Cycling UK Forum

'Intimidating' driver William Heslop jailed for targeting cyclist
Only 2 years in gaol and losing his licence for three years?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-49051772

Pretty severe. He will probably lose his job, possibly his home and family. He is losing his liberty which is pretty severe.

The daft thing is he would have probably got less if he'd killed the cyclist vs just injuring like he did.

YMMV ........

I'd be satisfied with that sentence if I were the cyclist.
Personally(unless he has a diabolical previous driving record )I'd be happier with a very high fine in the thousands,and the three year driving ban plus an extended driving test after the ban.

mercalia wrote:'Intimidating' driver William Heslop jailed for targeting cyclist
Only 2 years in gaol and losing his licence for three years?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-49051772

I read the article too and thought about starting a thread. I watched the video too, had there been no video it would have been a case of deliberately hit and successfully run, of course of the driver had stopped and organised care for his victim then the incident would have warranted a lesser charge. The way I look at it is if you use a car in this way then your intention is to kill, maim or at the very least very seriously injure your target; with such intent I think that the book should have been thrown at him and a longer sentence sought. His driving ban is relatively short, to my way of thinking a minimum ban of ten years plus an extended driving test would have been much more appropriate. The convicted should be made an example of and the message should be clear to all: ‘if you chose to use your car as a weapon then you will be treated accordingly’.

The bizarre thing is that the incident seemed to be at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum - poor and discourteous driving, but eminently predictable by the cyclist, I'm sure. It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect. There will be dozens of incidents, maybe hundreds, every day which never go bad like that.

Bonefishblues wrote:The bizarre thing is that the incident seemed to be at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum - poor and discourteous driving, but eminently predictable by the cyclist, I'm sure. It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect. There will be dozens of incidents, maybe hundreds, every day which never go bad like that.

The BBC article is short so perhaps you have additional detail?

What ever lite the driver’s fuse he is responsible for his own actions, hard words but true. If someone annoyed me and I then retaliate to the extent that I put them in hospital the law would come down very heavily on me. Just because someone drives a car and uses it instead of fists is no excuse for any leniency and certainly something to be most robustly discouraged.

Carlton green wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:The bizarre thing is that the incident seemed to be at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum - poor and discourteous driving, but eminently predictable by the cyclist, I'm sure. It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect. There will be dozens of incidents, maybe hundreds, every day which never go bad like that.

The BBC article is short so perhaps you have additional detail?

What ever lite the driver’s fuse he is responsible for his own actions, hard words but true. If someone annoyed me and I then retaliate to the extent that I put them in hospital the law would come down very heavily on me. Just because someone drives a car and uses it instead of fists is no excuse for any leniency and certainly something to be most robustly discouraged.

Nothing i wrote was in any way supportive of the driver's actions, nor absolving him of any responsibility whatsoever nor seeking to establish any primacy of special treatment for a car driver nor should it be read or interpreted in that way. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clearer than it may have been in the first instance, judging from your post. What exactly was it in my post that gave you the impression that was a point I was making?

Carlton green wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:The bizarre thing is that the incident seemed to be at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum - poor and discourteous driving, but eminently predictable by the cyclist, I'm sure. It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect. There will be dozens of incidents, maybe hundreds, every day which never go bad like that.

The BBC article is short so perhaps you have additional detail?

What ever lite the driver’s fuse he is responsible for his own actions, hard words but true. If someone annoyed me and I then retaliate to the extent that I put them in hospital the law would come down very heavily on me. Just because someone drives a car and uses it instead of fists is no excuse for any leniency and certainly something to be most robustly discouraged.

The driver must have been looking back for a reaction so presumably he expected one and was also well aware of what a shake of the head meant in the circumstances. This argues that he knew exactly what he had done and regarded the cyclist's quite mild remonstrance as an intolerable insult. What a state the inside of the guy's head must be in!

GBH assault and aggravated at that so it's a Section 18 offence, clearly CPS at their finest yet again Should have got at least 10 years and destroyed the scumbag completely! he might as well have used a sledgehammer or a knife given the damage done, that would have seen him get a far heftier sentence, why is using a deadlier weapon less of an offence??

Absolutely disgusting and it will be out in 12 months, I hope he gets some of his own medicine whilst inside and maybe when he gets out too!

Bonefishblues wrote:

Carlton green wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:The bizarre thing is that the incident seemed to be at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum - poor and discourteous driving, but eminently predictable by the cyclist, I'm sure. It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect. There will be dozens of incidents, maybe hundreds, every day which never go bad like that.

The BBC article is short so perhaps you have additional detail?

What ever lite the driver’s fuse he is responsible for his own actions, hard words but true. If someone annoyed me and I then retaliate to the extent that I put them in hospital the law would come down very heavily on me. Just because someone drives a car and uses it instead of fists is no excuse for any leniency and certainly something to be most robustly discouraged.

Nothing i wrote was in any way supportive of the driver's actions, nor absolving him of any responsibility whatsoever nor seeking to establish any primacy of special treatment for a car driver nor should it be read or interpreted in that way. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clearer than it may have been in the first instance, judging from your post. What exactly was it in my post that gave you the impression that was a point I was making?

No where in the BBC article do I read of the injured Cyclist making any expression to the driver so I wondered whether you had an additional source of information. “It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect”

For what it is worth I do accept that genuine accidents do happen from time to time, even with the best will in the world and taking all reasonable care sometimes accidents still happen. In this instance the event was not an accident at all but plain and simple assault that’s incorrectly, as we as a society do, labelled as an accident.

The utility cyclist wrote:GBH assault and aggravated at that so it's a Section 18 offence, clearly CPS at their finest yet again Should have got at least 10 years and destroyed the scumbag completely! he might as well have used a sledgehammer or a knife given the damage done, that would have seen him get a far heftier sentence, why is using a deadlier weapon less of an offence??

Absolutely disgusting and it will be out in 12 months, I hope he gets some of his own medicine whilst inside and maybe when he gets out too!

You have my point entirely. I feel that the sentence is overly light. Fortunately the Cyclist doesn’t appear to have received life changing injuries but that could so easily have been different, the injuries were given with reckless intent to injure or worse and IMHO the CPS should have pressed for more serious charges and a longer sentence. Road rage transmitted into actions should be no more tolerable than any other form of violence, and doubly so against the relatively vulnerable and/or defenceless.

Carlton green wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

Carlton green wrote:
The BBC article is short so perhaps you have additional detail?

What ever lite the driver’s fuse he is responsible for his own actions, hard words but true. If someone annoyed me and I then retaliate to the extent that I put them in hospital the law would come down very heavily on me. Just because someone drives a car and uses it instead of fists is no excuse for any leniency and certainly something to be most robustly discouraged.

Nothing i wrote was in any way supportive of the driver's actions, nor absolving him of any responsibility whatsoever nor seeking to establish any primacy of special treatment for a car driver nor should it be read or interpreted in that way. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clearer than it may have been in the first instance, judging from your post. What exactly was it in my post that gave you the impression that was a point I was making?

No where in the BBC article do I read of the injured Cyclist making any expression to the driver so I wondered whether you had an additional source of information. “It was the expression of disapproval that just lit his fuse, to terrible effect”

For what it is worth I do accept that genuine accidents do happen from time to time, even with the best will in the world and taking all reasonable care sometimes accidents still happen. In this instance the event was not an accident at all but plain and simple assault that’s incorrectly, as we as a society do, labelled as an accident.

Source:
https://road.cc/content/news/264244-smi ... ears-video

Bonefishblues wrote:Source:
https://road.cc/content/news/264244-smi ... ears-video

Thanks for the link.
In the report the perpetrator is reported as being an HGV driver.
If ever there was a need for him to resit an extended HGV test,his reaction to the cyclist's simple shaking of his head and Heslop's subsequent reaction to it,is it.
With that kind of attitude to other road users can he be trusted at the controls of any powered vehicle without such a test?

Looking at the video it appears that the driver made an earlier attempt to turn in on the cyclist as he was passing up the left hand side of the car, then came back for another go. This is an assault plain and simple, the weapon just happens to be a car and should have been treated as such - would a conviction of assault with a weapon attracted a more severe sentence?