, which many jurisprudential scholars do not consider a essential part of the principle.


Sadly for you, mens rea is an essential part of the offence of attempted murder, so it is irrelevant what scholars think. The law is as it is until it is changed.


> Innocent until proven guilty is about proving that the defendant did the action they were claimed to have done. Otherwise, in the absence of declarations (such as "die you *******, die") from the defendant it would never be possible to infer intent -


 Complete nonsense. How do you think people get convicted of theft, which requires the mental element of dishonesty above and beyond merely taking an item.

For example, if I pick up your pink jacket, and taker it home, thinking it is mine, I have not committed the offence of theft as I was not acting dishonestly. Hence there is a mental element in that offence and most offences

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong


> and courts which currently do would be engaging in outrageous evidence constructions. Also, Parliament would be perfectly entitled to create a strict liability offence for situations like this with no interference from Article 6 of the ECHR (not that I'm suggesting it does).


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

procel said:


> It isn't coming across as that, by the way. I think most people who have read the thread have grasped the basics of the position the law takes, including @jarlrmai who asked the initial question which this sub bit of the thread has sprung from (which you didn't really answer, just saying "you understand where s/he's coming from").
> 
> What your writing suggests is that rather than explaining the law, you are defending the position the law takes. ....


 
If you want to import that into an explanation of what the current law is, then that is up to you.

I have merely stated what the law is. If you do not like the law, then campaign to get it changed.


----------



## procel (10 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Complete nonsense. How do you think people get convicted of theft, which requires the mental element of dishonesty above and beyond merely taking an item.



I think you need to read what I wrote again. Yes, mens rea is an essential part of the law and I did not deny that.

However, in practice, it is not essential to prove mens rea to as high a standard as the proof that the action itself happened. (Otherwise, nearly every shoplifter would get away with stealing pink jackets simply by claiming they were absent minded, which doesn't happen unless they're Richard Madeley - who no doubt _was_ truly absent minded). There are only two possible explanations for this: (1) courts are outrageously constructing evidence; (2) the practice of the courts (i.e. the common law) is not to apply the full strength of 'innocent until proven guilty' to the mens rea element of the offence.


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

procel said:


> I think you need to read what I wrote again. Yes, mens rea is an essential part of the law and I did not deny that.





procel said:


> Except what we're talking about is_ mens rea_, which many jurisprudential scholars do not consider a essential part of the principle. Innocent until proven guilty is about proving that the defendant did the action they were claimed to have done. Otherwise, in the absence of declarations (such as "die you *******, die") from the defendant it would never be possible to infer intent ....



Now to me and to the average reader, this sounds like a denial that mens rea is an essential part of the law

However, don't let your change of position stop you spouting nonsense


> However, in practice, it is not essential to prove mens rea to as high a standard as the proof that the action itself happened. (Otherwise, nearly every shoplifter would get away with stealing pink jackets simply by claiming they were absent minded, which doesn't happen unless they're Richard Madeley - who no doubt _was_ truly absent minded). There are only two possible explanations for this: (1) courts are outrageously constructing evidence; (2) the practice of the courts (i.e. the common law) is not to apply the full strength of 'innocent until proven guilty' to the mens rea element of the offence.



This may be the law on cloud cuckoo land, but in England and Wales this is just not the case. 

To prove an offence took place, ALL the essential elements have to be proved to the criminal standard of proof - ie beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no lesser standard required to prove mens rea.

Sadly your knowledge of the law is rather less than you think.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Ok, we'll go with that, so the driver then how she has to explain why, if she felt the children were in danger, she thought the best option was to drive off the road and into a house. When transporting children it's best to keep the smashing of buildings with your vehicle to an absolute minimum.




Slightly OT but does have relevance.

I used to work in Woolwich /Eltham and a female colleague was "car jacked" at lights

Fearful of her safety, she saw a contractor's minibus and drove straight into it,

8 burly builders got out to speak to her.. the end result being that they "dealt with" the car jacker who had to be "restrained" until the Police arrived.


However the insurance company would not pay up for the damage caused because it was "deliberate"

The contractor was fine and accepted the situation, not pursuing the costs, but she had to foot the bill for the damage to her own car


----------



## Markymark (10 Jun 2014)

Bar steward insurance company.


----------



## Crankarm (10 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Now to me and to the average reader, this sounds like a denial that mens rea is an essential part of the law
> 
> However, don't let your change of position stop you spouting nonsense
> 
> ...



And sadly in the context of motoring offences and offences against the person where a vehicle is instrumental in carrying out an offence, the law and courts are too lenient to drivers whether at the stage of charging, prosecuting, convicting or sentencing. It has been said many times before and I'll say it again, if you want to kill or seriously injure some one in this country do it in a car/vehicle. Driving is a lawful activity until the standard falls below that of a reasonable and careful driver. Most juries are filled with people who drive and will no doubt think, they go I but for the grace of Dog.

I just hope the police are skilful at interviewing any witnesses particularly the children in the car depending on their ages. They may give a good indication of the state of mind of the driver prior to the collision or indeed any previous aggression to road users, vulnerable road users.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> It has been said many times before and I'll say it again, if you want to kill or seriously injure some one in this country do it in a car/vehicle.


Of course, not just this country.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/01/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> And sadly in the context of motoring offences and offences against the person where a vehicle is instrumental in carrying out an offence, the law and courts are too lenient to drivers whether at the stage of charging, prosecuting, convicting or sentencing. It has been said many times before and I'll say it again, if you want to kill or seriously injure some one in this country do it in a car/vehicle. Driving is a lawful activity until the standard falls below that of a reasonable and careful driver. Most juries are filled with people who drive and will no doubt think, they go I but for the grace of Dog.
> 
> I just hope the police are skilful at interviewing any witnesses particularly the children in the car depending on their ages. They may give a good indication of the state of mind of the driver prior to the collision or indeed any previous aggression to road users, vulnerable road users.




I think the problem goes far beyond the police.

The police do not treat crimes involving the use of motor cars seriously enough. This is probably in part because juries are reluctant to convict motorists or serious enough offences. I would suggest one of the reasons for this is the thought in the minds of jurors of "there but for the grace of god" when thinking of the defendant.

40 years ago, the position regarding racist crimes was similar, but by a sensible and concerted campaign, the anti racists won over public opinion. This is what cyclists need to look at as a template. Its not about calling all motorists murderers and making wild and stupid allegations whenever there is an incident. 

In most accidents, they are just that ie accidental. That is not to say there is no blame, but the person responsible did not deliberately cause a crash. We need to appreciate that. In fact, most of us if we are honest do not drive perfectly when we do drive.

We need all cycling bodies to come together to have a joint and co-ordinated campaign to change public opinion regarding driving behaviour and attitudes


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Your part of the equation has to bear some responsibility. If juries never get to hear cases in the first place they will never convict on any of them.


What is my part of the equation?


I'm a bit puzzled


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (10 Jun 2014)

Well, just for those banging on about acting in a certain way and preparing for the consequences..

SOMETIMES, people have insurmountable difficulties in social interaction, such as autism
Should this be disregarded, and children taught that the way to deal with issues is to attack?

Thankfully, the accident is serious enough but with no-one hurt, that the FIVE CHILDREN IN THE CAR at the time, five future might actually learn that lashing out can bring scary and unpleasant results, and is NOT the best way to behave

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...cked-off-bike-in-road-rage-crash-9511055.html


----------



## spen666 (10 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Do you not work for the CPS?


Definitely not. Î have never worked for them and have no desire to.

I do have a tiny bit of self respect you know


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (10 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Amongst her worst case scenarios is the possibility that she is employed as a nanny and the car is her employer's.


You are probably closer to the truth. Most women under 30 around here with children in hand are nannies. I think Kingston hospital has one of, if not the highest multiple birth rates in the uk (a combination of older mothers and affluence/ability to pay for medical help if you have trouble concerning naturally). Forget Hello and Gratzia, The ante-natal waiting room at Kingston is littered with copies of Saga magazine. Most of the mums and dads at the infant school gates are well over 40.


----------



## slowmotion (11 Jun 2014)

^^^^^ Pure speculation TC. As far as I know, it's still legal to have kids in your late thirties. Certainly better than demolishing hair salons.


----------



## mickle (11 Jun 2014)

How many seats does a Q7 have?


----------



## slowmotion (11 Jun 2014)

mickle said:


> How many seats does a Q7 have?


I used to take my daughter and three friends to primary school mainly in the cargo compartment of a battered two seat van. Nobody wanted the passenger seat. They squealed with delight when I said "Duck down, there's a Police Car".

I feel unqualified to offer an opinion about the number of seats in a Q7.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I think the problem goes far beyond the police.
> 
> The police do not treat crimes involving the use of motor cars seriously enough. This is probably in part because juries are reluctant to convict motorists or serious enough offences. I would suggest one of the reasons for this is the thought in the minds of jurors of "there but for the grace of god" when thinking of the defendant.
> 
> ...



Your post started well with good measured points and I thought maybe just maybe Spen has seen the light and shed his cantankerous irascible attitude but alas not. No one Spen is calling all motorists murderers or making wild or stupid allegations whenever there is an incident. Yes I agree with you, I would like to think most accidents are just accidental but tbh there are some pretty bad drivers out there who just shouldn't be on the roads. And it is your lot who have turned "accidents" into a litigious money making battle ground. Yes, you are right, no one goes out to cause a crash, of course not, unless they are mentally unstable, but you must surely recognise not least from the numerous TV and radio programmes that driver aggression can be a real problem and when the red mist comes down, the consequences can be fatal, life changing serious injuries for the injured parties and their families which 99.9% of the time the injured are cyclists or pedestrians. Speak for yourself when you drive …… I would certainly never ever drive my car at some one. If I felt that threatened I would drive off. No way would I try and run some one over! In any case in the car I always put the central locking on as soon as I have got in and all the doors are closed. But we are not talking about minor driving indiscretions we are discussing some one who thinks it's acceptable to drive at speed at another road user and a very vulnerable road user at that who should be given a lot of space and care as they are passed.

*We need all cycling bodies to come together to have a joint and co-ordinated campaign to change public opinion regarding driving behaviour and attitudes.*

Hallelujah to this, but there needs to be political will. Government needs to make the CJS work properly at all levels for cyclists instead of it routinely failing us as it does now.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Definitely not. Î have never worked for them and have no desire to.
> 
> I do have a tiny bit of self respect you know



So if you are not a defence lawyer and you don't work for the CPS as a prosecutor what actually do you do?

Given that your comment that you do have a tiny bit of self respect not working for the CPS suggests to me you don't think much of them. Illuminating.


----------



## spen666 (11 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> .... No one Spen is calling all motorists murderers or making wild or stupid allegations whenever there is an incident. .... And it is your lot who have turned "accidents" into a litigious money making battle ground....[\quote] Interestingly you claim no one is making wild claims about all motorists and then go on to make equally stupid wild and untrue claims about another group of people.
> 
> You would be frothing at the mouth if I suggested based on a couple of recent child grooming cases that all Asians are predatory paedophiles, yet you adopt a similar approach about "your lot" and personal injury claims. I have no idea who "your lot" are or what group you are making wild allegations about.
> 
> ...


----------



## oldstrath (11 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





spen666 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I'm not disputing your understanding of the law, but stating my complete bewilderment that the law can possibly compel people to believe that attempting to hit someone with two tonnes of metal is not evidence of a desire to cause that person a serious injury. I accept your apparent claim that this is the law, but frankly it seems bonkers. 

As for calling any car driver who causes death by an 'accident' a murderer. Well, no, but motorists have been given the extraordinary privilege of using deadly weapons, in public places, with rather few constraints and so should be held to high standards and punished for falling from them.


----------



## spen666 (11 Jun 2014)

oldstrath said:


> I'm not disputing your understanding of the law, but stating my complete bewilderment that the law can possibly compel people to believe that attempting to hit someone with two tonnes of metal is not evidence of a desire to cause that person a serious injury. I accept your apparent claim that this is the law, but frankly it seems bonkers.


 I am not making any claim. You are jumping from the fact there was an incident to decide there was intent to cause serious harm. There may well have been, but on what we know so far, there is no evidence the motorist intended to cause serious harm. We do not know what the motorist intended.

People are jumping to conclusions and throwing round stupid allegations like attempted murder without knowing what the facts are. It may well turn out to be attempted murder, it could turn out to be something else.


> As for calling any car driver who causes death by an 'accident' a murderer. Well, no, but motorists have been given the extraordinary privilege of using deadly weapons, in public places, with rather few constraints and so should be held to high standards and punished for falling from them.



This is very different from being a murderer. I fully agree with what you say, and that iswhy we need to change public opinion to make people realise this. Throwing round insults like murderer do more harm than good to this aim


----------



## oldstrath (11 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I am not making any claim. You are jumping from the fact there was an incident to decide there was intent to cause serious harm. There may well have been, but on what we know so far, there is no evidence the motorist intended to cause serious harm. We do not know what the motorist intended.
> 
> People are jumping to conclusions and throwing round stupid allegations like attempted murder without knowing what the facts are. It may well turn out to be attempted murder, it could turn out to be something else.



If she intended to hit the cyclist with her car (and frankly it's hard to see why else she would have driven in such a way as to demolish half a building) then to me that is evidence of intent to do serious harm. Sorry, physics, not human laws, but if the law wants to pretend there is room for doubt then, to me, the law appears silly and contrary to all sense.


----------



## MattE72 (11 Jun 2014)

vickster said:


> Although she lives in a fairly posh bit of SW London, not S Wales


 I should take offence at that but it's so true! Although highly unlikely that a South-Walian grandmother would be in a Q7. Unless it was stolen.


----------



## Beebo (11 Jun 2014)

mickle said:


> How many seats does a Q7 have?


Here's a picture just for you Mickle.
You will note the airbags have gone off and the fire brigade have removed the roof.


----------



## vickster (11 Jun 2014)

That'll be costly to fix if the insurers refuse to pay out!!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Jun 2014)

Beebo said:


> Here's a picture just for you Mickle.
> You will note the airbags have gone off and the fire brigade have removed the roof.


Passive safety = active danger.


----------



## Cubist (11 Jun 2014)

Has she tweeted about it yet?


----------



## procel (11 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> However, don't let your change of position stop you spouting nonsense.



I assure you there’s no change of position. Perhaps you’re reading opinions which I didn’t mean to write. I thought the original post was clearly about the single principle rather than an assessment of the whole of the law: that’s why I wrote “essential to the principle” rather than “essential to the law”. I won’t insult or patronise your comprehension: instead I am genuinely sorry I couldn’t write my argument more clearly.



spen666 said:


> 40 years ago, the position regarding racist crimes was similar, but by a sensible and concerted campaign, the anti racists won over public opinion.



Interesting comparison, could you expand? I’m not sure I get whether you’re talking narrowly or broadly. If narrowly, do you mean the fight for the 1976 RRA and the one (iirc) criminal offence in it: incitement to racial hatred? Do you have figures for willingness of juries to convict for that offence over time?

If more broadly, do you mean wider social attitudes to motor car use?



spen666 said:


> Its not about calling all motorists murderers ... We need all cycling bodies to come together to have a joint and co-ordinated campaign to change public opinion regarding driving behaviour and attitudes.



The forum search tool top right shows up only three users (@Crankarm, @glenn forger and @jarlrmai) calling for a charge of attempted murder in this particular case (I don’t agree with them) and no one at all calling _all _motorists murderers. The vast majority of the use of the word on this thread is by you.

Note though that the most common international example of a successful campaign on those broad social attitudes was an extremely emotive one called “Stop The Child _Murder_”. Which experience also goes to show that your implication is right, mind, that civil/criminal liabilities are a pretty minor part of what makes the streets safer for the vast majority of collision victims.


----------



## benb (11 Jun 2014)

Surely mens rea can be inferred by the person's actions. In the same way that we can deduce that someone who tucked a whole trout into their jacket at the supermarket meant to steal it, we can deduce that a person driving a motor vehicle at a cyclist intended to cause them serious injury; there being no other likely outcome, other than death, of doing so.

So while we cannot see into the driver's head, the very fact they drove their car deliberately at the cyclist (I suppose I ought to say allegedly) proves that their intention was to injure that cyclist.


----------



## Cyclopathic (11 Jun 2014)

Was the hair salon wearing a helmet???


----------



## jarlrmai (11 Jun 2014)




----------



## neveragainPLS (12 Jun 2014)

"with perfect lycra-clad legs."
I have never worn such things, I'll have you know, nor had a 9 page thread about me!
Gosh, all the misinformation I've just read, also not sure what I can say without effecting the case, cos I do have a few things to add!

But if anyone can lend me a bike I sure do need one to get around.


----------



## neveragainPLS (12 Jun 2014)

"Shortly before the collision, the pair were involved in a "heated argument" in which the cyclist kicked the car, Scotland Yard said."
Crikey, all I repeated,as soon as she got out the car was call 999, can no one get information right these days?


----------



## postman (12 Jun 2014)

slowmotion said:


> _"Clearly, had the hair salon not had an unusually large projecting bay window so close to the carriageway, this unfortunate accident might never have occurred"_




Bollards............................................................................That's what should have been there.Building contents insurance should have done a risk assessment when covering the building, very slack.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jun 2014)

That's why it's called a bay window, to keep Audi drivers at bay.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Jun 2014)

neveragainPLS said:


> Gosh, all the misinformation I've just read, also not sure what I can say without effecting the case, cos I do have a few things to add!


 
I'd like to add my backing to what Adrian and User have said; keep your account solely for the police and let justice take its course. Once everything's settled, by all means give your account on here.

In the meantime, welcome to CC and I hope you stick around.

GC


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Jun 2014)

Welcome to @neveragainPLS! 

I always find it surprising how many cyclist find their way to these discussions after their accident - I wonder if the drivers do as well, but are to ashamed to get involved...


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

How many are active posters? I generally see the same names


----------



## neveragainPLS (13 Jun 2014)

Okay, my lips are sealed.
However, I was told that the lady driver is very distressed at the way she is being portrayed in the press, so can you all start being a lot nicer towards her, please.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Jun 2014)

Her dedication to arriving punctually for her hair appointment is beyond repute.


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jun 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> Welcome to @neveragainPLS!
> 
> I always find it surprising how many cyclist find their way to these discussions after their accident - I wonder if the drivers do as well, but are to ashamed to get involved...


 I'm still waiting for Alexander Philip Harvey Mitchell to show up. It's a source of continuing disappointment.


----------



## gambatte (13 Jun 2014)

That the guy on the Dickati?


----------



## stowie (13 Jun 2014)

A few things from this incident I would like to mention.

Firstly, I wondered if it had been picked up in the press so googled "car crash hair salon uk". The number of stories that came up about drivers ploughing into hair salons was amazing. You think it would be a rare event, but there was one in Feb in Solihull (which killed a teenager), one in Denholn in 2013 (which killed two people), in Jan someone crashed into a hair salon in blackpool, and another couple in 2013. Amazing. Either drivers hit a lot of stuff or hair salons have some magical property which attracts cars like a strong magnet. I would start a campaign to paint all hair salons bright yellow and put a polystyrene helmet on the top, but I fear it might actually be taken seriously as opposed to people actually wondering why drivers hit so much stuff.

Secondly, the driver in this incident probably will come up with something and will keep her licence and be fined and told not to do it again. But think about it. Either the driver got so outraged that they aimed 2 tonne of metal at another human being with such force that they took out a van and a building, or they are so woefully incompetent at driving that they weren't trying to hurt the cyclist but panicked and floored it in a random direction. Either way, I would think this driving should be classified as falling somewhat below what we could class as competent and surely driving through a building in a 30mph residential road should require the driver to take a retest and extra training at the very least?


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Jun 2014)

Maybe a sticker in the windows with "cars stay back" on..


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (13 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> Maybe a sticker in the windows with "cars stay back" on..


"If you can't read this notice pinned to the glass, you've driven through the window.''


----------



## cd365 (13 Jun 2014)

neveragainPLS said:


> so can you all start being a lot nicer towards her, please.


Does she deserve us to be nicer to her? From what I've read that answer is no!


----------



## PK99 (13 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Does she deserve us to be nicer to her? From what I've read that answer is no!



What have you read by way of fact as opposed to speculation and unthinking tribalism?


----------



## goo_mason (13 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> Maybe a sticker in the windows with "cars stay back" on..


One on the Q7 saying "Salons Stay Back"?


----------



## cd365 (13 Jun 2014)

User said:


> But is what you have read the truth of the matter?





PK99 said:


> What have you read by way of fact as opposed to speculation and unthinking tribalism?



That is why I asked the question and stated "from what I have read".


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jun 2014)

Elsewhere on the internet the woman driver is described circumspectly as "a piece of work".


----------



## uclown2002 (13 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Elsewhere on the internet the woman driver is described circumspectly as "a piece of work".


That made me tickle!


----------



## cd365 (13 Jun 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> That made me tickle!


It tickled you or made you chuckle? Or did you go an tickle someone???


----------



## Cubist (13 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Does she deserve us to be nicer to her? From what I've read that answer is no!


I'd taken that plea as irony


----------



## DrLex (13 Jun 2014)

"Infamy, Infamy!
They've all got it infamy!"


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jun 2014)

Well her driving stunt was head and shoulders above anything else I've seen.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3132645, member: 1314"]Cor blimey, I cycle past there regulars, and went past the scene of devastation on Thurs. I live in Kingston (in the posh Zone 5 part of course, not the chavvy bit near the Park) and got the Kingston Guardian through the post today.

It's front-page news and the only new bit of info on there, not already posted here, is that the cyclist is autistic, and rode with a badge notifying road-users that he was autistic.

As far as the casual snobbery on here is concerned, some of the poshos in Kingston are really thick, up themselves and car-centric.

And most new parents do tend to be in their late 30s when their sprog bounces out all bloodies and shinnied. The most socially-status insecure (too posh to push as well) ones live in North Kingston as they really want to live in RP and looked there first but were pushed into Kingston. And there aren't many schools so the kids go private if they don't get into Tiffins or Kingston Grammar, or move to Basingstoke or Bucks. And they have nowhere to park their cars. They're all in a constant state of stress.

I don't like them - I was Chair at Kingston Rugby Club for a bit and we always struggled for numbers in the minis/Juniors section as the posher parents would always/still join the over-subscribed Teddington Club for kudos. They have no soul.

God I hate it here. Wish I could afford to move to Tooting.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like Kingston is more divided than Syria.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Jun 2014)

goo_mason said:


> One on the Q7 saying "Salons Stay Back"?


Or even Salon Cars stay back.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jun 2014)

Do Audi Q7s have hair conditioning?


----------



## Saluki (14 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Do Audi Q7s have hair conditioning?


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2014)

neveragainPLS said:


> Okay, my lips are sealed.
> However, I was told that the lady driver is very distressed at the way she is being portrayed in the press, so can you all start being a lot nicer towards her, please.


did you write that? Did I read that?


----------



## Crankarm (15 Jun 2014)

I should imagine the Q7 is going to need to go into another shop after crashing into this one - a Body Shop .


----------



## neveragainPLS (17 Jun 2014)

I've given up trying to join bike radar, they have the hardest spell the word thing ever.
A person over there said:
"His concern for the way the driver is being portrayed in the media is greater than I'd have expected for someone reportedly wearing a badge proclaiming autism."

I am confused as to why someone thinks just because I am autistic I don't have a high level of concern for others?
My actual problem is a too high a level of concern for others, and for the species as a whole.

I worked out about Theory of Mind in my 20s, curtsy of Star Trek:TNG.
And it turns out that I developed my own version of CBT, also allowing me to live in your world.

I'd love to chat to him about his preconceptions of autism, not that I am looking to do anything other than correct misinformation, which is worse than no information, not that I am accusing him of misinformation; see how hard my world is yet?

Do remember that Sheldon Cooper, from the Big Band Theory is the best example of being autistic on TV.
What is so very nice of him, and moves me to tears, is that he is taking my statement at face value and not accusing me of something like sarcasm, which is what would normally happen to me.

The reason I came to post was to ask for whether anyone could recommend a lawyer for me, else I have to take extra ADD meds and go for a walkabout around kingston...

I still see it when I close my eyes, it replays like a show on Dave. My head was inches from the wheel.
And a big thank you to the emergency services, they looked after me so well, their concern was beyond touching.

and if we are going to make jokes about me nearly being killed, am I the one who's allowed to say that frack it was a woman driving


----------



## neveragainPLS (17 Jun 2014)

didn't anyone notice the name of the salon, Curl up and Dye?


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Jun 2014)

neveragainPLS said:


> The reason I came to post was to ask for whether anyone could recommend a lawyer for me, else I have to take extra ADD meds and go for a walkabout around kingston...
> 
> I still see it when I close my eyes, it replays like a show on Dave...



Are you a member of British Cycling or the CTC? If so, they offer 'free' legal advice. I put 'free' in apostrophes as it's not really a peek of membership - they use Russell, Jones and Walker who will happily take the case on regardless in most cases! Google them - they did a good job for my father in law. 

As for song the accident repeatedly as per a rerun on Dave, I think you are fibbing. Everyone knows the only thing down on Dave is Top Gear :-) 

When the dust finally settles, please do update us on what actually happens with your case :-)


----------



## Crankarm (18 Jun 2014)

British Cycling use Leigh Day who are good. Glad you weren't seriously injured. It must have been pretty scary. Good luck.


----------



## neveragainPLS (18 Jun 2014)

Thank you for both kind words and advice.
I am meeting with the police this week, I will check what/when I can talk about, cos I am bursting at the gills


----------



## annedonnelly (18 Jun 2014)

neveragainPLS said:


> Thank you for both kind words and advice.
> I am meeting with the police this week, I will check what/when I can talk about, cos I am bursting at the gills


You could probably do with a friend or relative to talk it through with. It's understandable that you'd want to talk things through, but a public internet forum isn't the right place while the police are dealing with the issue.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jun 2014)

neveragainPLS said:


> Thank you for both kind words and advice.
> I am meeting with the police this week, I will check what/when I can talk about, cos I am bursting at the gills


Victim support. / counselling sound like some sort of psychiatric assessment - which puts people off

However they can and do provide an independent, supportive and non judgemental person that you can talk to confidentially ... And about what happened without fear of affecting the case

May be worthwhile looking in to


----------



## neveragainPLS (18 Jun 2014)

You are right. I could do, and would be happy with either, however they seem to be incompatible with mental health problems. Not even being alive by a close enough thing, belief systems' aside, to a miracle has made a difference. Never mind, I'll get to buy some new ones soon, and they'll be shiny ones this time.

Am waiting for the support people to come back to me, didn't put me off, but appreciate the concern,
and thanks again to all.


----------



## jarlrmai (18 Jun 2014)

If you don't have anyone to talk to I would definitely talk to the support people as soon as you can and mention your personal situation to them as well.

Good luck mate.


----------



## sheddy (18 Jun 2014)

Update ? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...cked-off-bike-in-road-rage-crash-9511055.html

Apologies - I was reading the date at the top. Standard story is from 9th June


----------



## Markymark (18 Jun 2014)

sheddy said:


> Update ? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...cked-off-bike-in-road-rage-crash-9511055.html


That's the same original article - no updates there. You can see on the header that it was last update 9th June 2014.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Jun 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> Are you a member of British Cycling or the CTC? If so, they offer 'free' legal advice. I put 'free' in apostrophes as it's not really a peek of membership - they use Russell, Jones and Walker who will happily take the case on regardless in most cases! Google them - they did a good job for my father in law.


I'm afraid all law firms in the UK are being absorbed (Borg-like @neveragainPLS? :-) ) by mega antipodean company Slater & Gordon. So CTC lawyers are now Slater & Gordon. I don't know how this effects the experience.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Jun 2014)

jefmcg said:


> I'm afraid all law firms in the UK are being absorbed (Borg-like @neveragainPLS? :-) ) by mega antipodean company Slater & Gordon. So CTC lawyers are now Slater & Gordon. I don't know how this effects the experience.




I was originally dealt with RJ&W when I had my run in, they changed to S&G during the case and there was no difference in service (a good one). Of course couple years down the line it could have changed.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jun 2014)

Dried.


----------



## donnydave (20 Jun 2014)

cut and blow dried in this case. Good job no one dyed.

I'll get my coat.


----------



## donnydave (20 Jun 2014)

before you ask, it didn't take me since wednesday at 13:21 to come up with that, I've only just come back to this thread.


----------



## Lanzecki (23 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Are you making all these jokes up, this quickly?



Jokes? Where?


----------



## donnydave (23 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I was using the word loosely.



Didn't see the word 'loosely' used anywhere


----------



## Downward (26 Jun 2014)

Any updates on the lady drivers punishment ?


----------



## jefmcg (27 Jun 2014)

Downward said:


> Any updates on the lady drivers punishment ?



http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...with_cyclist_causes_crash_in_Kingston/?ref=mr


> The motorist, a 30-year-old-woman, was arrested on suspicion of attempted GBH, and bailed until September.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Jun 2014)

jefmcg said:


> http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...with_cyclist_causes_crash_in_Kingston/?ref=mr



Arrested and bailed which means police are still gathering evidence. The woman hasn't been charged with anything yet. I bet she is crapping herself.


----------



## Saluki (27 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Arrested and bailed which means police are still gathering evidence. The woman hasn't been charged with anything yet. I bet she is crapping herself.


Good.
Whether someone kicks a car or not, trying to run them over is just plain wrong.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Jun 2014)

Saluki said:


> Good.
> Whether someone kicks a car or not, trying to run them over is just plain wrong.



Well lets hope the CPS see it this way too. GBH is a very serious charge with a potentially long prison term so they will want to be sure they can get a conviction. As I say she must be crapping herself. She may end up only being charged with careless driving which tbh given the CPS's form is most likely and I would think be a mighty relief for her.


----------



## Markymark (27 Jun 2014)

...I also hope the insurance company refuse to pay out and she has to fork out for the damage to the van and shop front (if guilty, of course).


----------



## Markymark (17 Sep 2014)

Well?


----------



## jarlrmai (17 Sep 2014)

It takes a while for these things to come to court etc, it says September up there but not sure what date etc.


----------



## Dave Davenport (17 Sep 2014)

If she was bailed 'till September it could be months before it ends up in court.


----------



## Markymark (17 Sep 2014)

Sure but September would be when charges would be brought, just wondering if that's happening.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Sure but September would be when charges would be brought, just wondering if that's happening.



She could be re-bailed for another month or six weeks while inquiries continue.

That rebailing process could be repeated.

Equally, she could be charged on whatever date this month it is she is due to answer bail.


----------



## Markymark (17 Sep 2014)

Cool. More time to sharpen my pitchfork.


----------



## Drago (17 Sep 2014)

Once charged its about a 2 week to 2 month wait for court, but is she goes not guilty she'd be bailed again by the court for a full hearing which might be 6 or 8 months away.

And.why buy an Audi Q7 if you cant handle it? Crap off road, and no one is impressed by one. Even drug dealers don't want them.


----------



## Drago (17 Sep 2014)

Off somewhere not buying Q7..?


----------



## noodle (17 Sep 2014)

mickle said:


> How many seats does a Q7 have?



7


----------



## noodle (17 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Once charged its about a 2 week to 2 month wait for court, but is she goes not guilty she'd be bailed again by the court for a full hearing which might be 6 or 8 months away.
> 
> And.why buy an Audi Q7 if you cant handle it? Crap off road, and no one is impressed by one. Even drug dealers don't want them.



its an audi and screams look at me which appeals to a certain mind set
(edit id like to point out most people who have cars of over 100hp are unable to handle them they just think they are. in most cases the driver hits their limit before the car reaches what it is capable of)

ok my car screams look at me (was mine now wifes) but for possibly all the wrong reasons
one thats on the black side of humour
im 16 stone 5 feet 11 inches with a 20 inch collar 50 inch chest get the drift?
i also have long blonde hair some children liken me to a certain film hero (quite cool at times as sometimes mums take a good long second look some dads do too...)
my old car is a fiat multipla (4 kids so 6 seats...)
my wife has decorated it with all manner of vinyl stickers mostly flowers and hippy chic logos....
i always find it funny when (and it is always these two) white van men or motorcyclists pull alongside and peer in and see my beardy mug under the blond mop and all of a sudden have an urge to either brake and vanish from view behind me or try and do a road runner act to get away
one slightly darker incident when an idiot cut me up in it and then slapped on the brakes got out as i had the temerity to use my road rage lights (aka frog eyes on the multipla) who suddenly found a reason to get back into his little red k plate bmw when i stepped down from the drivers side, i guess he expected some little blond thing to get out


----------



## Drago (18 Sep 2014)

If its a pitching contest I'm 6'3" (and three quarters, very important that) with a 56" chest. That's one of the 2 reasons I persist driving proper 4x4s, not pretend Audi ones, just so I can do boring stuff like actually close the drivers door. As you can see though, I don't have long blond hair. Just as well or I'd forever be mistake for a thunder God.

All Audi screams is "I can't afford a Mercedes, cant spell BMW"


----------



## Drago (18 Sep 2014)

I'm now stood in front of a mirror getting pumped and shouting motivational stuff, like "aaarrrggggghhhhhh."


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> I'm now stood in front of a mirror getting pumped and shouting motivational stuff, like "aaarrrggggghhhhhh."


 
Remember to give yourself several punches in the chest as you do so.


GC


----------



## ianrauk (18 Sep 2014)

And don't forget to take a pouting selfie....


----------



## gambatte (18 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> And don't forget to take a pouting selfie....


----------



## MisterStan (18 Sep 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Remember to give yourself several punches in the chest as you do so.
> 
> 
> GC


One in the face won't hurt either....


----------



## Cycleops (18 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> And.why buy an Audi Q7 if you cant handle it? Crap off road, and no one is impressed by one. Even drug dealers don't want them.



This is the car they now prefer:


----------



## noodle (18 Sep 2014)

Was going to ask who drago is.
I'm not a gym freak it's all natural
No idea about being his dad I don't remember much from the early to mid 90's so who knows
Oh there is also the rather insignificant fact I'm am amazingly placid (although my posts may not come a cross that way. They are rarely meant in a malicious malevolent or any nasty way but do appear blunt at times (typing on touch screens Hal asleep with toddlers myths ring....)) and gentle


----------



## noodle (18 Sep 2014)

noodle said:


> Was going to ask who drago is.
> I'm not a gym freak it's all natural
> No idea about being his dad I don't remember much from the early to mid 90's so who knows
> Oh there is also the rather insignificant fact I'm am amazingly placid (although my posts may not come a cross that way. They are rarely meant in a malicious malevolent or any nasty way but do appear blunt at times (typing on touch screens Hal asleep with toddlers myths ring....)) and gentle



I've left that as it came out see who can spot the bloody auto correct iPhone deciding what words it thins I should use. It's not my fault the yanks lack my vocabulary and want to dumb everything down to a level Alex salmond could understand


----------



## Spinney (18 Sep 2014)

*Mild moderator comment: *this thread is about a motorist deliberately trying to harm a cyclist. Please could you go elsewhere if you wish to trade insult about each other/car choices etc.

Ta muchly.

*[edit]* A couple of you have ignored the above. I might have to raise my level from 'mild' to 'slightly miffed' soon...


----------



## noodle (18 Sep 2014)

I think the q7 may not be relevant and that the driver would have reacted in the same manner possibly even worse in a car where she felt more vulnerable


----------



## Drago (18 Sep 2014)

Or possibly they might feel more likely to do so in a car which represents less of a financial loss if it were totalled? I'm not reckless in my tired old truck, but its worthless so supermarket trolley dings don't really worry me because it cost buttons. A less conscientious driver might extend that logic when faced with confrontation with an angry cyclist. To do it in a car worth a considerable sum of money like this lady did suggests an extreme determination to exert her will on another.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Sep 2014)

noodle said:


> its an audi and screams look at me which appeals to a certain mind set
> (edit id like to point out most people who have cars of over 100hp are unable to handle them they just think they are. in most cases the driver hits their limit before the car reaches what it is capable of)
> 
> ok my car screams look at me (was mine now wifes) but for possibly all the wrong reasons
> ...


Lets see a film hero with long blond hair and a big chest...... Is it Diana Dors?


----------



## Andy_R (20 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3285832, member: 45"]I drive a Skoda and I'm bald.

How many points is that?[/QUOTE]
I too drive a Skoda, but am merely partially follicly challenged. Do I get more or less points than MP?


----------



## The Bear (3 Nov 2014)

I'd be interested in any updates to this case. Driver sounds like a ringer for my demented neighbour. Not just the same car, but the highly volatile reaction and behaviour - very familiar stuff to me.


----------



## jonny jeez (3 Nov 2014)

so...its November now...is there any update on her charge?

j


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Nov 2014)

I'm guessing she plead not guilty and got bailed for a few more months.

Didn't the cyclist involved post in this thread?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (6 Nov 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Unless there was some other attack by the cyclist that hasn't been reported, I'd say kicking a car wouldn't justify an arrest for attempted GBH.
> 
> GC


if the cyclist kicked the car, the car was driving too close...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2014)

alecstilleyedye said:


> if the cyclist kicked the car, the car was driving too close...


 
Perhaps.

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jul 2015)

Does anyone know the outcome of this case? Last I read the driver was arrested on suspicion of attempted GBH and bailed until Sep 2014.


GC


----------



## glenn forger (5 Oct 2015)

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1..._with_her_4x4_following_argument_hears_court/

A mother allegedly tried to mow down a cyclist and ploughed into a hair salon in her Audi 4x4 after an argument in a Kingston street, a court has heard.

Natalie Pyne, 31, of Mount Pleasant Road, New Malden, is accused of attempted grievous bodily harm after driving into autistic Simon Edgley in Park Road on June 7 last year.

Kingston Crown Court heard this afternoon how Mrs Pyne got out of her car and had an argument with cyclist Mr Edgley after an alleged near miss between the two.


Mr Edgley is said to have kicked her white Audi Q7 after which Mrs Pyne allegedly reversed her car, aimed at the victim and attempted to run him over.

Witnesses described seeing Mr Edgley "roll over" the bonnet of the car before it smashed through the Park Salon window.

Louisa Morris, who had been in her parents’ house opposite at the time of the crash, told the court: "There seemed to be an argument about a potential collision.

"I remember hearing loud revs of an engine and then tyres squealing. "It all happened very fast.

"The cyclist was hit by the front of the car and pushed off his bike. He rolled over the bonnet coming off the side."


Anna Best had been waiting at the junction of New Road and Park Road next to the salon.

She told the court she saw an argument between Mrs Pyne and Mr Edgley and a teenage boy in the Audi shout at the victim who "kicked the car multiple times."

She said: "A boy, who I assume was her son, started to have a go [at the cyclist.] "He [Mr Edgley] was kicking the car in quite a comical manner.

"The lady who was driving was quite aggressive in her behaviour."

After Mr Edgley started to cycle off Mrs Best recalled allegedly seeing the defendant reversing before driving towards the cyclist and into the salon.

She said: "I just remember thinking why are you reversing? She was moving in an aggressive manner. I was really shocked."

Share article

Mrs Pyne denies attempted GBH, dangerous driving and destroying property.

The trial continues.


----------



## slowmotion (6 Oct 2015)

Thank you for the latest news @glenn forger . I have been worrying about the state of the Audi and the hair salon for far too long


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2015)

It's murder if it's a copper.


----------



## Markymark (6 Oct 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It's murder if it's a copper.


It's murder if they are killed.


----------



## Karlt (6 Oct 2015)

Ironically, the intent bar for intended murder is higher than for murder.

For attempted murder, the intent must be to kill.

For murder, the intent only has to be to cause serious injury.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> the hair salon for far too long


Did you see the comment below the article? The hair salon didn't survive


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2015)

The scum who killed the Liverpool copper could say they were trying to get away and didn't know anyone was on the central reservation strip. In this case there doesn't seem to be any doubt the driver used two tons of metal to deliberately aim at someone.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2015)

Unless she says "I was terrified for my child, the man was 
Kicking his way into my car and my foot slipped on the gas"


----------



## Cubist (6 Oct 2015)

So you've demonstrated that you can think of two possible excuses/defences/mitigating factors for two different set of circumstances. What is your point please caller?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Oct 2015)

More details of the hearing here.


_"A witness saw the cyclist roll over the bonnet of the white 4x4, and heard Pyne shouting “shut up” at her crying children after the car came to rest in the wreckage of the salon in Park Road, Kingston."_


She was also driving her kids around in a car with tyres below the legal tread limit.


GC


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2015)

That if you use as car as a weapon, aim at people at bikes, not old bill.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2015)

Ah, i see her excuse was exactly as predicted.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (7 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> It's murder if they are killed.


It would be attempted murder if it had been a copper


----------



## oldstrath (7 Oct 2015)

Karlt said:


> Ironically, the intent bar for intended murder is higher than for murder.
> 
> For attempted murder, the intent must be to kill.
> 
> For murder, the intent only has to be to cause serious injury.



And how on earth will anyone ever know whether she intended to kill or to maim? She drove quickly enough to break her car, another car, and an entire building. I think there's half a chance she might have killed him had she hit him. 

So again - how so you think we can know what she 'intended'? And what exactly would she have had to do to make you (and the lawyers) believe she intended to kill? Write a note in advance?


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

She's been charged with attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Simon Edgeley was injured but not grievously (as defined by the current charging standard).

The maximum sentence for attempted GBH with intent is life imprisonment.

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence.

The CPS make charging decisions based on the evidence presented. To charge someone with attempted murder requires evidence that the person committing the act intended it to result in death.

To charge someone with attempted GBH requires evidence proving a deliberate intent or recklessness as to the potential outcome.

Recklessness is far easier to prove, as the circumstances (eg the size of the vehicle and vulnerability of Simon Edgeley) provide a reasonable expectation (or inference?) that someone hit by an Audi Q7 would be grievously injured. The likelihood of the vehicle killing someone cannot be ignored, but statistically at least (and this will be in the mind of the jurors) lots of people are hit and run over by vehicles, but only a small proportion of them die.

Were she to be charged with attempted murder, she would simply say she simply meant to hurt him, or teach him a lesson, reckless as to the potential outcome of her actions.

PC Dave Phillips is dead.


----------



## oldstrath (7 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> PC Dave Phillips is dead.



Indeed he is, and that is is sad. But by what magic spell are lawyers able to discern that the intentions of the two drivers were different?


----------



## Karlt (7 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> And how on earth will anyone ever know whether she intended to kill or to maim? She drove quickly enough to break her car, another car, and an entire building. I think there's half a chance she might have killed him had she hit him.
> 
> So again - how so you think we can know what she 'intended'? And what exactly would she have had to do to make you (and the lawyers) believe she intended to kill? Write a note in advance?



I am not a lawyer. I'm sure there's a body of case law that shows the evidencial bar for establishing intent to kill. I'm only telling you what the law actually says.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Indeed he is, and that is is sad. But by what magic spell are lawyers able to discern that the intentions of the two drivers were different?


I'm afraid that if/when it comes to trial, they won't. However, in terms of consequence, the court has an option to find an alternative verdict of manslaughter. (Maximum penalty life imprisonment)


----------



## Karlt (7 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Indeed he is, and that is is sad. But by what magic spell are lawyers able to discern that the intentions of the two drivers were different?



They don't have to be. If the victim dies, then intent to cause serious injury is sufficient for a murder conviction. It is not however sufficient for an attempted murder conviction should the victim live. The essence of attempted murder is intent to kill; the essence of murder is intent to kill or cause serious injury where the action has caused death.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Oct 2015)

"My car malfunctioned"

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1..._trying_to_mow_down_cyclist_in_road_rage_row/

Traffic officer PC Peter Traylor told Kingston Crown Court today that he could find “no fault” with the car other than those caused by the accident which resulted in more than £25,000 worth of damage to the Park Salon.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Oct 2015)

He said: “I tried lots of different scenarios to try and [get the car] to do what the lady had told us it had done.



“The car's fail safe system would not let me do it.”


----------



## Arjimlad (7 Oct 2015)

Obviously, this will come down to whether the jury believes she got the pedals wrong/got in an awful muddle what with all the excitement or whatever, or tried to run the cyclist over. Sounds like the cases for both sides are being fully aired.


----------



## jarlrmai (7 Oct 2015)

She's a liar and not a very good one.

My view is if you intend to harm someone and you use overwhelming force whereby you cannot reasonably expect that death would not be one of the outcomes IE driving a car at someone intentionally then that is attempted murder or manslaughter, if you shoot someone with a gun and they live what are you charged with?

I understand the law might work differently and that the CPS get involved and the evidence standards are different or whatever bullshit is used to explain why the law is unevenly applied


----------



## glenn forger (7 Oct 2015)

I think if you had "at least four" children in a car that went out of control and mounted the pavement and demolished a shop you'd be worried frantic. Maybe it was her worry that made her tell the kids to "shut up" and then apologise?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (7 Oct 2015)

Arjimlad said:


> Obviously, this will come down to whether the jury believes she got the pedals wrong/got in an awful muddle what with all the excitement or whatever, or tried to run the cyclist over. Sounds like the cases for both sides are being fully aired.



I have a horrible feeling, and a distrust in jury's that they will fall in favour of the former.


----------



## Arjimlad (7 Oct 2015)

Agreed... beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard of proof...


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

jarlrmai said:


> She's a liar and not a very good one.
> 
> My view is if you intend to harm someone and you use overwhelming force whereby you cannot reasonably expect that death would not be one of the outcomes IE driving a car at someone intentionally then that is attempted murder or manslaughter, if you shoot someone with a gun and they live what are you charged with?
> 
> I understand the law might work differently and that the CPS get involved and the evidence standards are different or whatever bullshit is used to explain why the law is unevenly applied


Unevenly?

Again, not everyone who is shot is killed. Remember the NI punishment kneecappings? How about the old gangland favourite of driving a car over a victim's legs on a kerb? Neither of those had murderous intent.

You cannot attempt manslaughter. Nor can you attempt to be reckless.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Oct 2015)

Pyne reversed before mounting the pavement. I guess her story is the car went backwards then forwards accidentally.


----------



## oldstrath (7 Oct 2015)

Karlt said:


> They don't have to be. If the victim dies, then intent to cause serious injury is sufficient for a murder conviction. It is not however sufficient for an attempted murder conviction should the victim live. The essence of attempted murder is intent to kill; the essence of murder is intent to kill or cause serious injury where the action has caused death.



So how does anyone ever get convicted of 'attempted murder', given that chucking three tonne of metal at some is not enough evidence for it?


----------



## Karlt (7 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> So how does anyone ever get convicted of 'attempted murder', given that chucking three tonne of metal at some is not enough evidence for it?



I'd suggest looking at some recent cases of attempted murder convictions. I'm not a lawyer; I'm just saying what the evidencial bar is in general terms.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> So how does anyone ever get convicted of 'attempted murder', given that chucking three tonne of metal at some is not enough evidence for it?


Because you have to prove that they intended to kill them. We've been over this. The burden of proof for intent is onerous, but not impossible. Reckless is easier, and can be based on foreseeable consequence, but unfortunately that doesn't fit for attempted murder, whereas it does fit for attempted GBH. I will repeat, the offence of attempted GBH is not let-off, it fits the evidence correctly and it still caries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I once had to deal with a complaint. Some children had thrown a brick through a lounge window, and the complainant was furious with the police response. Officers had attended and dealt with it as a case of criminal damage... about £200 worth of glass was broken, and the offenders were quickly identified as being local school students who had been shouted at by the householder for using her garden as a shortcut.

Her Doctor husband however insisted that this was a case of attempted murder, as the brick had landed on a rug in the middle of the room and three hours earlier their one year old grandchild had been playing on that rug. The doctor had to be persuaded to understand that there was no way we could prove that the offenders knew that the baby had been on the rug, and would not have reasonably been expected to know that he had been. Further, we would have had to prove they knew the brick would actually (not potentially) land on the child _and _kill him had it done so. 

I hope that example serves to prove how the actual consequences, not the potential consequences drive the decision making about charging standards.


----------



## oldstrath (7 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> Because you have to prove that they intended to kill them. We've been over this. The burden of proof for intent is onerous, but not impossible. Reckless is easier, and can be based on foreseeable consequence, but unfortunately that doesn't fit for attempted murder, whereas it does fit for attempted GBH. I will repeat, the offence of attempted GBH is not let-off, it fits the evidence correctly and it still caries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
> 
> I once had to deal with a complaint. Some children had thrown a brick through a lounge window, and the complainant was furious with the police response. Officers had attended and dealt with it as a case of criminal damage... about £200 worth of glass was broken, and the offenders were quickly identified as being local school students who had been shouted at by the householder for using her garden as a shortcut.
> 
> ...



Well, only if you think the driver was unaware that she might hit a cyclist, and actually intended, in a fit of pique, to destroy a hair salon. 

Surely, the children you mention had no useful way of knowing that there might have been a small child on the rug, on which the brick happened to land, and so, at most, might be termed reckless. But the driver equally surely knew exactly where the cyclist was, and, unless you really think she hates hair salons, only chance and lack of skill prevented her from hitting him. So no, not even nearly the same. We're back to having to believe that someone intelligent enough to pass a driving test cannot foresee that driving three tonne of metal over an unprotected body is likely to result in their death. Which I don't. And the police appear not to in the case of Dave Phillips.


----------



## Karlt (7 Oct 2015)

It's not merely about foreseeing the likely outcome. it's about very specifically intending to kill - not merely to be indifferent as to whether death occurred, but very specifically intending to kill. That's very hard to prove. For the record, I don't think the driver intended to kill in this case. I don't think she had a clear idea of what she wanted to do. Red mist.

The Dave Phillips case is not comparable because there the charge is murder, not attempted murder, and as has been explained multiple times intent to kill is _not_ required for a murder charge as it is for an attempted murder charge.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Well, only if you think the driver was unaware that she might hit a cyclist, and actually intended, in a fit of pique, to destroy a hair salon.
> 
> Surely, the children you mention had no useful way of knowing that there might have been a small child on the rug, on which the brick happened to land, and so, at most, might be termed reckless. But the driver equally surely knew exactly where the cyclist was, and, unless you really think she hates hair salons, only chance and lack of skill prevented her from hitting him. So no, not even nearly the same. We're back to having to believe that someone intelligent enough to pass a driving test cannot foresee that driving three tonne of metal over an unprotected body is likely to result in their death. Which I don't. And the police appear not to in the case of Dave Phillips.



With due respect, I can explain it over and over again, but I'm afraid it's up to you to do the understanding.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
But how can we tell what she was thinking...


----------



## Markymark (7 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
I'd say the driver woukd know full well that could well be the consequence.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

*a consequence........


----------



## Karlt (7 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I'd say the driver woukd know full well that could well be the consequence.


But that's not the test for Attempted Murder. It has to be the _intended_ consequence.


----------



## Markymark (7 Oct 2015)

Yes a direct consequence. If I fired a gun out of my bedroom windiw into the street I would do do knowing it could kill someone. If I aimed it at someone they could be killed. It's also possible it might not kill them.


----------



## Inertia (7 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Yes a direct consequence. If I fired a gun out of my bedroom windiw into the street I would do do knowing it could kill someone. If I aimed it at someone they could be killed. It's also possible it might not kill them.


Indeed but it would be up to the prosecution to prove you intended to kill, a *motive* to kill helps prove things. The only motive we have for her reversing, isn't a definite motive to kill, IMO.


----------



## Markymark (7 Oct 2015)

If I shot a rifle from my bedroom window woukd tgat be attempted murder? I'm not a very good shot.


----------



## Inertia (7 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> If I shot a rifle from my bedroom window woukd tgat be attempted murder? I'm not a very good shot.


From your description, no, but it Sounds pretty reckless.


----------



## jarlrmai (7 Oct 2015)

Every time we have this debate I do eventually come around to the reasons why it's not attempted murder in the eyes of the law, and I thank you lawyer types for calmly explaining things to us.

It just seems odd to me that killing a man by running him over in the "heat of the moment" during a police chase to avoid going over a stinger = murder, perhaps his "intention" was to make the officer move out of the way? But reversing a car and then driving it at someone in the "heat of the moment" is a much lesser charge.

If the cyclist had died would she be charged with murder?


----------



## Inertia (7 Oct 2015)

jarlrmai said:


> Every time we have this debate I do eventually come around to the reasons why it's not attempted murder in the eyes of the law, and I thank you lawyer types for calmly explaining things to us.
> 
> It just seems odd to me that killing a man by running him over in the "heat of the moment" during a police chase to avoid going over a stinger = murder, perhaps his "intention" was to make the officer move out of the way? But reversing a car and then driving it at someone in the "heat of the moment" is a much lesser charge.
> 
> If the cyclist had died would she be charged with murder?


I dont think these things and black and white which is why a jury will decide on the facts of each case.

Are they actually going to charge them with murder? It seems their main aim was to avoid a stinger rather than aiming to kill him.

I think if she had killed him she could have been charged with murder as it looks like she intended to harm him (and did). You have the body.

As he is alive its harder to prove she intended to kill him, as she didnt..


----------



## Karlt (7 Oct 2015)

It's black and white inasmuch as the law sets out the bars that must be reached for each offence. If the victim had died then a murder charge would certainly be a possibility. It's not so much that it's harder to prove intent when there's no death; it's rather that intent to kill is only required for the attempted murder charge whilst it isn't required for the actual murder charge, odd as that may seem.

In the recent police officer case, if the defence is that they were aiming to avoid the stinger and the prosecution cannot present evidence that this is untrue and the police officer was the target, then indeed a murder prosecution would fail, although a manslaughter charge is still possible.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3941631, member: 9609"]to me there is a significant difference between the two incidents, if you go out on the rob and steal a vehicle then you have had time to weigh up the various scenarios and possibilities, someone being killed is a very realistic outcome, and for me this comes very close to full murder. If someone of otherwise good character going about their lawful business in a moments madness commits an act of rage and someone dies, then for me this is quite along way from being full murder (could well deserve a life sentence, but it is a long way off premeditated murder)[/QUOTE]

Murder is a common law offence. As such it has no statutory definition. However, legal arguments around the necessary points to prove are encapsulated in case law, and any doubts or defences etc can be explored that way.

The archaic term "Malice Aforethought" is the definition of intent we need to consider. How and when that malice is formulated is immaterial, and does not require the prosecution to prove a timescale as such. The phrase may _suggest _a lengthy or drawn out period of preparation based on a plan to kill somebody, but that malice can actually be decided on instantly. Your phrase "moment of madness" sums it up, (although of course that "madness" is not to be confused with mental health as it would make it mitigation or even a defence). That moment when the person in a fit of rage thinks "I'm going to kill him" and then drives three tonnes of car at him _ intending at that time that the consequence of that action will be to kill him_ is sufficient "aforethought".


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Oct 2015)

Karlt said:


> They don't have to be. If the victim dies, then intent to cause serious injury is sufficient for a murder conviction. It is not however sufficient for an attempted murder conviction should the victim live. The essence of attempted murder is intent to kill; the essence of murder is intent to kill or cause serious injury where the action has caused death.



Does this not create a bit of a conundrum in the case of PC Phillips? Presumably the accused have been charged with something in respect of his colleague who had to jump clear of the pickup.
Does anyone know whether the charge is attempted murder or attempted GBHWI?

GC


----------



## Inertia (7 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Does this not create a bit of a conundrum in the case of PC Phillips? Presumably the accused have been charged with something in respect of his colleague who had to jump clear of the pickup.
> Does anyone know whether the charge is attempted murder or attempted GBHWI?
> 
> GC


Noone has been charged at all yet, only arrested.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> If I shot a rifle from my bedroom window woukd tgat be attempted murder? I'm not a very good shot.



If you miss:
Not unless you specifically aimed it at someone with the intention of killing them.

If someone is killed however:
Having intended to kill one person you then hit and killed another, that would be murder. (transferred malice)

And if you fired into a crowd fully expecting or intending that someone/anyone in that crowd would be hit and killed, then that would be murder.


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Oct 2015)

Reasonable doubt would probably get someone off nine times out of ten, but I think she might have problems even with a sympathetic jury explaining away the reverse-then-drive. It's one thing to muddle your pedals, it's quite another to do something as complex as go one way, stop, then go the other way 'by mistake', or due to a malfunction.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

Inertia said:


> Noone has been charged at all yet, only arrested.


This.


----------



## Profpointy (7 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> If you miss:
> Not unless you specifically aimed it at someone with the intention of killing them.
> 
> If someone is killed however:
> ...



and if I undserstand the law examples upthread, if I intend to shoot someone in the hand, but kill them it's murder. But if I intend to shoot them in the hand but miss, it's merely GBH not attempted murder


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

Perhaps Cycle Chat could set up a "legal decisions based on a pro-cyclist bias" forum and the CPS could consult it to make sure they make the right decisions every time?


----------



## Markymark (7 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> Perhaps Cycle Chat could set up a "legal decisions based on a pro-cyclist bias" forum and the CPS could consult it to make sure they make the right decisions every time?


No I think many would like the same level of justice whether the (alleged) victim is on a bike, a pedestrian, in a uniform....


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> and if I undserstand the law examples upthread, if I intend to shoot someone in the hand, but kill them it's murder. But if I intend to shoot them in the hand but miss, it's merely GBH not attempted murder


Nearly. It would be attempted GBH, but otherwise your understanding is correct. . 

The necessary mens rea or intent involved in murder must be either to kill, or to cause GBH. If someone dies as a result of your intention to cause GBH, the result is murder. If no one dies, then you have merely attempted GBH. 

If someone is injured grievously as a result of your attempt to kill him, it's attempted murder.


----------



## Profpointy (7 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> Nearly. It would be attempted GBH, but otherwise your understanding is correct. .
> 
> The necessary mens rea or intent involved in murder must be either to kill, or to cause GBH. If someone dies as a result of your intention to cause GBH, the result is murder. If no one dies, then you have merely attempted GBH.
> 
> If someone is injured grievously as a result of your attempt to kill him, it's attempted murder.



well there we go, every day's a school day.


----------



## Cubist (7 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> No I think many would like the same level of justice whether the (alleged) victim is on a bike, a pedestrian, in a uniform....


There are two posts upthread _inferring_ that the law was being applied more rigorously to the Merseyside Case than the salon incident.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Oct 2015)

Inertia said:


> Noone has been charged at all yet, only arrested.



Thanks, I keep forgetting that characteristic of English law. In Scotland you're arrested only if there's enough evidence to prefer a charge.

I'll revive my question once charges are laid.

GC


----------



## CopperCyclist (7 Oct 2015)

Inertia said:


> Noone has been charged at all yet, only arrested.



+1 more 'this' 

If the woman had hit and killed the cyclist she would have most likely been arrested for murder with a witness saying that she reversed first. 

If PC Phillips had managed to jump out of the way, the driver would not have been arrested for attempt murder.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Oct 2015)

Now that the 18 year old suspect has been charged with the murder of PC Phillips, why hasn't he been charged with the attempted murder of his colleague and instead been charged with attempting to wound?

Both charges arise from a single course of action and I don't understand how the CPS can say there was intent to kill one but not the other.

GC


----------



## Profpointy (7 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Now that the 18 year old suspect has been charged with the murder of PC Phillips, why hasn't he been charged with the attempted murder of his colleague and instead been charged with attempting to wound?
> 
> Both charges arise from a single course of action and I don't understand how the CPS can say there was intent to kill one but not the other.
> 
> GC



someone above explained that intention to injure resulting in death counts as murder, but for attempted.murder.you need intention to kill


----------



## slowmotion (7 Oct 2015)

I have a general query for the CC legal experts. Please excuse my general ignorance of these matters.
I would imagine that the CPS has to decide which charges to prosecute. Presumably they weigh up the chance of conviction for each of them. Do they go for a prosecution with slim chances of a serious conviction, or a much greater chance of a minor conviction? Who decides? Please, I beg you, don't mention savage Tory cuts.

Thank you.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I have a general query for the CC legal experts. Please excuse my general ignorance of these matters.
> I would imagine that the CPS has to decide which charges to prosecute. Presumably they weigh up the chance of conviction for each of them. Do they go for a prosecution with slim chances of a serious conviction, or a much greater chance of a minor conviction? Who decides? Please, I beg you, don't mention savage Tory cuts.
> 
> Thank you.



The CPS lawyer drafts the indictment to be put before the jury, and that may include an alternative lesser charge where there is a statutory alternative.

It comes down to the professional judgment of the lawyer.

Some are not keen on alternatives, preferring to keep it simple for the jury.

However, in the case of a road death, the defendant may plead guilty to the lesser charge of death by careless, but the CPS still go for death by dangerous.

In that instance, both charges will appear on the indictment, and the jury will be be told the defendant has already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge.

Thus the jury's task is to decide if the admitted killer driving was dangerous or careless.

Some stuff here from the CPS charging guidelines:


*Alternatives *
It may be necessary to consider whether to include a lesser or alternative count in the indictment. Such consideration will include whether a lesser or alternative count would be likely to attract a plea of guilty and, if so, whether such plea would be acceptable. Considerations/views should be recorded on the file. 

Although sections 6(3) and 6(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 permit a jury, in certain circumstances, to find a defendant guilty of a lesser or alternative offence, it is preferable to include any appropriate alternative counts in the indictment. 

The reason for this is to avoid reliance on the trial judge or prosecuting counsel in bringing any such alternatives to the jury's attention. 

A number of statutes enable alternative verdicts to be returned in relation to specific offences. An example is where, on a count for theft, the jury are not satisfied that the defendant committed the offence charged but can convict for the offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent - section 12(4) of the Theft Act 1968. 


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drafting_the_indictment/#alternatives


----------



## slowmotion (8 Oct 2015)

Thank you @Pale Rider. It looks like "It comes down to the professional judgment of the lawyer" at the CPS which, I suppose, is exactly as it should be. What's a better alternative....SC&P on CycleChat? I hope not. There seem to be way too many hangers and floggers in there.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Thank you @Pale Rider. It looks like "It comes down to the professional judgment of the lawyer" at the CPS which, I suppose, is exactly as it should be. What's a better alternative....SC&P on CycleChat? I hope not. There seem to be way too many hangers and floggers in there.



I agree, although it comes down to the quality and professional integrity of the CPS lawyer.

As with any profession or trade, that quality is variable.

Some of the CPS case preparation lawyers have little or no experience of actually prosecuting a case at court.

Winning a criminal court case, rightly or wrongly, is as much about tactics as it is about knowledge of the law.

Again like any profession or job, the best people are the ones with the appropriate qualifications, but more importantly, plenty of experience.

In practice, the wiser CPS lawyers will consult and listen to the prosecuting barrister - who has the experience at court - before they take the charging decision.


----------



## Cubist (8 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Now that the 18 year old suspect has been charged with the murder of PC Phillips, why hasn't he been charged with the attempted murder of his colleague and instead been charged with attempting to wound?
> 
> Both charges arise from a single course of action and I don't understand how the CPS can say there was intent to kill one but not the other.
> 
> GC


As @Profpointy so neatly says, because the evidence the police have will make that the most appropriate course of action. 

I am making an assumption here, but the suspect will have been interviewed, and given the charges above, his reply would have been " I drove at the two officers because I didn't want to be stopped and arrested. Yes, I understand that driving a pickup truck at someone is very likely going to result in serious injury, but I didn't mean to kill the one that died" 

Given that as an admission, the police can prove an intention to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The resultant death is one outcome, and the admitted intent to injure is sufficient malice for a murder charge. That same malice to injure was not acted upon the officer that managed to jump clear, but it has now been admitted. So the attempt to injure the second officer is charged appropriately.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Oct 2015)

@Profpointy and @Cubist , thanks for the patient explanations - I'm going to have to try harder to understand. I'm sure the approach in Scotland would be to charge with murder and attempted murder, maybe @Brandane can confirm.

GC


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> @Profpointy and @Cubist , thanks for the patient explanations - I'm going to have to try harder to understand. I'm sure the approach in Scotland would be to charge with murder and attempted murder, maybe @Brandane can confirm.
> 
> GC



The driver has been charged with murder and attempted grievous bodily harm of another police officer.

This suggests there is some evidence of an intention to cause harm, which - as mentioned upthread - is all that's required for murder.

It may be the young man did himself no favours in his interview, or, perhaps more likely, the others involved are using a cut throat defence - drop the driver in it to save their own skins.

The code of honour among criminals stops some way short of practical solidarity when there's a lot of porridge to be eaten.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34456424


----------



## benb (9 Oct 2015)

I think there is a definite issue where the CPS tend to charge a lower offence because it's "easier" to get a conviction rather than the more serious charge which may be more appropriate.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Oct 2015)

Rock and a hard place, some conviction is better than none.


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Oct 2015)

Guilty verdict on the Audi driving maniac mum !

Good old British Jury !

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...stic_cyclist_after_road_rage_row/?ref=mr&lp=4


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Oct 2015)

Cubist said:


> Given that as an admission, the police can prove an intention to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The resultant death is one outcome, and the admitted intent to injure is sufficient malice for a murder charge. That same malice to injure was not acted upon the officer that managed to jump clear, but it has now been admitted. So the attempt to injure the second officer is charged appropriately.



Snipped most of this concise and great explanation. 

It also clearly shows the exact parallel to the case this thread is about - the PC jumped clear - attempt GBH. The cyclist avoided injury - attempt GBH. 

Hopefully this may now go some way to demonstrate that everything is dealt with in the same level in our justice system, and knee jerk reactions following the death of PC Phillips and how people 'felt' it applied to this case are neither accurate nor helpful.


----------



## cd365 (9 Oct 2015)

Arjimlad said:


> Guilty verdict on the Audi driving maniac mum !
> 
> Good old British Jury !
> 
> http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...stic_cyclist_after_road_rage_row/?ref=mr&lp=4


What's the betting it will be a slap on the wrist. She should spend some time in jail.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Oct 2015)

I'm delighted that she's been convicted of the attempted GBH charge, I really wasn't expecting that. I'm pleased too that she was also convicted of dangerous driving. I'd assumed it would've been one or the other.

Now lets see how the sentencing goes... (extreme hardship, young children to ferry around etc)

GC


----------



## Markymark (9 Oct 2015)

cd365 said:


> What's the betting it will be a slap on the wrist. She should spend some time in jail.


Not sure. Very quick to return verdict, seems pretty clear-cut to me. I would imagine some jail-time.


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Oct 2015)

How soon will she be let loose behind the wheel again ?


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm delighted that she's been convicted of the attempted GBH charge, I really wasn't expecting that. I'm pleased too that she was also convicted of dangerous driving. I'd assumed it would've been one or the other.
> 
> Now lets see how the sentencing goes... (extreme hardship, young children to ferry around etc)
> 
> GC



I suspect the barrister who mitigates will ask the judge to be wary of 'double counting' and to pass concurrent sentences.

The attempt GBH is the most serious - maximum five years - against the maximum of two years for dangerous driving.

There don't appear to be any sentencing guidelines for the attempted form of the offence, but there are for GBH.

Those suggest level two - lesser harm, but high culpability.

Starting point 18 months, range one to three years.

There can be no credit for a guilty plea - she stood trial.

But gender equality has yet to reach sentencing at court, so much will be made of her being a mother and jail time punishing the children.

That might save her from immediate custody.

Wrong, in my view.

If a single bloke in his 20s would get a short stretch for this, which I reckon he would, so should she.

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...ssault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> I suspect (snip)
> 
> Wrong, in my view.
> 
> If a single bloke in his 20s would get a short stretch for this, which I reckon he would, so should she.



Need two "like" buttons.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2015)

I think the verdict is excellent news for all of us.


----------



## User33236 (9 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Now lets see how the sentencing goes... (extreme hardship, young children to ferry around etc)
> 
> GC


Infringes on the human rights of her kids not to have mummy around?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Oct 2015)

User33236 said:


> Infringes on the human rights of her kids not to have mummy around?


Yes, and she still has so much to teach them about road behaviour.....


----------



## andyfraser (9 Oct 2015)

We can't have a society where someone's treated with lenience just because they have kids or whatever. The parent made the choice to break the law. If their kids are affected it's all on the parent. Also we can't set a precedent that if you'll be treated leniently if you have a convincing sob story. I hope the judge does the right thing when passing sentence.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Oct 2015)

I'd accept no jail, but a lifetime driving ban to be honest.


----------



## buggi (9 Oct 2015)

You might be pleasantly surprised. From what I remember when I used to work in criminal law, when it comes to violence, women tend to get tougher sentences, even if they have children.


----------



## RoubaixCube (9 Oct 2015)

I was gonna ask if it was this guy in the volvo but nevermind


----------



## benb (10 Oct 2015)

I'm going to predict 12 months suspended for 2 years, plus a 12 month driving ban. Plus a fine of a few hundred £.


----------



## swee'pea99 (10 Oct 2015)

From the Surrey Comet site...

_"This woman is a mess I see her around new Malden and how she speaks to her children is a disgrace so no shock in seeing her mug to this story line,chuck the book at her she tried to kill someone she should be up for attempted murder makes you wonder what she's like behind closed doors if she can act in such a way in front of children what must she be like behind closed doors send her to prison ban her from driving and take her children from her she's a risk to herself and them not stable mentally what so ever.
Only last week she was dragging her children to school screaming with blacked out eyes says it all really"_

Sounds like the jury saw through her without too much difficulty; let's hope the judge does too. I think they tend to take a pretty dim view of barefaced liars in their court, and it was a singularly nasty incident too. Jail time is for once a real possibility. The only problem being, she doesn't sound like the kind of person who will learn from the experience. She'll go in a vicious cretinous daffodil, and come out a vicious cretinous daffodil. Probably with an added grudge against cyclists...


----------



## Cubist (10 Oct 2015)

Sentencing guidelines for the substantive offence of malicious wounding start at 12 years and can be adjusted downwards depending on various factors. Attempted offences have no specific guidelines that I can find, but severity of harm is a factor classifying the offence as higher gravity. Also, interestingly, the vulnerability of the victim. 

If we're having a sweepstake, I predict a ban and a suspended sentence. 

Women convicted of dishonesty offences are more likely to receive a custodial sentence in my experience.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (10 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean, but it could have well resulted in death, and if you are responsible for a tonne of metal on wheels, you should appreciate that such actions could result in death or you shouldn't really hold a license...


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (10 Oct 2015)

Inertia said:


> I dont think these things and black and white which is why a jury will decide on the facts of each case.
> 
> Are they actually going to charge them with murder? It seems their main aim was to avoid a stinger rather than aiming to kill him.
> 
> ...


So in @0-markymark-0 's example above, as long as I shut my eyes as I fire the machine gun out of the window down the crowded high street I can look forward to arguing that I didn't actually intend to kill anyone?


----------



## slowmotion (10 Oct 2015)

In the circumstances, I can't help feeling that this poor guy got a very raw deal from the British justice system.
http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk...ter_causing_death_of_Whitchurch_man/?ref=mmpg


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (10 Oct 2015)

Out of interest, although not a 'contributing factor', the cars front tyres were worn below the legal limit. Shouldn't that be thrown at her as well?


----------



## oldstrath (10 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I can't see why else she would have driven a Q7 at him. At the very least people like this should never be allowed to drive again.

By the way, I do understand the legal niceties of all this, but I just don't think they make a lot of sense. The law apparently claims that intention is important, but appears to judge this in part by the essentially random outcome. This woman will probably end up with a short ban, a fine, and a suspended sentence, whereas if the cyclist had died she probably would be imprisoned. But the intent would not have changed, only the random oucome.


----------



## Dan B (10 Oct 2015)

Perhaps "attempted purchase of a Q7" should be an offence in itself.


----------



## Sara_H (10 Oct 2015)

I'd be interested in the sentencing here. The fella that ran me over had threatened to kill me (twice) followed me and then ran me over. He was sentenced to two years, served seven months (still waiting to recieve compensation 15 months later).
My perpetrator had previous for a very similar offence though, and was still serving a suspended sentence for that offence.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Oct 2015)

If you drive a car into a building it's possible that stuff may end up in your car. Sharp bits of wood or metal. Pyne was so angry at the cyclist and wanted to hurt him so much she took that risk with "at least" four kids in the car with her. If that isn't recklessly endangering kids, in another unhelpful and muddled comparison with an unrelated case in America you can get life if you smoke crack when pregnant and the baby dies.


----------



## Inertia (10 Oct 2015)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> So in @0-markymark-0 's example above, as long as I shut my eyes as I fire the machine gun out of the window down the crowded high street I can look forward to arguing that I didn't actually intend to kill anyone?


I guess it depends if you can convince a jury that you didnt intend to kill anyone


----------



## thelawnet (10 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> I suspect the barrister who mitigates will ask the judge to be wary of 'double counting' and to pass concurrent sentences.
> 
> The attempt GBH is the most serious - maximum five years - against the maximum of two years for dangerous driving.
> 
> ...



Wrong offence.

There are two here:

"Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm" (s18)

or

"Inflicting grievous bodily harm" (s20)

It is not possible to attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm without intent.

So the offence is s18, not s20.

In this case there appears to be higher culpability, as she used a weapon or weapon equivalent, but not harm.

The range of sentencing for the offence is 3-16 years, and for this Category 2, it is 5-9 years with a starting point of 6 years.

So she SHOULD be facing AT LEAST five years, and as the minimum sentence for the offence is 3 years, there is no possibility of a suspended sentence (unless the judge decides there are grounds to overrule the entire sentencing guideline).


----------



## andrew_s (10 Oct 2015)

The cyclist wasn't badly hurt ("The male cyclist was taken to hospital with a small cut to his arm", according to a police statement the following day)
Does "Causing minor injury with intent to do grievous bodily harm" also count as s18?


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Oct 2015)

thelawnet said:


> Wrong offence.
> 
> There are two here:
> 
> ...



The offence is attempted grievous bodily harm, or attempted sect 20, if you prefer.

It is the attempted form of the offence because the cyclist suffered minor injuries - there was no grievous bodily harm inflicted on him, so no one can be guilty of doing so, whether with intent or without it.

As I said, it comes down to the view of the lawyer who is formulating the indictment.

The CPS guidelines for prosecutors generally advise avoiding attempting sect 20, but concede it can be used in certain cases:

Quoting: "Because of the distinction between the definition of a wound and that of grievous bodily harm there is an argument for saying that it is possible to attempt a section 20 wounding - for example where an offender intends to cause an injury that would break the continuity of the whole of the outer skin but would not cause really serious bodily harm."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#b16

I couldn't readily see any sentencing guidelines for the attempted form of sect 20, so I suspect the court will do as I did and refer to the simple sect 20 guidelines.

Although her barrister will point out more times than enough that those guidelines don't strictly apply because his client didn't seriously injure anyone.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Oct 2015)

I'll eat my helmet if she gets a custodial sentence.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Oct 2015)

User said:


> You are not that supple.


 I had a sneaking suspicion that that was coming......
Oh Lord, I do keep digging...


----------



## Paul Bonsor (11 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I had a sneaking suspicion that that was coming......
> Oh Lord, I do keep digging...


Take a rib out, problem solved


----------



## thelawnet (11 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The offence is attempted grievous bodily harm, or attempted sect 20, if you prefer.
> 
> It is the attempted form of the offence because the cyclist suffered minor injuries - there was no grievous bodily harm inflicted on him, so no one can be guilty of doing so, whether with intent or without it.



You what? The difference between s18 and s20 is *intent* to commit specifically *grievous *harm. The outcome is the same.Given that there was no actual harm, it follows that the offence is s18, or nothing, since you can only charge s20, if there was no intent to commit grievous harm.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Oct 2015)

thelawnet said:


> You what? The difference between s18 and s20 is *intent* to commit specifically *grievous *harm. The outcome is the same.Given that there was no actual harm, it follows that the offence is s18, or nothing, since you can only charge s20, if there was no intent to commit grievous harm.



In the case referred to, the charge and conviction is attempted section 20 - that's a simple matter of fact.

It has to be the attempted form because there was no serious injury to the cyclist.

The lawyer probably thought dangerous driving was not sufficient, because a cyclist was hit and slightly injured.

Most dangerous drives are property offences, the clown driver races the car around, smacks a bit of street furniture and then legs it.

There is a relatively new charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, but that's no good here because no serious injury was caused.

The attempted sect 20 in this case reflects the involvement of the cyclist.

Given the available charges, the lawyer has been quite smart to use attempted sect 20.

It would have been easy to go just for dangerous, so this is one of those rare occasions where the CPS deserves a pat on the back for trying to accurately reflect the criminality, not simply accepting a lesser conviction.


----------



## Labradorofperception (12 Oct 2015)

Apparently, she has previous for dangerous driving and driving under the influence. 

and if she is 31, she must have one hell of a paper round. 

It must be a custodial, if she was reckless as to having the kids in the car then she was reckless to the consequences.


----------



## benb (12 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> this is one of those rare occasions where the CPS deserves a pat on the back for trying to accurately reflect the criminality, not simply accepting a lesser conviction.



Makes a refreshing change


----------



## thelawnet (12 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> In the case referred to, the charge and conviction is attempted section 20 - that's a simple matter of fact.


Is it? Says who??



> It has to be the attempted form because there was no serious injury to the cyclist.



Yes that's understood.

s18 ad s20 both represent identical harm.
The difference is INTENT.
In the case of s20, there is no intent to commit GRIEVOUS harm. Like if I punch you, and you suffer brain damage, the I can argue that I didn't intend to seriously harm you.
But if I stab you with a big knife, then its obvious that I INTENDED GRIEVOUS harm.



> The attempted sect 20 in this case reflects the involvement of the cyclist.
> 
> Given the available charges, the lawyer has been quite smart to use attempted sect 20.



It's section 18
It's nonsensical to charge attempted s20, Because s20 means there was grievous harm, but the offender didn't intend to cause grievous harm.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Oct 2015)

Stop fiddling while Rome burns.

Let's see what she gets.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Oct 2015)

thelawnet said:


> Is it? Says who??
> 
> It's section 18
> It's nonsensical to charge attempted s20, Because s20 means there was grievous harm, but the offender didn't intend to cause grievous harm.



Says who? The press report - which is all we have - is clear.

"A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4x4 into a cyclist she had argued with."

You have said several times an attempt must include intent.

The law and the CPS guidelines to prosecutors generally agrees with you.

But, and it is a big but, the offence of attempted sect 20 does exist, and while rarely used, it has been used in this case.

If you still think it's wrong, all you can do is go to Kingston Crown Court for sentence and tell the judge and the two lawyers about the legal mistake they've made.

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...stic_cyclist_after_road_rage_row/?ref=mr&lp=4


----------



## thelawnet (12 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Says who? The press report - which is all we have - is clear.
> 
> "A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4x4 into a cyclist she had argued with."
> 
> http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...stic_cyclist_after_road_rage_row/?ref=mr&lp=4



Uh, you presume that the journalists know the first thing about the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or understand the meaning of 'with intent'.

The reporting reads ' attempted grievous bodily harm'

It does not say 'attempted grievous bodily harm under s20'.

'Attempted grievous bodily harm' could mean either s18 or s20, since both are offences of gbh, and the 'attempt' refers to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s1, which applies to all indictable offences.

This report suggests that she was charged with 'attempted grievous bodily harm with intent'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...hed-into-salon-in-road-rage-row-a3083701.html
As does this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-smashing-beauty-salon-fit-road-rage.html

Under the Criminal Attempts Act s4, the penalty for an attempt is the same as for a completed offence.




> If you still think it's wrong, all you can do is go to Kingston Crown Court for sentence and tell the judge and the two lawyers about the legal mistake they've made.



Or you could just accept that journalists don't report things accurately, and trust the CPS when they say (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#b16)

*"It is not possible to attempt to commit a section 20 GBH offence.* An attempt to cause grievous bodily harm should be charged as an attempt section 18 because, as a matter of law if a suspect attempts to cause really serious harm he must necessarily intend to do so. Similarly if a suspect attempts to cause a serious wound of a kind that would clearly amount to grievous bodily harm the offence would be attempted section 18."

So again, she should be looking at around five years inside, with NO possibility of a suspended sentence, because the MINIMUM sentence for s18 is three years in prison, which cannot be suspended.

If she does NOT serve prison time, I expect to see complaints to the Attorney General.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (13 Oct 2015)

thelawnet said:


> So again, she should be looking at around five years inside, with NO possibility of a suspended sentence, because the MINIMUM sentence for s18 is three years in prison, which cannot be suspended.
> 
> If she does NOT serve prison time, I expect to see complaints to the Attorney General.


It was only a cyclist though.

£50 fine and a driving course will be sufficient.


----------



## hatler (13 Oct 2015)

I think she should be given the choice.

Three years inside followed by a ten year driving ban, or a lifetime driving ban. Clearly unfit to be let loose on our roads on anything bigger than an unpowered micro-scooter.


----------



## Brains (13 Oct 2015)

hatler said:


> I think she should be given the choice.
> 
> Three years inside followed by a ten year driving ban, or a lifetime driving ban. Clearly unfit to be let loose on our roads on anything bigger than an unpowered micro-scooter.



I would suggest the will be uninsurable from now on with her previous history.
No company knowing her history would touch her with a barge pole.
Therefore, hopefully, she will be getting effectively a multiyear ban whatever happens.
(and if she is then caught driving uninsured, I'd really hope they would throw away the key)


----------



## hatler (6 Nov 2015)

Today's sentencing day.


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

hatler said:


> Today's sentencing day.


"was bailed until November 6 for a pre-sentence report"
Whatever that means.


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

User said:


> To give time for someone to assess her level of madness.


When will sentencing likely take place then? Today or some weeks for this report to be finalised?


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Nov 2015)

*Natalie* *Pyne*, Kingston-u-Thames Room: 4 at 10:36


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

Arjimlad said:


> *Natalie* *Pyne*, Kingston-u-Thames Room: 4 at 10:36


Well the 'hearing' has apparently finished.


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Nov 2015)

Suspended sentence, perhaps ?


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

Unless anyone was there no way of knowing yet.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Nov 2015)

I actually do think that she needs to be screened by mental health services. This is not a healthy reaction to anything.


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Nov 2015)

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1..._cyclist_in_Kingston_and_crashing_into_salon/


----------



## hatler (6 Nov 2015)

Blimey. That's at the upper end of my expectations, and approaching something I think appropriate.


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

Much higher than I thought. Much lower than it should ahve been.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2015)

She's been sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1..._cyclist_in_Kingston_and_crashing_into_salon/

A lifetime ban should be automatic for anyone using a motorvehicle as a weapon.

GC


----------



## hatler (6 Nov 2015)

Ah. I've just got to the bit about her previous. Already been banned for 12 months. Her new ban should be significantly more than four years. And does that start when she gets out of nick, or now ? In which case, a four year ban is even more laughable.


----------



## hatler (6 Nov 2015)

Hmmm, yes. I bet if you tried using a gun to kill someone there would be little hesitation in withdrawing your gun licence for ever.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Nov 2015)

So a woman who previously was convicted of driving on the wrong side of the road, while pissed, and now convicted of trying to kill someone with her car (sorry, 'of trying to do someone serious injury' for the weasels) will be allowed to drive again in 4 years' time. This is what really stinks, about this and many other cases. The law's complete inability or reluctance to stop incompetent, angry, nutjobs from driving ever again.


----------



## Neilsmith (6 Nov 2015)

She should be banned for life as she has clearly not learned from her first ban, her actions on both occasions show her contempt for other road users


----------



## hatler (6 Nov 2015)

Call me cynical if you will, but I wonder if the £25,000 damage to a building resulted in the sentence being more severe than it might otherwise have been. Crimes against property and all that ...


----------



## hatler (6 Nov 2015)

The comments at the bottom of the article should prove interesting as they appear. How long before anyone mentions RLJing do you reckon ?


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Nov 2015)

I suppose she will have to kill someone before copping a lifetime ban.  I guess she will also have to drive uninsured henceforth as no self-respecting insurer should give her a policy.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Nov 2015)

From the story, the words of her defending weasel

"Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”."

How on earth can an intelligent human being believe that a woman capable of trying to kill a complete stranger 'in a brief flash of anger' is fit to be allowed behind the wheel of a car, or indeed to be allowed possession of anything sharp?


----------



## Neilsmith (6 Nov 2015)

Arjimlad said:


> I suppose she will have to kill someone before copping a lifetime ban.  I guess she will also have to drive uninsured henceforth as no self-respecting insurer should give her a policy.


She will likely not tell her next insurer, and it will be the first poor sod she runs into that finds out her insurance isn't valid


----------



## glenn forger (6 Nov 2015)

Result. Although the thought of her back on the road is a bit scary.


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

Neilsmith said:


> She will likely not tell her next insurer, and it will be the first poor sod she runs into that finds out her insurance isn't valid


It will be valid, the person she hits will not lose out. The insurance company would pay out and go after Natalie for the costs.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2015)

oldstrath said:


> From the story, the words of her defending weasel
> 
> "Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”."
> 
> How on earth can an intelligent human being believe that a woman capable of trying to kill a complete stranger 'in a brief flash of anger' is fit to be allowed behind the wheel of a car, or indeed to be allowed possession of anything sharp?



I know the defence agent is expected to plead the best possible case for the client but surely not to the extent of defying all sense of logic, reason or fact:

“...this wasn’t an act of violence.”
_Defence counsel Lisa Bald_​GC


----------



## jay clock (6 Nov 2015)

Sounds fair to me


----------



## oldstrath (6 Nov 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I know the defence agent is expected to plead the best possible case for the client but surely not to the extent of defying all sense of logic, reason or fact:
> 
> “...this wasn’t an act of violence.”
> _Defence counsel Lisa Bald_​GC


The argument is always made that anyone is entitled to a proper defence. I never understand why that extends to begging for leniency once the person has been found guilty.


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

oldstrath said:


> The argument is always made that anyone is entitled to a proper defence. I never understand why that extends to begging for leniency once the person has been found guilty.


Because you are paying them to act on your behalf.


----------



## benb (6 Nov 2015)

The custodial sentence sounds proportionate, but what does someone actually need to do to get a significant driving ban?


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (6 Nov 2015)

Found this bit quite upsetting:
QUOTE:
Reacting to the verdict, Mr Edgely said: “I don’t want a mother of six going to prison, because that’s on my conscience.
“Since the accident I haven’t been able to go out. I’ve managed for a while [to cycle], until I met three motor vehicles at a roundabout and haven’t since. I don’t know if I ever will again.”


----------



## oldstrath (6 Nov 2015)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Found this bit quite upsetting:
> QUOTE:
> Reacting to the verdict, Mr Edgely said: “I don’t want a mother of six going to prison, because that’s on my conscience.
> “Since the accident I haven’t been able to go out. I’ve managed for a while [to cycle], until I met three motor vehicles at a roundabout and haven’t since. I don’t know if I ever will again.”


The second part is desperately sad. I don't get the first part at all - how is his conscience troubled by this - it's her fault, alone?


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (6 Nov 2015)

oldstrath said:


> The second part is desperately sad. I don't get the first part at all - how is his conscience troubled by this - it's her fault, alone?


I know what you mean. I guess he feels sorry for the children... makes him a decent human being in my book...


----------



## oldstrath (6 Nov 2015)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> I know what you mean. I guess he feels sorry for the children... makes him a decent human being in my book...


I'm sure he feels sorry for them. Whether they are any worse off without nutmum for 18 months is debatable, at least. He might also remember that, whatever his feelings, the rest of us also have an interest in seeing proper punishment.


----------



## jarlrmai (6 Nov 2015)

Wow would prefer no jail and lifetime driving ban but hey.

edit:
She had previous so jail totally appropriate.. otherwise I think she would have gotten much less.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Nov 2015)

The thing which worries me is what will happen to her children. Not whilst she is in jail but when she gets out - if her reaction to a minor incident on the road is to try to mow down the other party with her car, how is she reacting to children being, well, children?


----------



## glenn forger (6 Nov 2015)

She could have killed any of those kids. You drive two tons of metal into a building and anything could happen, debris could smash the window and impale one of the kids. She was so cross she thought "You're not going to get away with THIS!" and used a car as a weapon with kids in it.


----------



## jarlrmai (6 Nov 2015)

I'm sure with her in jail there will be an assessment made of the children's situation.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2015)

jarlrmai said:


> I'm sure with her in jail there will be an assessment made of the children's situation.



Aye,_ improved_.

GC


----------



## Kestevan (6 Nov 2015)

MissTillyFlop said:


> The thing which worries me is what will happen to her children. Not whilst she is in jail but when she gets out - if her reaction to a minor incident on the road is to try to mow down the other party with her car, how is she reacting to children being, well, children?




Too True, I'm a rational, stable, normal person (more or less), and I have a daily struggle not to strangle the living crap out of my kids...... and I've only got 2.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2015)

hatler said:


> Ah. I've just got to the bit about her previous. Already been banned for 12 months. Her new ban should be significantly more than four years. And does that start when she gets out of nick, or now ? In which case, a four year ban is even more laughable.



It doesn't take effect while she's in prison so it could be 7 years before she's allowed to apply for a licence again.

GC


----------



## slowmotion (6 Nov 2015)

hatler said:


> The comments at the bottom of the article should prove interesting as they appear. How long before anyone mentions RLJing do you reckon ?


 Thanks for alerting me. When this gets reported in the Daily Mail, the comments should good for a laugh.


----------



## Brandane (6 Nov 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It doesn't take effect while she's in prison so it could be 7 years before she's allowed to apply for a licence again.
> 
> GC


The problem being that people like her don't let a small detail like being disqualified from driving get in the way of them actually driving. After all, what are the chances of getting caught doing ANYTHING illegal on the roads these days? The exception to the rule being speeding as that can easily be monitored by cost effective cameras; which is why the Government are so intent on making speeding so "socially unacceptable" that they can then justify fining drivers for going a few mph over the limit, regardless of the circumstances. Meantime let's ignore all the other far more dangerous and illegal stuff going on on the roads... (sorry, I'm off on one again )..


----------



## Arfcollins (6 Nov 2015)

Brandane said:


> The problem being that people like her don't let a small detail like being disqualified from driving get in the way of them actually driving. After all, what are the chances of getting caught doing ANYTHING illegal on the roads these days? The exception to the rule being speeding as that can easily be monitored by cost effective cameras; which is why the Government are so intent on making speeding so "socially unacceptable" that they can then justify fining drivers for going a few mph over the limit, regardless of the circumstances. Meantime let's ignore all the other far more dangerous and illegal stuff going on on the roads... (sorry, I'm off on one again )..


Regardless of what circumstances?


----------



## Brandane (6 Nov 2015)

Arfcollins said:


> Regardless of what circumstances?


At the risk of going OT .... I am NOT condoning speeding; I do believe the limits should be enforced (if only they would enforce the other existing traffic laws too). What I meant by "regardless of the circumstances" is that there is not much danger attached to doing 80 mph on the M6 through the lake district at 3am - however doing 35 mph outside the local primary school at 8.45 am is more deserving of enforcement.


----------



## Dan B (6 Nov 2015)

If only there were some way in which the cameras that catch speeders could also be used to check the driver is taxed and insured


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Nov 2015)

Brandane said:


> The problem being that people like her don't let a small detail like being disqualified from driving get in the way of them actually driving.



Oh, I know, that's why I chose my words carefully!

GC


----------



## Brandane (6 Nov 2015)

Dan B said:


> If only there were some way in which the cameras that catch speeders could also be used to check the driver is taxed and insured


I believe you may be hinting that such cameras already exist. Unfortunately they cannot identify the driver without investigation of the photograph v the person later claiming to be the driver. Open to abuse and lies being told, which only rarely are uncovered.


----------



## Cubist (6 Nov 2015)

Dan B said:


> If only there were some way in which the cameras that catch speeders could also be used to check the driver is taxed and insured


without giving too much away, there is a network of cameras both static, and mounted on police vehicles which will do just that.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Thanks for alerting me. When this gets reported in the Daily Mail, the comments should good for a laugh.






> Conrad Vole, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 43 minutes ago
> 
> _The fire brigade are a total waste of space. They loaf about playing snooker and watching countdown while the GBP grovel about sucking it up. Mugs. Enjoy._


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (6 Nov 2015)

Some interesting comments on The Mail comments section - surprisingly the highest rated seem to be in support of the sentence - don't worry, there are the usual anti cyclist comments along with a lot of peculation that tax credits are too high - 6 kids and has an Audi!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...salon-road-rage-crash-jailed-three-years.html


----------



## LocalLad (6 Nov 2015)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Some interesting comments on The Mail comments section - surprisingly the highest rated seem to be in support of the sentence - don't worry, there are the usual anti cyclist comments along with a lot of peculation that tax credits are too high - 6 kids and has an Audi!
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...salon-road-rage-crash-jailed-three-years.html


Love some of those comments..love the daily mail.


----------



## TheDoctor (6 Nov 2015)

Brandane said:


> I believe you may be hinting that such cameras already exist. Unfortunately they cannot identify the driver without investigation of the photograph v the person later claiming to be the driver. Open to abuse and lies being told, which only rarely are uncovered.


For a start, it's the vehicle that's taxed. It's the vehicle that's insured too, insofar as one takes out a policy to cover a certain vehicle for one or more named drivers.
ANPR cameras are a thing.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Nov 2015)

Yes, I sense a disturbance among the readers. It's a woman in an expensive car who has lots of children versus a cyclist so for Mail readers it's like choosing between a gay asylum seeker and someone who's on benefits _and_ had a boob job.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Nov 2015)

> Yesterday another woman driver was convicted of being 3 times the drink drive limit on the school run. And yet the feminists would rant about females being the best drivers.



Stupid feminists.


----------



## The Bear (6 Nov 2015)

Just catching up with the story this evening. Three years custodial sounds about right. 

Plenty of these overpowered white chariots in my neck of the woods. Prime status symbols invariably driven by half crazed harridans with tanning salon complexions, plastic tits and an Eastenders mouth. Usually married to one of the local halfwit "see yer laters" to boot. 

Not that I'm a misogynist you understand... or a snob. Ahem!


----------



## Brandane (7 Nov 2015)

TheDoctor said:


> For a start, it's the vehicle that's taxed. It's the vehicle that's insured too, insofar as one takes out a policy to cover a certain vehicle for one or more named drivers.
> ANPR cameras are a thing.


You might not be surprised to hear that there are some dishonest people about. People who will "clone" other cars by putting false number plates on their vehicles so that their cars appear legal, to a camera.
They will also pay (or otherwise convince) others to claim they were driving the vehicle when an offence was committed on camera, in order to avoid prosecution or to conceal more serious offences (uninsured, disqualified, etc..). These matters will not normally be investigated unless the Police have reason to do so; so they go undetected. For that reason there are no statistics as to how often it is happening.
Cameras are only a deterrent to honest people! (As is the whole legal system, now that I think about it).


----------



## slowmotion (7 Nov 2015)

I just summoned up the strength to have a peek at the Daily Mail readers' comments.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...salon-road-rage-crash-jailed-three-years.html

They mainly seemed to concentrate on her fertility and didn't seem too critical of the cyclist, by and large. The general level of anger was a bit of a surprise.


----------



## thornstar (7 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I just summoned up the strength to have a peek at the Daily Mail readers' comments.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...salon-road-rage-crash-jailed-three-years.html
> 
> They mainly seemed to concentrate on her fertility and didn't seem too critical of the cyclist, by and large. The general level of anger was a bit of a surprise.



The level of anger is typical of a Daily Mail article. I'd be tempted to claim they are relatively tame compared to usual! I did like the comment about deporting her and her children to Saudi Arabia — I mean, she is not a Saudi citizen for a start so how is that going to work?


----------



## Brains (7 Nov 2015)

thornstar said:


> The level of anger is typical of a Daily Mail article. I'd be tempted to claim they are relatively tame compared to usual! I did like the comment about deporting her and her children to Saudi Arabia — I mean, she is not a Saudi citizen for a start so how is that going to work?



Nor were the early occupant of Australia citizens of the country, but it resolved the UK jail overcrowding issue.
I wonder if we could swap oil for miscreants with the Saudi's ?


----------



## Profpointy (7 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I just summoned up the strength to have a peek at the Daily Mail readers' comments.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...salon-road-rage-crash-jailed-three-years.html
> 
> They mainly seemed to concentrate on her fertility and didn't seem too critical of the cyclist, by and large. The general level of anger was a bit of a surprise.




I know it's hard to resist, and I had to try hard, but remember, each time you click on the daily mail, or other click-bate hate article, you are literally giving them money


----------



## slowmotion (7 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I know it's hard to resist, and I had to try hard, but remember, each time you click on the daily mail, or other click-bate hate article, you are literally giving them money


 We all deserve a little treat every once in a while.


----------



## slowmotion (7 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Yes, I sense a disturbance among the readers. It's a woman in an expensive car who has lots of children versus a cyclist so for Mail readers it's like choosing between a gay asylum seeker and someone who's on benefits _and_ had a boob job.


 "A disturbance amongst the readers...."? A disturbance would be quite a good collective noun for that lot.


----------



## RichK (7 Nov 2015)

oldstrath said:


> The second part is desperately sad. I don't get the first part at all - how is his conscience troubled by this - it's her fault, alone?



He has ASD. It wouldn't be unusual for him to think like that.


----------



## slowmotion (7 Nov 2015)

" She is HOT!"
The Daily Mail is growing on me.


----------



## The Bear (7 Nov 2015)

Quite encouraged by the Daily Mail comments tbh. Bearing in mind we're talking about the most stupid people in the UK here, it's reassurring that even these thickos generally had sympathy for the cyclist and contempt for the driver.


----------



## slowmotion (7 Nov 2015)

I can't quite get my head round their obsession with benefits and her Audi. It seems to be a bit of a red rag.


----------



## slowmotion (7 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 3993194, member: 9609"]These ugly monstrous vehicles are sadly highly desired, the thought that you can own and drive one while being on benefits is presumably too much to take (btw I have no idea if she is on benefits or not)[/QUOTE]
I imagine that the entire readership of the DM must be on statins.


----------



## Cubist (7 Nov 2015)

TheDoctor said:


> For a start, it's the vehicle that's taxed. It's the vehicle that's insured too, insofar as one takes out a policy to cover a certain vehicle for one or more named drivers.
> ANPR cameras are a thing.


ANPR cameras are often mounted on police vehicles, and the status of the car in terms of tax, MOT, insurance AND the licence status of the registered keeper, or persons linked to the vehicle by intelligence will set of an alert to a control room for static cameras, and to the driver of a mobile ANPR equipped vehicle. It can and often is dealt with in real time, so nowhere to hide under those circumstances. Big Brother and all that.......


----------



## Profpointy (7 Nov 2015)

re: daily mail: I recall a rather splendid Victor Meldrew line where someone had mentioned "conservative with a small 'c' " Medrew's reposte "that'sa bit like saying Dr Goebells was a nazi with a small 'n' "


----------



## glenn forger (7 Nov 2015)

Audi should use this lady in their next advert.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Nov 2015)

Stupid cow.

If she'd stopped the car, got out and kicked the cyclist in the nuts she wouldn't have gone to prison.


----------



## Markymark (7 Nov 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Stupid cow.
> 
> If she'd stopped the car, got out and kicked the cyclist in the nuts she wouldn't have gone to prison.


Is that the moral we should all take from this story?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (7 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Stupid feminists.




If you keep putting up quotes from the DM comments section, I might have to start taking statins.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (8 Nov 2015)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If you keep putting up quotes from the DM comments section, I might have to start taking statins.



Good idea. The DM says statins cure cancer.



MissTillyFlop said:


> If you keep putting up quotes from the DM comments section, I might have to start taking statins.



Bad idea. The DM says statins cause cancer.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (8 Nov 2015)

ABikeCam said:


> Good idea. The DM says statins cure cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> Bad idea. The DM says statins cause cancer.



I'm pretty sure the Daily Mail causes cancer. 

Cancer of the soul.


----------



## DrLex (8 Nov 2015)

I like SingleTrackWorld's attitude to Daily Mail links - an interstitial warning page with a "no follow" to prevent the site being associated.

Example warning page:
http://singletrackworld.com/no-dail...ell-lost-post-items-Ebay--pocket-profits.html


----------



## Dan B (10 Nov 2015)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kitten-block/

I think there's a version for Chrome as well


----------

