Jail for road-rage motorist who deliberately ploughed into cyclists

[cotswolds]

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/jail-road-rage-motorist-who-441323
Seems like a satisfactory outcome.

[pete75]

No it's not. If he deliberately drove into a chap on a bike then he should have got a longer sentence and a longer driving ban. A couple of years inside maybe and 4 or 5 years ban.

[Bonefishblues]

He was lucky that the cyclist was not more seriously injured, that's what saved him from a longer sentence.

[meic]

Possibly the severity of the sentence reflects the difference between nudging somebody off their bike while seeking to intimidate them compared to deliberately ramming them to harm them.
If the punishment isnt gradated you soon end up in "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" territory.

[pete75]

Possibly the severity of the sentence reflects the difference between nudging somebody off their bike while seeking to intimidate them compared to deliberately ramming them to harm them.

The latter deserves at least 5 years inside - what's the going rate for GBH with intent?

[Spinners]

I'd like to see the driving ban component doubled or trebled. It might just force these twerps to actually ride a bike.

[Phil Fouracre]

What the hell is a 'nudge'? However you phrase it - you deliberately hit a person with a ton of metal! No 'degrees of'.

[Flinders]

I know some of the roads round there. They are narrow and not safe to overtake in lots of places, but there are plenty of alternative routes with wider roads, even dual carriageways, for anyone driving a distance or wanting to go faster.

Once you are on a narrow rural road, you have to accept that it will be slower than an A-road- and also that there may be tractors, walkers, cyclists, horses, livestock, etc. on the roads, which could be round any blind bend you go into.

[meic]

What the hell is a 'nudge'? However you phrase it - you deliberately hit a person with a ton of metal! No 'degrees of'.

“This seemed to annoy the defendant even more and he drove within inches of the lead rider, eventually hitting his back tyre and sending him off his bike and into the side of the road.”

That is a nudge.

In an impact you pass energy and momentum, one is proportional to the "speed" difference and the other is proportional to the square of the "speed" difference, the driver totally minimised that speed difference before the collision, that is what a "nudge" is.

In this case it probably wasnt even the cars energy or momentum, so much as it interfering with the rotation of the rear wheel which bought the cyclist off.

I see a great difference between this sort of behaviour, which I have experienced on occasions and getting rammed which fortunately I have not yet experienced.

[Bonefishblues]

As did the trial judge, who was clearly well aware of the issues, from his reported comments.

[thirdcrank]

... Seems like a satisfactory outcome.

I think so and for several reasons.

Above all, this seems to have been investigated thoroughly, at least to the extent that it has gone to court and the weight of evidence has eventually led to a guilty plea. It's been a summary trial, so the max sentence is less than at crown court with a jury. It sounds as though the defendant may have been reluctant to plead guilty so this could easily have gone to a jury, at greater expense and trouble all round, with a good chance of a jury deciding to acquit, unable to agree etc.

The injuries could have been much worse but weren't.

IMO, if more "bad driving" reports had this sort of result, there might be fewer incidents to report.

[horizon]

+1 I also think it was the right outcome (except for the driving ban).

I don't think long prison sentences are really the answer for any but the most awful crimes and the most awful people. Sixteen weeks in prison (or maybe eight?) is a wake up call for something done in the heat of the moment. Sixteen minutes in prison would be long enough for me.

However what the driver really showed is that he isn't safe behind the wheel. That's very different: we had the chance to remove a temperamentally unfit driver fom these narrow roads (as Flinders mentioned).

[jgurney]

I'd like to see the driving ban component doubled or trebled. It might just force these twerps to actually ride a bike.

Was the offender required to pass the extended driving test before driving again once the ban expires? That would certainly be reasonable.

[thirdcrank]

.... Was the offender required to pass the extended driving test before driving again once the ban expires? That would certainly be reasonable.

Here's an explanation of the power to disqualify a driver until an extended test is passed. I've highlighted the bit I presume applies here:

Where an offender is convicted of dangerous driving, the court must order disqualification until an extended driving test is passed.
The court has discretion to disqualify until a test is passed where an offender is convicted of any endorsable offence. Where disqualification is obligatory, the extended test applies. In other cases, it will be the ordinary test (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.36).
An offender disqualified as a ‘totter’ under the penalty points provisions may also be ordered to re­take a driving test; in this case, the extended test applies.
The discretion to order a re-test is likely to be exercised where there is evidence of inexperience, incompetence or infirmity, or the disqualification period is lengthy (that is, the offender is going to be ‘off the road’ for a considerable time).
(My emphasis.)

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ex ... is-passed/

[[XAP]Bob]

evidence of ... incompetence

Does a conviction not stand as such evidence?