# Cyclist deliberately knocked off - driver banned for 6 months



## Arjimlad (27 May 2021)

I thought this was interesting. The cyclist's mercy to the driver is admirable given the deliberate assault. The driver was lucky the cyclist was not badly injured and also lucky that the charges of making off from the scene of the accident & failing to report it were dropped as well. 

It was a good job the rider had footage, though, I can't imagine that the driver would have been held accountable at all without it. 


View: https://youtu.be/cLF93a5w7ko


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 May 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> the charges of making off from the scene of the accident & failing to report it were dropped as well.




I can never understand this, these are slam dunk convictions yet seem to be easily avoided. Same thing happened in a far more serious collision near me, where police spent a long time tracing the driver only for a paltry fine and points for careless driving to be the result. 🤬


----------



## ianrauk (27 May 2021)

He deliberately drove into him. It could have ended up a far lot worse. Luckily it didn't. The driver deserved to lose his license. Not sure why the cyclist feels sorry for him. The driver bought it all on himself and perhaps in future, when he's driving again, he'll change his attitude towards cyclists on the road.


----------



## Arjimlad (27 May 2021)

Someone else has said that there is a tendency, which I also have experienced, to feel sorry for a driver facing the consequences of their actions. They can look so bewildered and helpless in court when confronted with video & the possible loss of their livelihood and mobility. 

It should be resisted.


----------



## PeteXXX (27 May 2021)

Is there an offence of attempted manslaughter? 
If not, it should be introduced and apply in cases like this.


----------



## DCLane (27 May 2021)

The van driver got held up so used their van to squeeze and knock the rider off as punishment.

Why it's only a 6 month ban confuses me.


----------



## icowden (27 May 2021)

The 6 month It seems to be down to the CPS decision as to which offences to prosecute. Quite why they only went for due care and attention rather than dangerous driving and didn't bother with failure to stop and failure to report is mystifying.

The maximum a magistrate can issue for Driving without Due care is a ban and a fine. The fine is based on relevant weekly income and goes from 50% to 700%.
So the magistrate went for the maximum sentence available which is a driving ban + fine.

These are the criteria. For me I would suggest that this is "overtaking dangerously". I suspect that due to the absence of front facing footage it would be hard to prove that the van hadn't been reacting to oncoming traffic and thus the knock off was accidental rather than deliberate. On the other hand there is clear evidence of the van dangerously overtaking twice in a period of about 30 seconds, while all the other cars manage it safely.


> *Careless behaviour*
> 
> tailgating
> failing to look properly
> ...


----------



## Drago (27 May 2021)

PeteXXX said:


> Is there an offence of attempted manslaughter?
> If not, it should be introduced and apply in cases like this.


No, like TWOC, its one of the few crimes for which the criminal attempts act does not apply.


----------



## Profpointy (27 May 2021)

Why TF is this a motoring offence rather than a serious assault meriting prison is beyond me. If you whacked someone with an axe it would be considered far more serious. An accident is a different thing however egregious the driving


----------



## HMS_Dave (27 May 2021)

He is £800 out of pocket and without a licence for 6 months. On balance that doesn't seem right when the cyclist could have easily ended up wrapped around a wheel and stuffed into the wheel arch... It was no accident, it was an attack with probably the most dangerous weapon in our society...


----------



## figbat (27 May 2021)

Drago said:


> No, like TWOC, its one of the few crimes for which the criminal attempts act does not apply.


Thinking logically, if a manslaughter were to be "attempted", this would imply intent, which would then imply murder rather than manslaughter, no? I suppose we're thinking more like "potential manslaughter", in which an unplanned event _could _have led to a death but didn't. I can see why this would be a tricky thing to prove. In this case there appears to be intent to cause harm or alarm, although I doubt the perp intended to kill.

Also, naughty Volvo overtaking on the zig-zags.


----------



## Drago (27 May 2021)

Its only an offence to overtake a motor vehicle on the ziggy zags, although that notnwothstanding the markings represent danger and the prudent driver would take heed and keep station until the crossing was behind them.

This kind of thing pithes me off. If I assaulted someone with my shotgun id be off to prison and would never see my licence again. Assault someone with a kinetic weapon and in 6 months hes free to carry on where he left off.

Its not easy to get a ban - it requires a concerted effort over a period of time, or a serious piece of offending. That being the case, a ban should be for life. You had the privilege, you went out of you way to abuse it, adios muchacho.


----------



## cougie uk (27 May 2021)

It's depressing that I'm impressed the driver got a ban. I agree that without the camera I'm sure he'd have got off scot free.


----------



## Cycleops (27 May 2021)

Just unbelievable. Why would anyone react in such a dangerous way to being held up for a few seconds? Obviously has issues when behind the wheel.


----------



## Solocle (3 Jun 2021)

Drago said:


> Its only an offence to overtake a motor vehicle on the ziggy zags, although that notnwothstanding the markings represent danger and the prudent driver would take heed and keep station until the crossing was behind them.


More precisely, it's only illegal for a *motor *vehicle to overtake a moving motor vehicle, or any stationary vehicle that has stopped to let pedestrians cross.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Jun 2021)

seriously low punishment IMHO, he shoud at least be facing an extended 're-test' after the ban ends.


----------



## icowden (3 Jun 2021)

raleighnut said:


> seriously low punishment IMHO, he shoud at least be facing an extended 're-test' after the ban ends.


The sentencing guidelines don't allow for that,


----------



## Milzy (3 Jun 2021)

The system is a joke, you get a £100 fine & 3 pts just for slightly going over 30 in a 30 at 4am on a long straight non dangerous road. If you recklessly harm another human though it’s just a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Andy_R (4 Jun 2021)

Solocle said:


> More precisely, it's only illegal for a *motor *vehicle to overtake a moving motor vehicle, or any stationary vehicle that has stopped to let pedestrians cross.


Where is that specified?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2021)

Andy_R said:


> Where is that specified?



The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997

_Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it-

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26_.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Jun 2021)

I've not seen any court report or report of the investigation, but the video does not provide any proof the knocking off was deliberate - only that it happened.

There is now an offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which largely gets around the problem of proving intent - what was in a person's mind.

Two problems with that in this case, the cyclist was not seriously injured, and the driving doesn't meet the legal definition of dangerous driving.

The only evidence from the video is of 'a momentary lapse of attention', which is careless driving.

I agree the driver's punishment looks light, but the only way to alter that in future cases would be to reform the law.

We are then in the sticky territory of presumed criminal liability - you hit a vulnerable road user with your car therefore you are automatically guilty of an imprisonable offence.

Which, as any defence lawyer will tell you, is all fine and dandy until you are on the wrong end of it.

A simpler but less effective solution would be to up the ante on careless driving.

Less effective because you would still be relying on magistrates to use the extra sentencing powers.

They are notoriously timid when it comes to sentencing, so I can't see any bench locking up the likes of this van driver even if they had the power to do so.


----------



## Drago (5 Jun 2021)

Personally, I think do away with tiered levels of road crime. Going from law abiding, through careless and into dangerous serves no one except lawyers.

The law on the subject should be simplfied. You're either conforming with the law and driving in a careful, competent manner...or you are not. Once you've tripped beyond that threshold the penalties should be severe and licence irretrievably removed.

No one gets the benefit of the doubt for a momentary lapse of shoplifting, or a momentary lapse when twatting someone. If I had a momentary lapse with my shotgun id probably be imprisoned and definitely never allowed a shotgun ticket again. The fact that this chaps weapon has 4 wheels and an engine instead of a trigger and cartridges makes the consequences of its misuse no less deadly (as terrorists have discovered, and are now using vehicles as weapons of mass killing) and society should be equally firm with those that abuse the _privilege_.

In any other field of law and endeavour a momentary lapse would be regarded as _negligence_, and so it should be with road crime. Despite mankinds best efforts to the contrary, the motor car has killed more people than the gun, yet its the latter that gets the attention.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Jun 2021)

Drago said:


> No one gets the benefit of the doubt for a momentary lapse of shoplifting, or a momentary lapse when twatting someone.



Nicely put and self evidently true.

It's a tough one because if you removed momentary lapse from the equation there would be lots of routinely safe drivers feeling a crushing sense of injustice for being criminalised for what they genuinely felt was a momentary lapse.

This driver probably was at it in some way or other, so no sympathy for him.

But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that every driver in similar circumstances would be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offence.


----------



## newfhouse (5 Jun 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that every driver in similar circumstances would be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offence.


Isn’t poor driving a lifestyle choice?


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Jun 2021)

newfhouse said:


> Isn’t poor driving a lifestyle choice?



It might be for some, although even the worst dangerous driving only lasts for a few miles and it's nearly always the case the driver will have done many thousands of miles safely.

The difficulty with catch-all legislation is just that, it catches everybody.

A few years ago my brother pulled out in front of another driver, causing a collision.

For that split second, he was a very poor driver, but did thousands of miles annually safely for years before and for years after.

He stopped, was fully insured, coughed the job immediately, and I was in my car following and offered the other a driver a lift somewhere if he needed it.

Oh, and my mother helped sweep up some of the wreckage with a broom provided by a nearby householder.

Brother wouldn't have argued with a careless conviction, but perhaps partly because of our response, the other driver didn't see the need to involve the cops.

I think most people would agree that was a sensible resolution to what is a relatively common situation.

Automatically criminalising drivers in similar circumstances seems excessive to me.


----------



## Punkawallah (6 Jun 2021)

Anybody else find being overtaken on roundabouts an issue? Two of us (in tandem - not ‘on’) negotiating a roundabout in the left hand lane overtaken by a car by using the right hand lane, then cutting off the lead rider to get on to the exit first. Joy.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Jun 2021)

Punkawallah said:


> Anybody else find being overtaken on roundabouts an issue? Two of us (in tandem - not ‘on’) negotiating a roundabout in the left hand lane overtaken by a car by using the right hand lane, then cutting off the lead rider to get on to the exit first. Joy.


So you were in the 'wrong' lane, unless you were turning left you should be in the righthand lane even on a bike.


----------



## figbat (6 Jun 2021)

raleighnut said:


> So you were in the 'wrong' lane, unless you were turning left you should be in the righthand lane even on a bike.


Eh? If you are using any exit up to and including 12 o’clock the primary lane is the left one, unless otherwise marked or signed.


----------



## kynikos (6 Jun 2021)

raleighnut said:


> So you were in the 'wrong' lane, unless you were turning left you should be in the righthand lane even on a bike.



...you may want to rethink that - what about straight on?


----------



## Punkawallah (6 Jun 2021)

We were, indeed, turning left.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Jun 2021)

kynikos said:


> ...you may want to rethink that - what about straight on?


i'd be at the inside of the right hand lane approaching the roundabout if going straight on to allow left turning cars to turn left. If turning right I'd be in the centre of the right hand lane and indicating right.


----------



## Oldhippy (6 Jun 2021)

I got clipped on the way to a motorcycle rally in Cornwall a couple of years ago. Loaded bike in the right lane on the roundabout. A knob in the inside lane suddenly realised he needed the turning I was approaching. He cut across the front of me I heard a loud clang as his rear wheel arch caught the front wheel nut on the bike. How I got away with not crashing I don't know. I did get the satisfaction of briefly seeing a large scrape in his paint work as he sped off seemingly oblivious of near causing a serious accident!


----------



## matticus (6 Jun 2021)

Punkawallah said:


> Anybody else find being overtaken on roundabouts an issue? Two of us (in tandem - not ‘on’) negotiating a roundabout in the left hand lane overtaken by a car by using the right hand lane, then cutting off the lead rider to get on to the exit first. Joy.


Hardly ever.
Far more common is driver charging onto roundabout without looking. A variant of the SMIDSY, which 2-wheelers will see in many places 🤦‍♀️


----------



## icowden (6 Jun 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that every driver in similar circumstances would be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offence.



I agree - this is why people like Priti Patel are so dangerous when they pander to the people "demanding" more serious sentences. 

Remember there was that demand for "Harper's Law"?



> We are calling for #HarpersLaw. The creation of this law - spearheaded by Lissie Harper, the widow of hero PC Andrew Harper - would mean anyone found guilty of killing a police officer, firefighter, nurse, doctor, prison officer or paramedic would be jailed for life.



So by this definition, the elderly widow of a police office who smothers their police officer husband who has dementia would go to prison for life. A man killing a doctor on his bike through careless driving would go to prison for life. A woman who panics whilst being rescued from a burning building causing a firefighter to lose their life through smoke inhalation would go to prison for life.

Absolutes have no business in law because there will always be exceptions.


----------



## Punkawallah (7 Jun 2021)

Well this escalated quickly :-) 

Always thought we had judges for considering extenuating circumstances et al. Yes, I know, sentencing guidelines limit discretion - but the buggers should earn their money somehow.

Anyone for reducing the law books to two items - ‘Littering’ and ‘Conduct Likely or Cause a Breach of the Peace’?


----------



## DCBassman (7 Jun 2021)

Punkawallah said:


> Yes, I know, sentencing guidelines limit discretion


This is the problem, really. They are not guidelines, but rules. Exercising skill and judgement no longer play much part.


----------



## Lozz360 (7 Jun 2021)

icowden said:


> Remember there was that demand for "Harper's Law"? (Harper’s Law would mean anyone convicted of murdering a police officer, fire fighter, doctor, paramedic, etc. would go to jail for life).
> 
> So by this definition, the elderly widow of a police office who smothers their police officer husband who has dementia would go to prison for life. A man killing a doctor on his bike through careless driving would go to prison for life. A woman who panics whilst being rescued from a burning building causing a firefighter to lose their life through smoke inhalation would go to prison for life.


Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jun 2021)

Lozz360 said:


> Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.



That's his point, currently the various killings can be dealt with individually, but a catch all law would likely remove the various options.

I'm also not keen on grading killings by occupation.

The life of the local greengrocer is worth just as much as the local beat copper.


----------



## Solocle (7 Jun 2021)

Lozz360 said:


> Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.


Given that the scrotes involved in the Andrew Harper case were not found guilty of murder either... this is _killing_, not murder.

Hard cases make bad law.


----------



## icowden (7 Jun 2021)

Lozz360 said:


> Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.



You have paraphrased me as saying something I didn't. Harper's Law specifically calls for a mandatory life sentence for anyone found guilty of *killing, *so implicit in that is manslaughter or by reason of diminished responsibility. 

This is the point made, and backed up by @Solocle and @Pale Rider. Discretion in sentencing is vital, and it is vital that we have a competent attorney general and home secretary. Sadly both are utterly incompetent and have been promoted far above their abilities. This was demonstrated in the very subtle castigation by Appeal Court Judges of Suella Braverman when she wrongly appealed the sentencing in the Harper case, and in just about everything that issues from Priti Patel's mouth. 

If you want to understand more about the law and why hard sentencing is bad law, I would recommend https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret?s=20 and their best selling books.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jun 2021)

icowden said:


> Suella Braverman



Slightly off-topic, but I saw in a press report the other day we have a new incumbent.

Michael Ellis QC, MP was given the job in March.

Braverman is now described as 'Minister on Leave', whether that means she may return I've no idea.

I don't agree she was in any way 'wrong' to appeal the Harper killers sentences, she merely asked the question (which is all any attorney general can do) and received an answer.

However, I did get the impression from gossiping with barristers that she was not generally highly regarded before Harper.

Need to be a bit careful with that piece of intelligence since every attorney general in the last 25 years to my knowledge has received some criticism from some barristers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/attorney-general


----------



## kynikos (7 Jun 2021)

icowden said:


> This was demonstrated in the very subtle castigation by Appeal Court Judges of Suella Braverman when she wrongly appealed the sentencing in the Harper case, and in *just abou**t* everything that issues from Priti Patel's mouth.



FTFY


----------



## RRCC (2 Jul 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Slightly off-topic, but I saw in a press report the other day we have a new incumbent.
> 
> Michael Ellis QC, MP was given the job in March.
> 
> ...


She's on maternity leave


----------

