Home
Driver angered by cyclist who gesticulated at him for u-turning right in front of him

A taxi driver who deliberately swerved into a policeman on a bicycle in a road rage incident could face jail.

Ivor McAiney was driving his Vauxhall Astra minicab in Farnworth in April last year with a hot drink in his hand when he decided to perform a u-turn in in front of DC Adam Gleave, who was cycling and was forced to brake suddenly.

The officer gesticulated at the driver, indicating that he should watch where he was going.

McAiney wound down his window, shouted an obscenity, then jerked his steering wheel to the left, trapping the cyclist between the taxi and a parked car, a jury at Bolton Crown Court heard.

DC Gleave, who was clipped into his pedals, thumped the vehicle to get McAiney to stop. When McAiney drove off, the officer was left with bruised wrists and damaged bike and clothing as he lay in the road.

Fortunately he had the model and a partial numberplate, and McAiney was later arrested at the office of his cab firm, S and D Taxis.

He denied assault causing actual bodily harm and dangerous driving but following a two-day trial, a jury unanimously convicted him.

Judge Timothy Stead arranged a sentencing hearing on February 10 and granted him bail till then.

“You should not read into that anything about the ultimate sentence,” he said. according to The Bolton News.

A jail sentence would contrast with a similar case we reported in 2012, where a school caretaker who deliberately ran down a cyclist in a fit of rage walked away from court with a £350 fine.

Cal Groves, 45, shouted abuse at Gerard Lumb before knocking him over and driving off, Hull Crown Court heard.

Both the cyclist and the driver were attempting to turn right at the same junction in Anlaby, East Riding.

They nearly collided, causing Groves to shout at Mr Lumb before swerving and hitting him on purpose. Mr Lumb had cuts and bruises to his legs and ankles .

Groves, a caretaker at Hull Collegiate School was found guilty of careless driving and was fined £350, ordered to pay £500 costs and given nine points on his licence.

After an unpromising start, having to be bribed by her parents to learn to ride without stabilisers, Sarah became rather keener on cycling in her university years, and was eventually persuaded to upgrade to proper road cycling by the prospect of a shiny red Italian bike, which she promptly destroyed by trapping a pair of knickers in the rear derailleur. Sarah writes about about cycling every weekend on road.cc.

46 comments

Avatar
MikeOnABike [58 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Typical, because plod is the injured party he is going to prison. If it was one of us, he would have got a pat on the head and let off.

Avatar
Rouboy [91 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Plod or not at least the courts are talking proper punishment. We will have to wait and see.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9086 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Life sentence coming up because it was a police man.....

Avatar
Owen Rogers [24 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I suppose it's the nature of forums, but some comments are incredibly immature.

For some reason Courts still believe Police officers more than the general public, something I suppose society should ultimately be glad of. The difference here is that, as I understand it, the officer was off duty, so a normal person like the rest of us.
A custodial sentence might reflect anything from the judge's hangover to the offender's previous character, but is just whatever.

Avatar
Dizzy [68 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Can't decide if this story makes me me happy or angry!
A driver performed a deliberate maneuver that resulted in a cyclist getting inured & as a result may be sent to jail...
EXCELLENT This makes me happy, at last a court that is taking this sort of incident seriously.
But, the cyclist in question is police officer.
Would your average cyclist have been given the same result - I'm sorry but in my own experience I don't believe we would.
And, that makes me angry.
I have reported several incidents where only been able to supply a partial plate, even though compnay vehicles involved & have given an exact time & location, only to be told without a full VRN, they cannot take further action?
So company records cannot be accessed to ascertain which vehicle was on that route.
I have provided footage from my camera, again to be told that no further action is to be taken, as VRN is partially obscured by dirt or poor light

I'm glad this driver is getting what he deserves, but until this result is the norm for every incident, I shall continue to a grumpy old cycnic.

Avatar
Ush [693 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

More undercover police cyclists please. Preferably from an armed response unit.

Avatar
charlie bravo [50 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
MikeOnABike wrote:

Typical, because plod is the injured party he is going to prison. If it was one of us, he would have got a pat on the head and let off.

Very likely that the plod was able to present his evidence better than Mr or Mrs average cyclist. The more you give evidence in court, the more comfortable and confident you are the more convincing your evidence.

Doesn't make it right - but confidence when you're in the box helps the Magistrates/Judge & Jury decide who is telling the truth.

Very often the CPS only have sight of a case that morning - yes, ridiculous I know. Yet the defence has had months and months of prep and can decide on a strategy weeks in advance. This is also another factor which affects the 'justice system' and is all arse about face if you ask me. Ho hum!  39

Avatar
bendertherobot [1077 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Owen Rogers wrote:

I suppose it's the nature of forums, but some comments are incredibly immature.

For some reason Courts still believe Police officers more than the general public, something I suppose society should ultimately be glad of. The difference here is that, as I understand it, the officer was off duty, so a normal person like the rest of us.
A custodial sentence might reflect anything from the judge's hangover to the offender's previous character, but is just whatever.

No, that misses the point somewhat. The point here is that, in deciding to bring a case, the CPS have concluded that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction because there is evidence.

But what evidence? The evidence is that of a policeman, off duty or not.

If it hadn't have been could we be sure that this case would have been brought? I say that we cannot be sure.

That is one of the major failings of the justice system at the moment, the decision on whether to prosecute. Too often the police will take no action because, in effect, they are judging the complainant's evidence as "one word against another."

It's not clear whether there is independent evidence here. If not then it's possible that the presence of an injury is what swayed it. After all, if there's an injury there must at least be an incident. But I suspect it was swayed by the notion that somehow a police officer is inherently more trust worthy in their account that the rest of us.

As we have seen this week in relation to cycling through the gates of Downing Street, that assumption is clearly not sustainable. That in itself, from me, is a generalisation, we cannot tar all groups with the same brush. But I'd like the police to take reports more seriously and the CPS to consider the evidence more carefully.

Avatar
mrmo [2077 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

out of interest was the policeman off duty so in "normal clothing" or not?

Avatar
tourdelound [158 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Jail or not, this muppet clearly deserves no place on Britain's roads, in a motor vehicle, at least, and should have his driving licence revoked for good.

Avatar
charlie bravo [50 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

But what evidence? The evidence is that of a policeman, off duty or not.

If it hadn't have been could we be sure that this case would have been brought? I say that we cannot be sure.

That is one of the major failings of the justice system at the moment, the decision on whether to prosecute. Too often the police will take no action because, in effect, they are judging the complainant's evidence as "one word against another."

As a rule, in cases like this where there is only one witness - there is a huge reluctance to prosecute on the basis of one word vs the other. There has to be some sort of 'validity' to the witnesses evidence. So a police officer, magistrate, driving instructor etc will have more weight. There are even cases where the word of a taxi driver is taken to be expert as they are professional drivers.

The police 'take no action' because we know that the CPS will not run it. We are told not to take statements etc as we know it won't go anywhere sadly - it's in the 'too difficult to do box' for the CPS. So it is not the police who 'take no action' it is the CPS. I wish it were different, I really do but even cases of bad driving with police as witnesses are now being ditched before court on the basis that it needs more than one witness!!!!

To put a 'simple' prosecution file together like this now, with two witnesses and a suspect, never mind CCTV and obtain enough evidence even just to go to CPS for a decision will take me at least 6-8 hours now, whereas a decade ago it was half that.

When I joined the Old Bill I heard old sweats saying things like 'the jobs f**ked' - it certainly is now

Avatar
adriank999 [77 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Further to the comments about the lady running down the cyclist and this post, there is a BIG difference between an accident and a deliberate act that could result in death. I note where the charge is due care and attention the critics pile in but how many of them have never made a simple mistake in their lives? Unfortunately a simple mistake involving a cyclist could be a minor injury or death. The charge and sentence should reflect the act not the result.

Avatar
McDuff73 [78 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

why arent such actions catergorised as attempted murder? throwing a 2 tonnes metal box at someone deliberately surely is?

Avatar
bendertherobot [1077 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
charlie bravo wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

But what evidence? The evidence is that of a policeman, off duty or not.

If it hadn't have been could we be sure that this case would have been brought? I say that we cannot be sure.

That is one of the major failings of the justice system at the moment, the decision on whether to prosecute. Too often the police will take no action because, in effect, they are judging the complainant's evidence as "one word against another."

As a rule, in cases like this where there is only one witness - there is a huge reluctance to prosecute on the basis of one word vs the other. There has to be some sort of 'validity' to the witnesses evidence. So a police officer, magistrate, driving instructor etc will have more weight. There are even cases where the word of a taxi driver is taken to be expert as they are professional drivers.

The police 'take no action' because we know that the CPS will not run it. We are told not to take statements etc as we know it won't go anywhere sadly - it's in the 'too difficult to do box' for the CPS. So it is not the police who 'take no action' it is the CPS. I wish it were different, I really do but even cases of bad driving with police as witnesses are now being ditched before court on the basis that it needs more than one witness!!!!

To put a 'simple' prosecution file together like this now, with two witnesses and a suspect, never mind CCTV and obtain enough evidence even just to go to CPS for a decision will take me at least 6-8 hours now, whereas a decade ago it was half that.

When I joined the Old Bill I heard old sweats saying things like 'the jobs f**ked' - it certainly is now

I agree. But it is still the police taking no action in the first place. That the CPS won't back them up is the reason for this, yes. But we now have a circular position.

I think this has become much worse since the CPS started to advise on charge.

Of course, there are good reasons for all of this. The Courts would simply be overrun.

Sadly, I think it's time for a helmet cam...........

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It's interesting that this fellow is (but perhaps not for much longer, hopefully) a taxi driver.

As a lorry driver, a standard of driving is required of me that is substantially higher than that required from an ordinary motorist; and rightly so. If I used my lorry as a tool of my aggression I would expect my licence to be permanently revoked.

Because this taxi driver has been convicted not as a result of poor driving standards, but through a premeditated act, in the full knowledge that this would reflect badly on his profession, I wouldn't wan this dangerous individual to ever drive a taxi again, partly of the safety of others and partly to help make it clear to others that this sort of behaviour comes with some serious penalties.

It's bad enough being on a white knuckle ride almost every time I get into a taxi, without the possibilty of unwittingly climbing into this guy's cab one day.

If I was the judge, I'd be permanently revoking this chap's licence. It is, after all, a privilege that must be earnt, not a right.

Avatar
Critchio [176 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Clearly an investigation that has gone correctly, irrespective of whether the victim is a police officer. Yeah right...

The problem isn't so much the victim being in the old bill making the case stronger, it's the complete lack of enthusiasm off officers to investigate these type of incidents thoroughly and achieving the best evidence to assist in the prosecution. So when you say "this happened to me but the old bill did nothing" isn't because this case has a copper as the victim entirely, it's because the police didn't investigate your incident thoroughly.

There will be an element of extra effort for "one of your own" but the CPS won't decide purely on that fact

It's easy and lazy for a plod to say this won't go anywhere mate but that's just well lazy. Plod will fob you off like this.

I don't agree with the CPS telling officers not the take statements, that's BS. They review evidence the Police put before them. If they put a pile of crap investigation before a lawyer then of course the lawyer is going to say no further action. The police have do their jobs properly and investigate these type of incidents thoroughly cos right now they don't and it's shocking. I

This case was invesigated properly because the victim is a police officer. It isn't going to court with a lack of evidence just because the victim is a police officer and all you people who are in the police know it, so cut the crap out please.

Avatar
AWPeleton [3331 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

6 - 8 hours for a simple prosecution file ? bloody hell where do you work ?

My Sgt would have kicked my arse if it took me that long. An abbreviated file should take no more than 1 hour to compile.

However if your talking about including the time it takes to take a statement as well as putting the file together i see where your coming from but its still a ridiculous amount of time your taking.

Avatar
charlie bravo [50 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

6 - 8 hours for a simple prosecution file ? bloody hell where do you work ?

My Sgt would have kicked my arse if it took me that long. An abbreviated file should take no more than 1 hour to compile.

However if your talking about including the time it takes to take a statement as well as putting the file together i see where your coming from but its still a ridiculous amount of time your taking.

including time to interview both witnesses and suspect

we have a new file system now that is beyond ridiculous and is designed to save the briefs time digesting a case. Imagine a concise MG5 for a complex case and multiply it five fold then you get somewhere near the new PRS (Police Report Summary) system. It is without doubt the biggest stinking fetid pile of dung ever conceived.....and then some

Avatar
AWPeleton [3331 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
charlie bravo wrote:
stumps wrote:

6 - 8 hours for a simple prosecution file ? bloody hell where do you work ?

My Sgt would have kicked my arse if it took me that long. An abbreviated file should take no more than 1 hour to compile.

However if your talking about including the time it takes to take a statement as well as putting the file together i see where your coming from but its still a ridiculous amount of time your taking.

including time to interview both witnesses and suspect

we have a new file system now that is beyond ridiculous and is designed to save the briefs time digesting a case. Imagine a concise MG5 for a complex case and multiply it five fold then you get somewhere near the new PRS (Police Report Summary) system. It is without doubt the biggest stinking fetid pile of dung ever conceived.....and then some

Oh dear not good. In Northumbria its all computerised and so simple and once you type in one section it automatically transfers it to the next section.

Avatar
mattsccm [330 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"going to court with a lack of evidence just because the victim is a police officer and all you people who are in the police know it, so cut the crap out please. "
oooooooooh!
Someone with an axe to grind methinks  4

Avatar
Ush [693 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
charlie bravo wrote:

As a rule, in cases like this where there is only one witness - there is a huge reluctance to prosecute on the basis of one word vs the other.

Yeah, it's not just that though as evidenced by the experience of the Cycling Silk and all those others who have video evidence.

charlie bravo wrote:

it is not the police who 'take no action' it is the CPS.

The CPS do seem to be a huge part of the problem... possibly (apart from the actual cretins behind the wheel) the major part.

Avatar
philtregear [114 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

one law for the law anther for the rest of us. i do not trust the judiciary.. still, im glad hes going down

Avatar
charlie bravo [50 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

Oh dear not good. In Northumbria its all computerised and so simple and once you type in one section it automatically transfers it to the next section.

Our CPS like each statement summarised accurately with key witnesses in one box and non key in others, depending on who prepares the file for court often depends on who (or what - as is CCTV etc) is key and non key - resulting in files bouncing back and forth between a stroppy clerk and a seriously f**ked off cop. It is madness and beating the good will from bobbies with every file prepared

Avatar
charlie bravo [50 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Ush wrote:

The CPS do seem to be a huge part of the problem... possibly (apart from the actual cretins behind the wheel) the major part.

Underfunded and understaffed - this does not help the problem at hand. As much as I whine about the CPS - how can I in all honesty blame a brief who only catches sight of a case that morning when the defence has had months. It's all more than just a little bit sh*t

Avatar
AWPeleton [3331 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
charlie bravo wrote:
stumps wrote:

Oh dear not good. In Northumbria its all computerised and so simple and once you type in one section it automatically transfers it to the next section.

Our CPS like each statement summarised accurately with key witnesses in one box and non key in others, depending on who prepares the file for court often depends on who (or what - as is CCTV etc) is key and non key - resulting in files bouncing back and forth between a stroppy clerk and a seriously f**ked off cop. It is madness and beating the good will from bobbies with every file prepared

I know where your coming from, our file prep unit used to be upstairs, its now in a different building in a different town. It takes over a week for post in the internal mail to reach them then they send out snotty emails asking for other stuff and give you 2 days to do it  14 I could go on but you know as well as i do its fooked thanks to this bloody govt. Any way back to reading the forum !

Avatar
rojre [37 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't mean to be flippant or trainspoterish ! Iv only ever seen those police bikes once and that was down at Saltdean near Brighton. They don't have cops on bicycles here but I guess they must be good hardy bikes. Does anyone know what make and model they are.

Avatar
Critchio [176 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't have an axe to grind but I've seen too many plod over the years cuff jobs because they cannot be arsed to carry out a thorough and proper investigation for something they think is petty or not worth pursuing. That is not their decision.

In this case the point I was [poorly] making was this officer's colleagues went the extra mile and ended up getting a guy charged by presenting CPS with sufficient evidence because of the extra effort his colleagues made. The offender was not charged just on the say so of an officer alone. There would have been supporting evidence in the form of injury photos and medical evidence and maybe marks on the car or even independent witness evidence, the type of damage to the bike etc.

You present all that kind of evidence to a CPS lawyer that corroborates the officer's version of events you get a charge.

Now, had our victim not been a police officer, then some bumbling plod would have probably said to him, "it's not worth it mate. Your word against his, it won't go to court. Do you want to make a complaint?"

In a lot of incidents the evidence is there but it's lazy, incompetent, officers who can't be arsed to deal with members of the public like they would if that person were a colleague or a family member. They take the easy way out by not investigating correctly when it comes to trivial things like another fucking cyclist getting in the way and holding things up...

Avatar
pepelepew_2724 [1 post] 2 years ago
0 likes

The general theme seems to be 'It's only because he's a police officer'.

If anyone on here thinks the courts or CPS do us any favours as police officers then they are very sadly mistaken. I was assaulted whilst on duty and there is a general perception in the court system that it is an acceptable occupational hazard with fines and sentencing reflective of that. We get messed around with our leave and days off, whereas heaven and earth is moved for the usually non-employed defendant.

What is most likely in this case are 2 things.

1) Somewhat regrettably the investigating officers are showing some more enthusiasm than they may otherwise have done. Which is undoubtedly linked to;
2) the victim is this matter is a professional who is well versed in the evidential requirements and is robust enough to actually be willing to attend court.

Lots of people report things and think that once they have done that it will be the end of any involvement on their part. They then complain on forums saying the police did nothing.

Some of this reads like a Daily Mail comments section. The police workforce is no different to any other occupation. Some people are lazy. Some are dishonest. Most work hard and want to do a good job.

Avatar
AWPeleton [3331 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

charlie bravo and pepelepew - you will find a minority of people on this forum have no time whatsoever for the Police and the job we do and will go as far to slag us off without any comprehension of what we do or how we have to do it so be prepared for some serious slagging by know it alls and general numpties.

On the other hand there are hundreds of people who are great craik and will comment objectively about various topics in the news. Welcome to the road.cc forum though.

Avatar
northstar [1108 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Oh.The.Irony.

Pages