Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver swore at cyclist and then deliberately drove into her

Joseph Butland given 140 hours community service plus a driving ban

A court has heard how an angry motorist told a cyclist to “get off the f***king road” before deliberately knocking her off her bike. 74-year-old Joseph Butland drove his 4x4 into Rebecca Davidson-Hall three times before she eventually fell, suffering a broken hand and bruising.

The Western Telegraph reports that Davidson-Hall was cycling towards her grandmother’s house on the A4076 Freemans Way in Haverfordwest when Butland pulled his Hyundai Tucson alongside her. Kevin Jones, prosecuting, told Swansea Crown Court that she was doing about 16mph at the time.

Davidson-Hall signalled for Butland to overtake, but he instead screamed at her: “Get off the f***king road. You should be on the cycle path.”

Jones said that while there was a track alongside the road, she was quite entitled to use the road.

Butland then swerved towards the cyclist in what was interpreted as “some kind of warning.” He then swerved a second time, this time making contact, causing her to wobble and a third such manoeuvre meant his car hit her arm. Jones said Davidson-Hall “sensibly” fell to her left and not to her right and into the carriageway.

The incident was said to have been blatant and motorists who witnessed it reported him to police. Butland was arrested the same day and admitted shouting at the cyclist, but not deliberately swerving into her, although he later admitted a charge of dangerous driving.

David Williams, representing Butland, said his behaviour was difficult to explain and that he had simply become angry at seeing Davidson-Hall riding in the carriageway when he thought she should have been on the cycle path. "There cannot be argument that she should not be compensated," he said.

The judge, Mr Recorder Jonathan Furness, told Butland: "You decided this lady should not have been on the road, although she had been riding quite lawfully.”

Describing Butland's driving as "inexplicable and inexcusable," he said: "It is not for members of the public to get involved in the way that you did."

Furness did not impose a custodial sentence, saying that he was bearing in mind Butland’s age and the fact that he had up until this point led a blameless life. He instead ordered that he carry out 140 hours of unpaid work for the community and pay a court charge of £900, a government surcharge of £60, £400 in prosecution costs and his own defence costs, plus £1,000 in compensation to Davidson-Hall. He was also banned from driving for 18 months and ordered to pass an extended driving test before regaining it.

Davidson-Hall's recovery from her injuries is unknown as she works as a medical officer on trawlers operating off the coast of the United States and it had not been possible to contact her.

Earlier this month, a woman who tried to run down an autistic cyclist in Kingston-upon-Thames and ended up ploughing into a hair salon was jailed for three years. Natalie Pyne was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm after a jury ruled that she deliberately tried to drive her Audi Q7 4x4 into Simon Edgely with whom she had been arguing.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
ironmancole | 8 years ago
0 likes

Actually given previous sentances this is a pretty harsh one. We've seen drivers face far less in punishment for actually killing.

Is there not a way that us, all as members of the public, can strongly object to this individual being returned to the road on grounds of demonstrating ill fitness to drive (those sorts of approaches - you get my thinking).

If authorities object why can you not then hold them legally responsible should this driver go on to cause more harm?

Think about it in any other context. If you discovered a teacher was engaging in dubious activities online and warned the education authorities who failed to intervene, but that teacher went on to sexually assault a child for example the education authority would be guilty of failing the public in some way.

So, same situation here. Why would DVLA and/or Police and/or Dept. Transport be allowed to escape similar responsibility? We pay them to safeguard us, why are we not able to hold a government agency as responsible?

If that could be established you'd rapidly find government interested all of a sudden in who they allow on the roads and what they get up to, same as for teachers, medical staff, pilots/aviation safety etc etc.

Any legal bods on here able to comment on why this sort of strategy can't work?

Avatar
brooksby | 8 years ago
0 likes

Its funny how some motorists will do all sorts of dangerous sh*t just to make sure you know that you're in the wrong.

I remember this one time a large Merc pulling up alongside me on a downhill, swerving around due to oncoming traffic (the Merc, not me) , just so its female passenger (late middle-aged) could scream out of the window at me that I should be on the f-ing cycle path, that's what it's there for. I was able to scream back that (as was the case) the f-ing cycle path ends in less than 100 metres and I'd be put back on the road so what was the point. Some people.

Mr Butland deserved a far harsher punishment that he received, in my opinion, but my anecdote is there to illustrate that - also in my opinion - it's a scarily short and slippery slope from shouting at someone to using your car as a weapon.

Avatar
50kcommute | 8 years ago
1 like

If you buy a car and try and kill or injure people - we'll just take the car away....for a bit ..joke of a legal system

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
2 likes

Ah the wonders of a motor vehicle. It allows even a 74 year old to indulge in a bit of GBH.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 8 years ago
0 likes

Calling a Tucson a 4x4 is more than a bit misleading, no low range and no locking diffs, but I'm sure the driver will be happy to be labelled a 4x4er. It's an SUV at best.

 

Just sayin'.

Avatar
Al__S replied to don simon fbpe | 8 years ago
1 like

don simon wrote:

Calling a Tucson a 4x4 is more than a bit misleading, no low range and no locking diffs, but I'm sure the driver will be happy to be labelled a 4x4er. It's an SUV at best.

 

Just sayin'.

 

That's ridiculous "no true scotsman" bollocks. What does it add to this?

Avatar
Airzound | 8 years ago
2 likes

What a total c*nt. He should be in jail and his license permanently revoked.

Avatar
AJ101 | 8 years ago
2 likes

Unreal sentence. If he'd swore at her and used a pick axe handle (for example) to attack her I think there would be a huge outcry and a heavier sentence. What is it about sitting in a car and carrying out an attack that seems to make it minor?

Avatar
severs1966 | 8 years ago
4 likes

The courts and the system once again tells society that it is acceptable to run people over, as long as they are on a bicycle.

Doing this to a pedestrian would have had the driver sent to the slammer.

Avatar
Metaphor | 8 years ago
1 like

Where the hell does this man live? Is there any way of finding out?

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
9 likes

if i swing a metal bar at someone, miss, swing again and hit and swing a third time causing broken bones, it would be assult and GBH, why is a 2tonne car not recognised as a weapon by the CPS?

 

on the other hand at least he didn't get away with careless driving.

Avatar
Ush | 8 years ago
5 likes

@road.cc Your headline is inadequate. The correct one is "Judiciary again implicitly condone assaults on cyclists".

IMO the judge clearly demonstrates his partiality to the motorist point of view with this quote:
"It is not for members of the public to get involved in the way that you did."

That, coupled with the lack of custodial sentence for this vehicular assault suggests, to me, that the "Judge Recorder" in some degree believes that the cyclist was doing something wrong.

If I were dictator both of these old criminals would be doing some serious time.

Avatar
Mark By | 8 years ago
8 likes

Another ludicrously lenient sentence.   This criminal used a dangerous weapon to threaten and injure - that is the charge that should have been made. Judging by his behaviour alone,  he should be subject to strict medical tests to assess his capability to drive.   I would also question whether there might be age-related medical problems which could preclude his ownership of a driving licence. Those are terms and conditions that judge could have set as part of the sentence.

So if a cyclist waved a shotgun at him when he was walking along a joint use path, swore at him to "get out of my f***ing" way and fired shots which injured him would they get the same punishment?

 

 

Avatar
LarryDavidJr | 8 years ago
10 likes

Quote:

Furness did not impose a custodial sentence, saying that he was bearing in mind Butland’s age and the fact that he had up until this point led a blameless life

Blameless life bollocks.

Doing something like that has to be in your nature.  "Not been caught" would have been more accurate.

 

Or maybe he's just going senile.

Avatar
brooksby replied to LarryDavidJr | 8 years ago
1 like

LarryDavidJr wrote:

Quote:

Furness did not impose a custodial sentence, saying that he was bearing in mind Butland’s age and the fact that he had up until this point led a blameless life

Blameless life bollocks.

Doing something like that has to be in your nature.  "Not been caught" would have been more accurate.

 

Or maybe he's just going senile.

So if I'd assaulted someone but had up to that point 'led a blameless life' then I'd be pretty much let off? Cool.

Avatar
multifrag | 8 years ago
10 likes

I understand that he didn't have any convictions before this incident, but can't to think what would happen if he would be using a knife instead of car and injured her hand. He most probably go to jail for attempted murder. Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of using 2t vehiclle as a weapon. It's very effective on the road and doesn't give you a sentence.

Avatar
Housecathst replied to multifrag | 8 years ago
8 likes

multifrag wrote:

I understand that he didn't have any convictions before this incident, but can't to think what would happen if he would be using a knife instead of car and injured her hand. He most probably go to jail for attempted murder. Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of using 2t vehiclle as a weapon. It's very effective on the road and doesn't give you a sentence.

yup, if somebody walked up to him in the street and screamed in his face and hit him with a baseball (a far less deadly than a 2 ton metal box) they'd be locked up, and rightly so. 

 

Avatar
ridein | 8 years ago
2 likes

He needs to get sentenced with riding a bike 500 miles per month. He could possibly empthasize with cyclists after his return to driving.

Avatar
lushmiester | 8 years ago
3 likes

Made me think maybe if a driver (posably other offenders also) injures someone, through carelessnesses or intent they should be liable for medical costs that insue in whatever country the patient recieves treatment and rehabilitation. Particularly as we are considering making visitors from overseas liable for any medical cost during a visit.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
8 likes

He will never drive again, but a short custodial sentence would of been appropriate.

I had a similar incident except without the attempt to knock me and my wife off our bikes. An old fella tried to overtake us when he realised he couldn't get by without hitting the parked car on the other side of the road. Then when the road opened out he drove by closely in first gear revving away. Then 75 yds further along he pulled into his drive! Total intolerance for a few seconds advantage

Avatar
mike the bike replied to CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
2 likes

CXR94Di2 wrote:

He will never drive again ...... 

Why not? When his ban ends he will only be in his mid-seventies, an age at which many people are perfectly able to pass the 'L' test. 

If you imagine the extended test is any more difficult you are mistaken.  The candidate is required to drive at exactly the same standard as any other learner, not better.  Granted, the test will last for an hour rather than forty minutes, but that hardly constitutes a major obstacle.

Avatar
pakennedy replied to mike the bike | 8 years ago
1 like
mike the bike wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

He will never drive again ...... 

Why not? When his ban ends he will only be in his mid-seventies, an age at which many people are perfectly able to pass the 'L' test. 

If you imagine the extended test is any more difficult you are mistaken.  The candidate is required to drive at exactly the same standard as any other learner, not better.  Granted, the test will last for an hour rather than forty minutes, but that hardly constitutes a major obstacle.

He'll have to take the theory test. I bet he doesn't study for it the first time and it is reasonably hard to pass that.

Avatar
mike the bike replied to pakennedy | 8 years ago
0 likes

pakennedy wrote:
mike the bike wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

He will never drive again ...... 

Why not? When his ban ends he will only be in his mid-seventies, an age at which many people are perfectly able to pass the 'L' test. 

If you imagine the extended test is any more difficult you are mistaken.  The candidate is required to drive at exactly the same standard as any other learner, not better.  Granted, the test will last for an hour rather than forty minutes, but that hardly constitutes a major obstacle.

He'll have to take the theory test. I bet he doesn't study for it the first time and it is reasonably hard to pass that.

 

If you say so .....

Avatar
Das | 8 years ago
10 likes

Clearly a danger to everyone, and quite rightly removed from the road. Wonder if he went around trying to run down pedestrians who walk on the road too?

Latest Comments