# Company director jailed for pushing e-cyclist off his bike.



## Cycleops (20 Apr 2021)

He thought the cyclist was going too fast when he went past him and his wife, in fact he was travelling at 12mph:

Mod Note:
Iffy link removed. Is there one from a reputable source, @Cycleops, your link was not secure.


----------



## cougie uk (20 Apr 2021)

Your link opens lots of windows on my phone. Is it reported elsewhere ?


----------



## PK99 (20 Apr 2021)

Cycleops said:


> He thought the cyclist was going too fast when he went past him and his wife, in fact he was travelling at 12mph:
> 
> Link removed. Mods



Link get a whole forest of red flags from mcaffee


----------



## randynewmanscat (20 Apr 2021)

Just to punish you for complaining about his link take this medicine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...wife-fined-shoving-cyclist-electric-bike.html
Scroll to the comments if you are short on bile.


----------



## Cycleops (20 Apr 2021)

There were a few uncomplimentary comments but the majority thought the sentence was too lax. One said they should correct their headline which suggests he was going too fast when in fact he was not.

Sorry guys I think it was maybe a Chinese site 

The woman nearly got jailed too for perverting the course of justice but coughed to the lesser charge of assisting an offender so just a fine.


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2021)

Local press report at https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news...ushing-cyclist-which-led-to-five-broken-ribs/


----------



## randynewmanscat (20 Apr 2021)

Defence said "If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury." 
Always travel slowly when you expect to be punched or hurled off your mount.


----------



## Drago (20 Apr 2021)

The defence lawyer is a right charmer, suggesting that if the victim of his client's assault had been going slower he wouldn't have been hurt so badly. They're down in the gutter with estate agents and insurers.


----------



## randynewmanscat (20 Apr 2021)

Cycleops said:


> The woman nearly got jailed too for perverting the course of justice


Jails are plenty full but the weak sanction caused my eyebrows to raise. 
Had things been slightly different her porkies might have excused the anger issues man.


----------



## winjim (20 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> The defence lawyer is a right charmer, suggesting that if the victim of his client's assault had been going slower he wouldn't have been hurt so badly. They're down in the gutter with estate agents and insurers.


He may or may not be correct, but at the point where his client lifts the man off the ground and throws him back down, having already knocked him from the bike, it becomes completely irrelevant.


----------



## randynewmanscat (20 Apr 2021)

winjim said:


> He may or may not be correct, but at the point where his client lifts the man off the ground and throws him back down, having already knocked him from the bike, it becomes completely irrelevant.


You know and I know that his brief inferred that the victim was travelling too fast (for angry man's liking at least)


----------



## winjim (20 Apr 2021)

randynewmanscat said:


> You know and I know that his brief inferred that the victim was travelling too fast (for angry man's liking at least)


Interesting that they have the precise speeds in the report. I have to say that from a quick glance at streetview, 23mph seems far too fast to be passing dog walkers on what seems like a fairly narrow path.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Apr 2021)

randynewmanscat said:


> Defence said "If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury."
> Always travel slowly when you expect to be punched or hurled off your mount.


Or run into a car that pulled out in front of you
if you are stationary then you are much less likely to run into a car that pulls out in front of you
probably you fault for moving really

I presume that people will recognise sarcasm???


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Apr 2021)

winjim said:


> Interesting that they have the precise speeds in the report. I have to say that from a quick glance at streetview, 23mph seems far too fast to be passing dog walkers on what seems like a fairly narrow path.





winjim said:


> Interesting that they have the precise speeds in the report. I have to say that from a quick glance at streetview, 23mph seems far too fast to be passing dog walkers on what seems like a fairly narrow path.


I agree - especially as an ebike has a motor cut off at 15.5 mph
Are you sure you do not mean 23 kph
the article I was looking at didn't mention 23 anything

OK - found it - it says 23 mph - in which case he was going to fast for a shared path with people on it - or even possibly people on it.
but it also says he was doing 7.5 mph as he rode between them
which is pretty slow

dunno where the 23 comes from - but if he accelerated up to 23 mph on a nice long strait stretch with no walker - fine
but it would require proper effort as the motor would be inactive - and the bike is HEAVY


----------



## winjim (20 Apr 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I agree - especially as an ebike has a motor cut off at 15.5 mph
> Are you sure you do not mean 23 kph
> the article I was looking at didn't mention 23 anything


Article says mph but kph would seem more reasonable. 23mph is a fair lick on any bike.







From the Coventry Observer link posted upthread.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Apr 2021)

randynewmanscat said:


> Defence said "If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury."
> Always travel slowly when you expect to be punched or hurled off your mount.



Which is utter nonsense as that would have no impact on speed of impact to ground after the blow.


----------



## postman (20 Apr 2021)

Link a bit dodgy.


----------



## mistyoptic (20 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> The defence lawyer is a right charmer, suggesting that if the victim of his client's assault had been going slower he wouldn't have been hurt so badly. They're down in the gutter with estate agents and insurers.


According to the news report, he was only doing 7.5mph at that point anyway. Bl**dy lawyer idiot


----------



## Bonefish Blues (20 Apr 2021)

The speeds seem remarkably accurate?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> The speeds seem remarkably accurate?



Well they give precise figures but we have no way of knowing the accuracy


----------



## dave r (20 Apr 2021)

Cycleops said:


> He thought the cyclist was going too fast when he went past him and his wife, in fact he was travelling at 12mph:
> 
> Link removed. Mods



Your link took me to a porn site.  It needs removing.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (20 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Well they give precise figures but we have no way of knowing the accuracy


You correct my thoughts correctly


----------



## classic33 (20 Apr 2021)

dave r said:


> Your link took me to a porn site.  It needs removing.


Try
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/angry-dog-walker-jailed-after-20424016


----------



## winjim (20 Apr 2021)

classic33 said:


> Try
> https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/angry-dog-walker-jailed-after-20424016


Hmm. We've got ~20kph in that article vs 23mph in the Observer, and 12mph in the OP compared with 7.5mph in the Observer. At the very least we've got our units mixed up. I would guess it's 23kph/14mph on the first pass and 12kph/7.5mph on the second pass.

I'm gonna say 14mph is still pretty quick to be passing dog walkers on a narrowish path.


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2021)

Is it that narrow?


----------



## winjim (21 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> Is it that narrow?


To be honest it's difficult to tell without actually being there, but put three pedestrians, two dogs and a cyclist on it, and it becomes a lot narrower. And of course an appropriate passing speed would depend both on the width of the path, and on the behaviour and interactions of all involved.


----------



## Drago (21 Apr 2021)

winjim said:


> Interesting that they have the precise speeds in the report. I have to say that from a quick glance at streetview, 23mph seems far too fast to be passing dog walkers on what seems like a fairly narrow path.


Although he could have been doing 100mph and that is still not a defence for an assault, or a mitigation for having done so.


----------



## mjr (21 Apr 2021)

winjim said:


> To be honest it's difficult to tell without actually being there, but put three pedestrians, two dogs and a cyclist on it, and it becomes a lot narrower. And of course an appropriate passing speed would depend both on the width of the path, and on the behaviour and interactions of all involved.


I rode part of it years ago. I don't remember it being narrow except for over the bridge at the Kenilworth end.

I suspect Mr Angry may have reacted to the approaching bike by spreading himself and dogs out for the first pass, then gone even wider for the second. Also, it's uphill towards Burton Green so 23 kph is much more likely than mph.


----------



## DCBassman (21 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Which is utter nonsense as that would have no impact on speed of impact to ground after the blow.


Agreed, from personal experience.


----------



## cougie uk (21 Apr 2021)

I guess cyclist was probably on Strava or something similar so his speed would have been recorded ?


----------



## cougie uk (21 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Which is utter nonsense as that would have no impact on speed of impact to ground after the blow.



Makes sense to me. Hit the ground from stationary is better than 40mph ?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Apr 2021)

PK99 said:


> Link get a whole forest of red flags from mcaffee


Mod Note:
Link deleted


----------



## PK99 (21 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> The speeds seem remarkably accurate?



Garmin? Strava?

When I hit a pothole and came off, the speed immediately before I broke my rib was accurately recorded.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

PK99 said:


> Garmin? Strava?
> 
> When I hit a pothole and came off, the speed immediately before I broke my rib was accurately recorded.


User was on e-bike on a shared use path - are they so endemic (I don't know because not user/interested)?


----------



## mjr (21 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> User was on e-bike on a shared use path - are they so endemic (I don't know because not user/interested)?


Endemic is rather pejorative. Is there something about cyclists being assisted up to 15mph that offends you?

Anyway, e bikes are pretty common now, if that's what you mean.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Apr 2021)

cougie uk said:


> Makes sense to me. Hit the ground from stationary is better than 40mph ?



Only if head on which it wasn’t. The force breaking ribs isn’t the forward motion, it the downward force into ground which will be gravity plus how much he was hit from side. Besides he was doing around 7.5mph. Forward motion would just be scrapes. It’s why motorcyclists racing at 190mph in full leathers often walk away after they’ve slide along a race course after coming off. The lawyer just showed how ignorant of physics they are.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> User was on e-bike on a shared use path - are they so endemic (I don't know because not user/interested)?



Whole point if e bikes and the rules around assistance and speeds is so they are treated as bikes and can go where bikes go. So e bikes on shared use paths is exactly one of the scenarios they are legislated and approved for.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Apr 2021)

If I've understood this correctly, the assault was done by a guy on foot. This explains the sentence I suppose - he have got off if he'd hit him in a car, ir at worse, it'd be a motoring offence


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Apr 2021)

cougie uk said:


> I guess cyclist was probably on Strava or something similar so his speed would have been recorded ?



GPS only records position not speed. There is at least a 3-5m error in the position accuracy. So you can get an approximation if you take two positions relatively far apart compared to error margin. But you can’t get an exact speed at a precise position from the GPS data.

The speed quoted by prosecution or wherever it came from was just an attempt to prove the offender had some justification. If queried I’m sure the accuracy of the speeds at time of passing could easily be called into doubt.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Apr 2021)

A few points
a) including 2 people and a dog on that path - I would approach while slowing down and ring my bell - I would not pass unless I was sure they had noticed me and moved a bit - no way I would just ride past - even at 7.5 mph
b) the fact that is an ebike is irrelevant - they are just bikes as far as the law is concerned. But it does mean the rider can accelerate easier - so even less excuse to not slow down (if he didn't)
c) 23 mph seems dubious - I would suggest (as said above) that the units are wrong and it is 23 kph. And, of course, the assist cutoff of a LEGAL ebike is 15.5 mph - i.e. 25 kph - so 23 kph would seem like a normal cruising speed for a decent path with no obstacles - such as people and dogs
d) Most ebikes have a speedometer on them - so teh rider would have a good idea what the speed was. However, most people leave them set to either mph or kph - so a mixture is not likely. But if the report of the passing speed is from the rider then there is only his report of it. If the data is on Strava (or something similar) then the speeds would show accurately.

e) and most importantly - the assault is not justified in any circumstances - even if the original pass was bad!

but if the speed data was from Strava would show the speed

Sounds to me that there was at least one idiot here - the guy who committed the assault - and possible 2 - or 3 if you include the wife who at least stayed behind but then denied knowing her husband! (although at the time she might have been tempted to disown him!!!)


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> Endemic is rather pejorative. Is there something about cyclists being assisted up to 15mph that offends you?
> 
> Anyway, e bikes are pretty common now, if that's what you mean.


You have misunderstood the point I was making - endemic was referencing Strava et al and their use, and my surprise that an e-cyclist might be using one in that context, nothing whatsoever to do with e-bikes. HTH


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Whole point if e bikes and the rules around assistance and speeds is so they are treated as bikes and can go where bikes go. So e bikes on shared use paths is exactly one of the scenarios they are legislated and approved for.


I know - see my post above which clarifies the point I was making.


----------



## cougie uk (21 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> You have misunderstood the point I was making - endemic was referencing Strava et al and their use, and my surprise that an e-cyclist might be using one in that context, nothing whatsoever to do with e-bikes. HTH


For all we know the cyclist was just on the path for that section and the rest was in road. There's bits of bike path on all my long rides that go on Strava etc.


----------



## cougie uk (21 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Only if head on which it wasn’t. The force breaking ribs isn’t the forward motion, it the downward force into ground which will be gravity plus how much he was hit from side. Besides he was doing around 7.5mph. Forward motion would just be scrapes. It’s why motorcyclists racing at 190mph in full leathers often walk away after they’ve slide along a race course after coming off. The lawyer just showed how ignorant of physics they are.


Sliding along the ground would be preferable. I doubt he was wearing leathers though and so his forward speed got dumped into the ground Pretty quickly ?


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

cougie uk said:


> For all we know the cyclist was just on the path for that section and the rest was in road. There's bits of bike path on all my long rides that go on Strava etc.


Yes, I'm sure you're right. In fact we know the square root of not a lot about the whole thing if we're being honest, but that wouldn't make for much of a discussion


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> A few points
> a) including 2 people and a dog on that path - I would approach while slowing down and ring my bell - I would not pass unless I was sure they had noticed me and moved a bit - no way I would *just ride past* - even at 7.5 mph


IIRC the e-cyclist is cited as riding 'between' the group on his second pass.


----------



## winjim (21 Apr 2021)

cougie uk said:


> For all we know the cyclist was just on the path for that section and the rest was in road. There's bits of bike path on all my long rides that go on Strava etc.





Bonefish Blues said:


> Yes, I'm sure you're right. In fact we know the square root of not a lot about the whole thing if we're being honest, but that wouldn't make for much of a discussion


I think the point about turning round to go back to where he parked his car might be a bit of a clue.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

winjim said:


> I think the point about turning round to go back to where he parked his car might be a bit of a clue.


Ah, so obvs doing Strava timed sections over and over, I guess. A real speed-demon-pro-hazard-on-wheels-e-cyclist-hazardfest.

Or something else completely


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Apr 2021)

cougie uk said:


> Sliding along the ground would be preferable. I doubt he was wearing leathers though and so his forward speed got dumped into the ground Pretty quickly ?



Nope does not work that way. His forward speed would be slowed by friction when he made contact with ground but won’t have affected his impact force with ground.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Nope does not work that way. His forward speed would be slowed by friction when he made contact with ground but won’t have affected his impact force with ground.


Genuine Q, not an argument, because ignorant. My brother fell off a 40 ft cliff a few years ago, and we've always thanked our lucky stars he landed on a 45 degree scree slope. Did that not make the difference, as we'd always believed? (Or am I being hard of thinking?)


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Genuine Q, not an argument, because ignorant. My brother fell off a 40 ft cliff a few years ago, and we've always thanked our lucky stars he landed on a 45 degree scree slope. Did that not make the difference, as we'd always believed? (Or am I being hard of thinking?)



The scree will have had give and the slope may have delayed his head impact after the initial fall onto his feet. But in answer not really. But the give in the scree will have lessened any impact force through the ankles and he may have been able to take some steps to remain upright. The speed he hit the scree downwards will be down to the height of the cliff. His forward motion, how likely he is to fall forwards after the initial impact.


----------



## Drago (21 Apr 2021)

Falling vertically onto a 45 degree slope is effectively the same as falling the same distance at half a gravity, or halving your weight, so that would be beneficial to survival. Obviously, landing on a horizontal surface gives you 100% of the impact goodness, and falling past a vettical slope zero impact.

The downside though is a 45 degree slope leaves opportunities for continuing to fall, which is itself more scope for injury.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Apr 2021)

I know the path well and would be incredibly surprised to see anyone going 23mph along it. A large part of it is not even paved and a gets pretty muddy. It is a great place for kids to learn to ride in a traffic free environment and at almost all sections is more than wide enough for cyclists and pedestrians not to come into conflict. As stated above, all pretty much irrelevant once the pedestrian commits assault.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Apr 2021)

Bonefish Blues said:


> IIRC the e-cyclist is cited as riding 'between' the group on his second pass.


Fair enough - so they moved apart presumably???
or not and he saw a gap and went for it

pretty different cases really

As far as falling from speed or from stationary - if you fall at a speed (not super fat - but some speed - then you tend to roll or slide.
Whereas if you fall from very slow, or no, speed then you just hit. This happened to me when I fell off and broke by arm - if I had been moving I may have lost some skin, ripped some clothes but maybe not broken anything.
Doesn't always work and can be the other way round - but does sometimes work that way


p.s.. anyone who knows the path checked if there is a Strava segment on there - some people take those things far too seriously!


----------



## randynewmanscat (21 Apr 2021)

cougie uk said:


> Sliding along the ground would be preferable. I doubt he was wearing leathers though and so his forward speed got dumped into the ground Pretty quickly ?


What you land on and how you land too. I was catapulted over the bars of my bike by arrogantly trying to steer out of a slipped on gravel front wheel when I should have just gone down and taken the rash.
Speed was probably 12 MPH but the front wheel ended up at 90 degrees and the back end overtook the front almost vertically.
My feet I could not employ because of toe straps and I was dumped head and shoulders on tarmac. Both collar bones broken (again) scaphoid bone left hand, three teeth broken and one missing, hole in upper lip, fractured jaw and spitting tiny fragments of bone out for a day or two.
12 MPH.


----------



## mjr (21 Apr 2021)

randynewmanscat said:


> Speed was probably 12 MPH [...]
> 12 MPH.


Based on what measurement?


----------



## randynewmanscat (21 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> Based on what measurement?


Speed my legs were going on my favourite 90" gear related to long hours staring at a Cateye Vectra when the wind was blowing and my head was down Can do the same looking at how fast the grease port is turning on the front hub. I think I am probably on some spectrum, I am addicted to counting things.
Certainly wouldn't stand up in court.


----------



## fossyant (21 Apr 2021)

randynewmanscat said:


> What you land on and how you land too. I was catapulted over the bars of my bike by arrogantly trying to steer out of a slipped on gravel front wheel when I should have just gone down and taken the rash.
> Speed was probably 12 MPH but the front wheel ended up at 90 degrees and the back end overtook the front almost vertically.
> My feet I could not employ because of toe straps and I was dumped head and shoulders on tarmac. Both collar bones broken (again) scaphoid bone left hand, three teeth broken and one missing, hole in upper lip, fractured jaw and spitting tiny fragments of bone out for a day or two.
> 12 MPH.



13 MPH (proved by garmin) car turned across me. Bike catapulted, but fine. Me not. The sudden stop busted my spine badly and 4 ribs. Not much fun.


----------



## hatler (22 Apr 2021)

I wonder what the sentence would have been had the assailant been in a car and the injuries to the cyclist the same.

I can't help but think it wouldn't even have involved a custodial sentence.


----------



## T4tomo (22 Apr 2021)

hatler said:


> I wonder what the sentence would have been had the assailant been in a car and the injuries to the cyclist the same.
> 
> I can't help but think it wouldn't even have involved a custodial sentence.


I think the courts would have frowned very deeply at the use of a car on shared use path.


----------



## al78 (22 Apr 2021)

hatler said:


> I wonder what the sentence would have been had the assailant been in a car and the injuries to the cyclist the same.
> 
> I can't help but think it wouldn't even have involved a custodial sentence.



It would if it had been a deliberate attack. Malice is treated more seriously than carelessness.


----------



## Drago (22 Apr 2021)

T4tomo said:


> I think the courts would have frowned very deeply at the use of a car on shared use path.


Or perhaps not, looking at some of the miserly sentences and almost rputine second-chances that 4 wheeled criminals seem to earn.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2021)

T4tomo said:


> I think the courts would have frowned very deeply at the use of a car on shared use path.


Every road is a shared use path, technically.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Apr 2021)

al78 said:


> It would if it had been a deliberate attack. Malice is treated more seriously than carelessness.



I would hope so, but I seem to recall a number of reports of seemingly deliberate knocking into cyclists treated as "dangerous driving" (if even that).


----------



## steveindenmark (23 Apr 2021)

6 months is a reasonable verdict. The injury compensation claim will be massive.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Apr 2021)

hatler said:


> I wonder what the sentence would have been had the assailant been in a car and the injuries to the cyclist the same.
> 
> I can't help but think it wouldn't even have involved a custodial sentence.



Appropriate offences against the person charges are occasionally considered when the car is the weapon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-56846688


----------



## Drago (23 Apr 2021)

Part of the issue is satisfactorily proving 'intent'. Punch someone in the chops, your intent was pretty clear - you intended to give them the old 5 finger poke. Running someone over, without some other decent nugget of information to prove intent, is not so clear.

You can recklessly assault someone, ie, be doing something so daft it seems obvious to any normal person that it could end with someone getting hurt. For example, randomly throwing a brick in public - you may not be intending or even wanting to have it smack someone in the face, but its pretty obvious to anyone with a braincell that is a likely outcome. That would be an assault.

However, get reckless (or careless) behind the wheel and that falls firmly within the realms of a motoring matter, and moves away from assault. If intent can't be proven (be aware thet _knowing _something and being able to _prove _it beyond reasonable doubt to a Court are different things entirely) , the dibble have to rely on recklessness, and where a vehicle is involved there is a specific set of laws for that

Im not saying I agree with it - the law as it stands is long overdue an overhaul on this one. However, because of the above I do have sympathy with the prosecuting agencies, because unless that specific _intent_ to assault a person can be solidly and unchallengably proven then the flowchart moves them towards the motoring offences whether they like it or not.


----------



## al78 (23 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> Every road is a shared use path, technically.



But we are not taking about roads, we are talking about the pedestrian footpaths where cycling is permitted.


----------



## al78 (23 Apr 2021)

Profpointy said:


> I would hope so, but I seem to recall a number of reports of seemingly deliberate knocking into cyclists treated as "dangerous driving" (if even that).



That might be an issue of evidence or a poor judge/jury, although I understand dangerous driving is more seriously treated than careless driving. Maybe dangerous driving overlaps in some cases where the driver was deliberately trying to hit the victim, but I think it more likely to do with burden of proof e.g. if the driver claims in court they didn't intend to hit the victim and there are no witnesses. Does anyone know what the sentences for dangerous driving are typically?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 Apr 2021)

al78 said:


> But we are not taking about roads, we are talking about the pedestrian footpaths where cycling is permitted.



Nope we are talking about a shared use greenway. An old disused railway.


----------



## hatler (23 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> Part of the issue is satisfactorily proving 'intent'. Punch someone in the chops, your intent was pretty clear - you intended to give them the old 5 finger poke. Running someone over, without some other decent nugget of information to prove intent, is not so clear.


^ ^ This is what I was getting at. ^ ^


----------



## mjr (23 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Nope we are talking about a shared use greenway. An old disused railway.


Now a bridleway. Not a footpath where cycling is permitted and cyclists must bow and scrape.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Apr 2021)

al78 said:


> That might be an issue of evidence or a poor judge/jury, although I understand dangerous driving is more seriously treated than careless driving. Maybe dangerous driving overlaps in some cases where the driver was deliberately trying to hit the victim, but I think it more likely to do with burden of proof e.g. if the driver claims in court they didn't intend to hit the victim and there are no witnesses. Does anyone know what the sentences for dangerous driving are typically?



Generally, anything from a short stretch to double figures, depending on the circumstances.

I've seen a couple where the defendant has avoided immediate custody, but that's rare.

The good thing about death by dangerous is no intent needs to be proved.

The prosecution has only to prove two things, the driving was 'far below the standard of a careful of a competent driver' and the other person is dead.

Proving murder is a lot harder, although it's worth bearing in mind only intent to cause 'serious harm' needs to be proved not intent to kill.

But the problem of proving intent - what was in another person's mind - is still there.

Reckless act manslaughter would be easier with a driving case, but the sentences are not so very different, and a death by dangerous driving conviction means the defendant can be banned from driving for a long as the judge likes, and must take an extended driving test if he ever wishes to drive again.

Neither of those penalties would be easily available following a manslaughter conviction.


----------



## mjr (24 Apr 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Neither of those penalties would be easily available following a manslaughter conviction.


Unless sentencing guidelines or maybe legislation was changed, which it would need to be to remove the drivers' friend offences.


----------



## Chromatic (24 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> GPS only records position not speed. There is at least a 3-5m error in the position accuracy. So you can get an approximation if you take two positions relatively far apart compared to error margin. But you can’t get an exact speed at a precise position from the GPS data.
> 
> The speed quoted by prosecution or wherever it came from was just an attempt to prove the offender had some justification. If queried I’m sure the accuracy of the speeds at time of passing could easily be called into doubt.



You are Werner Heisenberg AICMFP


----------



## raleighnut (25 Apr 2021)

So a self entitled nobber decides to punch someone and ends up in chokey....................good.

Will he learn from it?......... I doubt it but hopefully the injury claim will hurt him more.


----------



## Drago (25 Apr 2021)

raleighnut said:


> I doubt it but hopefully the injury claim will hurt him more.


As a convicted violent crime offender he'll be bunged in the general population with the ODC's (ordinary decent criminals). However, hes not a career villain himself, just a bit of self entitled plonker who got carried away. As such, he will be _seriously _out of his depth and will be passed around like currency. Some things can hurt a lot more than an injury claim!


----------

