# “Get off the f***king road. You should be on the cyclepath.”



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/n...oke_Dock_driver_knocked_cyclist_off_her_bike/



> Mr Jones said Miss Davidson-Hall, aged 30, signalled for Butland to overtake her, but instead he drew alongside and screamed, “Get off the f***king road. You should be on the cyclepath.”
> 
> He then swerved into her “as some kind of warning” but failed to make contact with her.
> 
> ...



Makes you wonder if that was really the first time he'd done it. Truly horrible, using two tons of metal to hit people you disagree with.


----------



## Dec66 (20 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/n...oke_Dock_driver_knocked_cyclist_off_her_bike/
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder if that was really the first time he'd done it. Truly horrible, using two tons of metal to hit people you disagree with.


140 hours of community service, £1360 in costs (not counting his own defence costs), and no threat of prison.

He must be pinching himself, thinking "what a result".

I bet he'll do it again, if and when he gets his licence back


----------



## Saluki (20 Nov 2015)

What a big brave, strong man, using a 4x4 to attack a woman on a push bike. I hope she sues his backside from here to Kingdom come.


----------



## Ganymede (20 Nov 2015)

"Mr Recorder Furness warned him that she would be awarded a higher sum if she took civil action against him."

I _really_ hope she does. What a git.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Nov 2015)

One swerve he could maybe excuse as poor driving but three swerves indicates an intention to do real harm and goes beyond a mere driving offence. It should have been dealt with as an assault at the very least. What he did was no different to that woman in her Audi Q7 who rammed a cyclist.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

It's like a horrible rage that makes no sense, almost like he's been infected. Any delay she caused was over by the time he was alongside. And he's 74 and retired, was he really so furious at a delay he'd risk killing a woman? It would have been helpful maybe to ask him where this murderous rage sprang from.


----------



## mjr (20 Nov 2015)

At least he has to pass an extended test. That's more than many. Not really enough IMO. Shouldn't it be a violent offence when the victim is walking or cycling, not just dangerous driving?


----------



## Profpointy (20 Nov 2015)

why t-f is it even remotely considered a motoring offence !

If you stab someone with a kitchen knife it's not normally prosecuted under food hygiene regulations


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

Cabbies angry at the CSH plans have boasted on Twitter that any cyclist who doesn't use the new lanes is "fair game". I think it's time we asked why a pensioner, who, I'm prepared to believe has thus far led a blameless life of bourgeois respectability, tried to hit a woman with 2 tons of metal. Three times.


----------



## RichardB (20 Nov 2015)

This was a couple of miles from me. 'Assault with a deadly weapon' seems to cover it. Not a driving offence at all.


----------



## Profpointy (20 Nov 2015)

The hugely troubling thing about cases like this is the realisation that someone can quite deliberately knock you off your bike, you end up in hospital and they get away witha fine. I don't think I'm being alarmist by wondering if a fair few of the cyclists killed each year may have acrually been murdered. I've been driven at, more that once, and I recall one of our number on here being badly injured by a vehicular assault ( perp punished in that instance)


----------



## swee'pea99 (21 Nov 2015)

I'm baffled._ "Mr Recorder Furness said such offending attracted a prison sentence but he would bear in mind that he was aged 74 and had led a blameless life until now."_

What has his age to do with anything? And what difference does it make that he has a clean record? Seriously. Would 'Mr Recorder Furness' let a murderer off on account of 'it's the first time he's killed anyone'? I really don't get it. If the offence 'attracted' (I'm assuming he means 'merited') a prison sentence, he should have been sent to prison. Or am I missing something?


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

> On the third occasion his car hit her arm and she “sensibly” fell to her left and not to her right and into the carriageway.



Not sure if the poor rider had much say in the direction she fell, it's not usually towards the vehicle someone's just driven into you.


----------



## raleighnut (21 Nov 2015)

What a prize dick.


----------



## PeteXXX (21 Nov 2015)

Wouldn't attempted murder have been more of an appropriate charge?


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> why t-f is it even remotely considered a motoring offence !
> 
> If you stab someone with a kitchen knife it's not normally prosecuted under food hygiene regulations



Heathcote Williams Autogeddon is an interesting read



> The Visitor follows up the court reports:
> 
> Hit someone over the head with a chrome fender and kill them―
> 
> ...


----------



## Brandane (21 Nov 2015)

In reality, the guy will probably never get his licence back. That extended test is not easy to pass; I had one or two "naughty boys" going through it when I worked as a driving instructor a while back. It was unofficially accepted that no-one passed it first time (examiners know there is a reason why they are sitting an extended test!); so coupled with some driving lessons and at least two extended tests, there's another few hundred £££ onto his costs. At his age I doubt if he could ever pass the extended test anyway.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/n...oke_Dock_driver_knocked_cyclist_off_her_bike/
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder if that was really the first time he'd done it. Truly horrible, using two tons of metal to hit people you disagree with.


Miss Davison-Hill is clearly too thin skinned, and her behaviour on the road before this incident probably brought it on herself. She should have dismounted and tugged her forelock after the first bit of swervery.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

RichardB said:


> This was a couple of miles from me. 'Assault with a deadly weapon' seems to cover it. Not a driving offence at all.


I've had "Get off the f***king road. You should be on the cyclepath" shouted at me by drivers around Neyland, Milford, Haverford, Pembroke, Pembroke Dock, Broad Haven, et cetera.

In fact, I really don't feel a visit to Big Sis is complete unless and until a nobber in a car has shouted at me.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Nov 2015)

Very close to home this one, I've ridden this road and shared path on hundreds of occasions, from end to end it's about 1.5mile.
The shared path is good in that it's wide, the surface is good and it's not very busy with peds. However, it is frequently strewn with glass, I would guess that over 50% of the punctures I've had have come from this one stretch of path.
The road is nightmare. It's busy and it's fast, although usually only one way at a time, and the lanes are not very wide. At peak times it will be pretty much queued from one end to the other either going into or out of Haverfordwest. It is very unusual to see a cyclist use the road, there are usually a fair number on the path. If you use it, which I do occasionally, you will get abused and you will get close passed, I have never used this section of road without at least one motorist telling me to "Get on the flipping cyclepath" or close passing me, usually both.
The man's a tit and the sentence is too lenient. I hope the cyclist has a speedy recovery and sues the arse off him.


----------



## DaveReading (21 Nov 2015)

"Miss Davidson-Hall suffered a broken hand and bruising as she crashed to the ground and her £1,500 cycle was a write-off."

"Butland was also ordered to pay Miss Davidson-Hall £1,000 in compensation"

Great.


----------



## roadrash (21 Nov 2015)

probably at £2 a week out of his pension , fekin nobber


----------



## raleighnut (21 Nov 2015)

roadrash said:


> probably at £2 a week out of his pension , fekin nobber


6 weeks to pay up, any longer and I'd assume he would be held to be 'in contempt of court' so off to chokey, where he should have been sent anyway IMO.


----------



## Thomk (21 Nov 2015)

I wonder what penalty he would have got if he had swung a samurai sword at her 3 times (as a "warning") while she was tightrope walking to force her to do as he wanted, cutting her in the process and making her fall off.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

That's kind of what I'm getting at Thomk. Presumably there isn't a virus going round that turns harmless pensioners into Zombie Attack Ragers, so why were no questions asked about where this poisonous nonsense comes from?


----------



## Hip Priest (21 Nov 2015)

It seems it'll take huge change in mindset before those using cars as a weapon are treated the same as those who use anything else as a weapon.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Nov 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> It seems it'll take huge change in mindset before those using cars as a weapon are treated the same as those who use anything else as a weapon.



Quite, it's a huge difference between incompetently driving, even outright dangerous driving - and actually deliberately knocking someone off their bike


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That's kind of what I'm getting at Thomk. Presumably there isn't a virus going round that turns harmless pensioners into Zombie Attack Ragers, so why were no questions asked about where this poisonous nonsense comes from?



It would only elicit the widely accepted excuse of it being "a moment of madness".

GC


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2015)

raleighnut said:


> 6 weeks to pay up, any longer and I'd assume he would be held to be 'in contempt of court' so off to chokey, where he should have been sent anyway IMO.



The financial penalty would have been decided first, then the defendant is asked how long he requires to pay it.

Six weeks suggests he has all but immediate access to the £2K.

This in turn suggests he has a few quid, a suggestion supported by the recorder's observation that a civil claim for damages might also yield a decent sum.

You can't get blood out of a stone, but the overall impression from the case is this stone has some blood in it.


----------



## Poacher (21 Nov 2015)

£2360 in costs and compensation? Yet another example of a totally unfair tax on the law-abiding, hard-pressed motorist.

PS I initially spelt "and" as "abd", the acronym of the association of brutish drivers; I wonder what their take on this case is?

PPS just noticed another misspelling! I haven't touched a drop since about 20:00 yesterday, honest.


----------



## Thomk (21 Nov 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It would only elicit the widely accepted excuse of it being "a moment of madness".
> 
> GC


Or perhaps 3 moments of madness.


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Nov 2015)

PeteXXX said:


> Wouldn't attempted murder have been more of an appropriate charge?



No it wouldnt.

For murder or attempted murder you need to prove that he " Intended" to kill them. The fact that they were likely to be killed is not enough to convict, you hve to have the Intent part. Proving intent is notoriously difficult.

It is why these types of cases are not tried under murder or attempted murder.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Nov 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> No it wouldnt.
> 
> For murder or attempted murder you need to prove that he " Intended" to kill them. The fact that they were likely to be killed is not enough to convict, you hve to have the Intent part. Proving intent is notoriously difficult.
> 
> It is why these types of cases are not tried under murder or attempted murder.



from an earlier exchange on this forum, i understand "intention to seriously injure" is sufficient for murder (victim must be dead obviously) but a higher burden of " intent to kill" for attempted murder


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> from an earlier exchange on this forum, i understand "intention to seriously injure" is sufficient for murder (victim must be dead obviously) but a higher burden of " intent to kill" for attempted murder



That's correct, but Steve's point still stands.

In this case the victim survived, so the standard for attempt murder applies which is intention to kill.

Even had she not survived, murder is a non-starter because there must be an intention to cause really serious, not just serious, harm.

An intention to injure, even if those injuries are intended to be fairly serious, is not enough - as the law currently stands.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That's kind of what I'm getting at Thomk. Presumably there isn't a virus going round that turns harmless pensioners into Zombie Attack Ragers, so why were no questions asked about where this poisonous nonsense comes from?


Many of the diseases of old age include symptoms like major sudden mood swings, loss of social inhibitions, sudden violent rage, &c, &c.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Nov 2015)

yada yada, "you should be on the cycle path", "yeah, because I love clearing broken glass and dog sh1t out of my tyres".


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> from an earlier exchange on this forum, i understand "intention to seriously injure" is sufficient for murder (victim must be dead obviously) but a higher burden of " intent to kill" for attempted murder




There is still the Intent element and intent is very difficult to prove unless they confess to it.

Possibly why death by dangerous driving was added to the statue books. In that case you dont need to prove intent. The fact that someone was killed is enough. Providing the manner of driving is dermed to be dangerous. Much easier than proving what someone intended to do.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Nov 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> There is still the Intent element and intent is very difficult to prove unless they confess to it.
> 
> Possibly why death by dangerous driving was added to the statue books. In that case you dont need to prove intent. The fact that someone was killed is enough. Providing the manner of driving is dermed to be dangerous. Much easier than proving what someone intended to do.



intent to harm should be pretty clear after taking 3 attempts to hit someone


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> intent to harm should be pretty clear after taking 3 attempts to hit someone




I intended to frighten them. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Nov 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I intended to frighten them. Prove me wrong.



that defence would be a sticky wicket if you'd stabbed someone


----------



## Smurfy (21 Nov 2015)

He is clearly totally unsuited to the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle. A ten year ban and no fine would have been much better for everyone.


----------



## huwsparky (21 Nov 2015)

Smurfy said:


> He is clearly totally unsuited to the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle. A ten year ban and no fine would have been much better for everyone.


Have to agree. A longer ban would have much more of an effect than the fine issued here. Total joke that he's told to pay the victim 1k when the bike was worth 1.5k, where the sense in that?


----------



## raleighnut (21 Nov 2015)

huwsparky said:


> Have to agree. A longer ban would have much more of an effect than the fine issued here. Total joke that he's told to pay the victim 1k when the bike was worth 1.5k, where the sense in that?


Still open for the victim to make a civil claim for damages/injuries.


----------



## huwsparky (21 Nov 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Still open for the victim to make a civil claim for damages/injuries.


I sincerely hope this happens.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2015)

huwsparky said:


> Have to agree. A longer ban would have much more of an effect than the fine issued here. Total joke that he's told to pay the victim 1k when the bike was worth 1.5k, where the sense in that?



The £1,000 is the criminal court's gesture of compensation for the injury, and is also part of the punishment because the driver has to pay it directly from his own funds.

A civil claim against the driver - almost certainly through his motor insurers - would include the bike and the personal injury.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

Car insurance policies do not offer any cover for road rage incidents.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

Wow, 6% do:

http://www.beforeyouinsure.co.uk/road-rage-insurance-in-the-uk-consumer-report


----------



## Bollo (21 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Wow, 6% do:
> 
> http://www.beforeyouinsure.co.uk/road-rage-insurance-in-the-uk-consumer-report


Well, you know road ragers are victims too.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

From what I can see her bike's covered but not her medical bills. Any damage to his car isn't covered. 



> We don’t accept liability for claims arising from road rage, as the driver has engaged in deliberate reckless driving and so they must accept that any resulting loss or injury, has resulted from their own negligence and they cant expect us to indemnify them as it was not accidental or unforeseeable.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

The latter.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Nov 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The £1,000 is the criminal court's gesture of compensation for the injury, and is also part of the punishment because the driver has to pay it directly from his own funds.
> 
> A civil claim against the driver - almost certainly through his motor insurers - would include the bike and the personal injury.



I'm not sure that it would go through insurers because of the conviction in the courts for the same incident. One for @srw


----------



## raleighnut (21 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> From what I can see her bike's covered but not her medical bills. Any damage to his car isn't covered.


But surely any damage to a third party will be covered, both for the vehicle and any personal injury.
Might make it very expensive for him to get insurance in the future (if indeed any company will insure him) , effectively keeping him off the roads.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2015)

400bhp said:


> I'm not sure that it would go through insurers because of the conviction in the courts for the same incident. One for @srw



It looks likely the third party property damage will be covered.

The personal injury, a broken hand, may not come to a lot more, assuming there is no permanent disability.

As I posted earlier, it looks like the guy has a few quid, so a direct claim might be worthwhile, even if his insurer refuses to cover some of it.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2015)

Lives in a £90k terraced house.


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> that defence would be a sticky wicket if you'd stabbed someone



But there are other defences that can be brought up. But yes, it does get complicated.


----------



## Shortmember (22 Nov 2015)

Cycling on busy roads these days is not for the fainthearted.I'm one of the fainthearts, so I always use cyclepaths if available and take my chances with the broken glass and other puncture inducing debris. After all, it's far easier to repair a flat tyre than a flat body.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Nov 2015)

Shortmember said:


> Cycling on busy roads these days is not for the fainthearted.I'm one of the fainthearts, so I always use cyclepaths if available and take my chances with the broken glass and other puncture inducing debris. After all, it's far easier to repair a flat tyre than a flat body.


I'm not knocking your decision but the reason you feel the way you do is, I suspect, because of idiots like the one in the OP, and the reason that that idiots like the one in the OP exist is because they so frequently get away with acting in such a despicable manner, people like yourself feel forced from the roads and then the cyclists that still use the road get even more abuse because they're a rarer sight and the abusers generally get away with it. It's a rather nasty downwards spiral and the way to reverse it is to get more cyclists back on the road, but........and on it goes.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Nov 2015)

User said:


> I can understand that not being an ideal first step. More idiots off roads and presumed civil liability first, then more cyclists


Yes, that would be nice.


----------



## DRM (23 Nov 2015)

Shortmember said:


> Cycling on busy roads these days is not for the fainthearted.I'm one of the fainthearts, so I always use cyclepaths if available and take my chances with the broken glass and other puncture inducing debris. After all, it's far easier to repair a flat tyre than a flat body.



Having taken my bike on holiday to France, I think the one thing that sticks out there is the respect that overtaking drivers give you, down to the fact that if they hit you they are immediately at fault, no if's or but's, they are in the wrong, it's about time the UK had the same law, it's the only thing that will stop these incidents as far as I can see.


----------



## markharry66 (24 Nov 2015)

Ignoring the horrendous idiot for a minute look at the story why even mention the cycle path in the opening part of the story.
You have to ask why and what do you hope to achieve. To right we have a right to be in the road.


----------



## RichardB (24 Nov 2015)

markharry66 said:


> Ignoring the horrendous idiot for a minute look at the story why even mention the cycle path in the opening part of the story.
> You have to ask why and what do you hope to achieve. To right we have a right to be in the road.


To be fair, the cycle path is quite wide, well-protected by barriers, and very obvious, and has been there a long time. It links the town centre with the college, so it gets a fair bit of use, and people are used to seeing cyclists on it. So from the car driver's point of view, a cyclist on the road is perhaps less common than in other parts of the town, and to someone unaware of the Highway Code it might seem strange that a cyclist might want to risk it in the traffic rather than use the cycle path like most others. I'm not saying what he did was right (far from it, he should have been locked up and had his licence inserted rectally as far as I am concerned), but the existence of the cycle path is a significant part of the story IMO, to explain why the driver acted as he did. I have cycled that way many times, by the way, and I have never used the cycle path, so it could have been me. I hope she takes him to court and gets significant compensation.


----------



## markharry66 (25 Nov 2015)

Why even mention it. Has nothing to do with story sounds almost like its being justified in someway.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Nov 2015)

markharry66 said:


> Why even mention it. Has nothing to do with story sounds almost like its being justified in someway.



Context, which is what RichardB has commented on.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (26 Nov 2015)

Saluki said:


> What a big brave, strong man, using a 4x4 to attack a woman on a push bike. I hope she sues his backside from here to Kingdom come.


I agree. Utter nobber who shouldn't even be behind the wheel. I wouldn't grant him a licence for a skateboard. You'd think at that age, one would know better.


----------

