Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver jailed for deliberately swerving towards cyclists

Dean Goble found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving, acquitted on a third

A Gloucestershire motorist who deliberately swerved towards cyclists has been jailed for two and a half years after being found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving. He was acquitted in relation to a third charge of the same offence.

Dean Goble, aged 40, had been filmed by cyclist David Jones as he drove his Peugeot 206 across the road towards the rider in Ashton Keynes, Wiltshire in April 2014.

A jury at Swindon Crown Court convicted him today of dangerous driving in connection with that incident, and another that occurred a week later between Ewen and Cirencester in Gloucestershire, with Jeremy Maiden the cyclist involved, reports BBC News.

However, he was cleared of dangerous driving in relation to a third incident in May 2014 when cyclist Amanda Adams said she had been similarly targeted in Ashton Stoke.

Goble had claimed that he was trying to avoid potholes in the incident involving Mr Jones and also told the court during his trial this week that it had been his brother driving the car during the subsequent ones.

> Dean Goble tried "to scare the living daylights" out of cyclists, says prosecution

Passing sentence on Goble, who was also banned from driving for two years, judge Tim Mousley told Goble his said his behaviour was "typical of an aggressive and bullying nature," and that the speed he was driving was an "aggravating feature."

He also said that it was "a matter of luck rather than any judgment on your part" that the cyclists escaped unharmed.

Sergeant Barrie Card of Wiltshire Police commented: "Dean Goble had no respect for the safety of these cyclists; his dangerous and irresponsible actions could have killed one of these innocent people or, at the very least, seriously injured one of them.

"Today's verdict is a welcome one and sends out the message that Wiltshire Police will catch you if you endanger the lives of other road users and drive like this."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

59 comments

Avatar
1961BikiE | 8 years ago
0 likes

I actually saw the footage on the BBC site. Even given the small image the carriage way looks in impressive condition. He swerved far enough across the road to avoid a chasm let alone a pot hole.

Avatar
1961BikiE | 8 years ago
0 likes

So is his brother being prosecuted for the 3rd incident? I suspect not even given that Dean grassed him up, to use the vernacular of my youth.

Avatar
Dan S replied to 1961BikiE | 8 years ago
0 likes

1961BikiE wrote:

So is his brother being prosecuted for the 3rd incident? I suspect not even given that Dean grassed him up, to use the vernacular of my youth.

Almost certainly not, for two linked reasons.

First, to convict somebody you need enough evidence to make the jury sure.  It's not enough to have some evidence, nor even string evidence.  They have to be sure.  Does Dean's word sound like it'd make you sure?

Second, what Dean says in his trial is not admissible evidence in his brother's trial.  The jury hearing the brother's case wouldn't have heard it and had the chance to assess it.  It is a perennial problem that people can blame anybody they like when giving evidence in their own defence and it is very hard to do anything about it.

Avatar
whatleytom | 8 years ago
2 likes

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to whatleytom | 8 years ago
0 likes
whatleytom wrote:

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

A camera will not protect you, well not yet. Best it will do is secure a conviction. In the future when just about everyone has cameras then hopefully driving and general courtesy will be normal

Avatar
Dan S replied to CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
1 like
CXR94Di2 wrote:
whatleytom wrote:

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

Might deter somebody if they saw it on you. Not saying it would, but it might...
A camera will not protect you, well not yet. Best it will do is secure a conviction. In the future when just about everyone has cameras then hopefully driving and general courtesy will be normal

Avatar
Redvee replied to whatleytom | 8 years ago
0 likes

whatleytom wrote:

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

Off to the local Plod shop in the morning to report simialr to this case. Won't go into too much detail but driver changed from a clear lane 2 into my lane and used the horn to intimidate me then passed me closely. Luckily I had the camera on the back of the bike that night and the lane change is clear to see.

Avatar
IanW1968 | 8 years ago
2 likes

Two points: 

 

This or similar "teach em a lesson" actions happens quite frequently, most cyclists could recount eaxmples. 

 

Also I can't help wondering how much of this sentance was due to this characters well known history and less to do enforcing road safety and so not likely to become common place.  

 

 

Avatar
Simmo72 | 8 years ago
1 like

Can darwin's theory of evolution speed up for this family, don't let them breed anymore.

Avatar
ooldbaker | 8 years ago
0 likes

The other thing I  don't  understand  is why it well ever be legal for him to drive again  in his lifetime, but I  never understand  this one.

particularly where he can't claim he needs his car for his work. His income is from drug dealing and house burgularies. 

His facebook profile shows under work:

Worked at: (Opportunity Knocks But Once) Snatch and Grab It

Avatar
ooldbaker | 8 years ago
1 like

As has been pointed out, the long record would not have been pointed out to the jury. It would have been known by the judge when deciding the sentence though and I would imagine it was a large part in deciding the sentence. i.e. not quite such a change of heart by courts in favour of cyclists.

or maybe the judge just took the advice of Goble.

He did not tell police that his brother, who had been “in bother” before, had been driving on those occasions since he did not want to get him into further trouble.

"He admitted it to me yesterday," Goble told the court. "But my brother has been in bother and I spoke to him on the phone yesterday and I said I could get two or three years and he said it's not fair and he said 'Tell them it was me'.

"I just didn't want to get my brother into bother. It's not a lie."

Avatar
maldin | 8 years ago
0 likes

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  2 In all probability he committed that as well. 

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to maldin | 8 years ago
2 likes

maldin wrote:

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  2 In all probability he committed that as well. 

Thankfully we don't do probability in criminal law. We do certainty.

There's another minus I forgot to add. Although he got a consecutive sentence he got some of it for free as he's already inside for other offences. It would be good to see his next sentence start after he's finished his current one. Still, it will mean he's inside for a good while yet.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to maldin | 8 years ago
0 likes
maldin wrote:

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  2 In all probability he committed that as well. 

I was wondering what the key difference in that case was. Obviously the video'd one was certain. But the two other cases seemed very similar from the reports.

Avatar
ooldbaker replied to wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
0 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:
maldin wrote:

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  2 In all probability he committed that as well. 

I was wondering what the key difference in that case was. Obviously the video'd one was certain. But the two other cases seemed very similar from the reports.

It would be just perfect if they could now charge the brother with that one on the sworn evidence of his brother. Or charge DG with perjury if he withdraws his statement.

Avatar
ofathens | 8 years ago
0 likes

A question to the more knowledgeable masses: Does the two year driving ban come into effect when he is released from prison, or does it start immediately at sentencing (i.e. while he is in prison)?

Avatar
swldxer replied to ofathens | 8 years ago
0 likes

ofathens wrote:

A question to the more knowledgeable masses: Does the two year driving ban come into effect when he is released from prison, or does it start immediately at sentencing (i.e. while he is in prison)?

Starts after he is released thanks to recent law update.

20 MAR 15

"We have also changed the law to make sure that driving bans are extended so they continue to apply after an offender has come out of prison."

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to swldxer | 8 years ago
0 likes
swldxer wrote:

ofathens wrote:

A question to the more knowledgeable masses: Does the two year driving ban come into effect when he is released from prison, or does it start immediately at sentencing (i.e. while he is in prison)?

Starts after he is released thanks to recent law update.

20 MAR 15

"We have also changed the law to make sure that driving bans are extended so they continue to apply after an offender has come out of prison."

 

So has this change actually been implemented now or not? First it was, then it wasn't (due to some technicality) and now, it is? Is this definitive this time?

Avatar
PaulBox | 8 years ago
0 likes

News like this brings a little tear to my eye. It's almost enough to make me want to start using my camera...

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
1 like

There are actually some real positives here. The first is the finding of guilt.

The second is the length of the sentence, it's in excess of the maximum of 2 years. How? Because he's been sentenced consecutively for 2 offences. IF they've given the same for both then he's got 1yr 3 months x 2. 

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

Avatar
Dan S replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving.

The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can.

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

Avatar
Dan S replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving.

The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can.

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dan S wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving. The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can. As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

CPS sentencing handbook, not guidelines. We know that they will be argued, accepted, or rejected, so they're a good indication of what to expect. So we have to fill in the blanks in the absence of the media explanation of why the Judge did what he did. What's quite notable, in relation to the handbook, is that none of the factors really fit this type of offence at all. 

In relation to your 2 years point, I completely agree. 

Avatar
Dan S replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

Dan S wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving. The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can. As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

CPS sentencing handbook, not guidelines. We know that they will be argued, accepted, or rejected, so they're a good indication of what to expect. So we have to fill in the blanks in the absence of the media explanation of why the Judge did what he did. What's quite notable, in relation to the handbook, is that none of the factors really fit this type of offence at all. 

In relation to your 2 years point, I completely agree. 

I would love to be in court when somebody raised the CPS Sentencing handbook in front of this judge! Good chap but can be very biting...

Avatar
oldstrath replied to Dan S | 8 years ago
1 like

Dan S wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could.

 

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a 'lack of skill' event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I  fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to oldstrath | 8 years ago
1 like
oldstrath wrote:

Dan S wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could.

 

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a 'lack of skill' event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I  fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.

I wonder if, in the US, when someone shoots at someone in the street they have taken a dislike to, they are sent on a 'gun handling' course?

Avatar
Dan S replied to oldstrath | 8 years ago
0 likes

oldstrath wrote:

Dan S wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could.

 

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a 'lack of skill' event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I  fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.

Not trying to comfort you.  Just inform.  

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Bloody hell 122 stories in the local rag. This guy/family are more notorious than" insert favourite hoodlum"

Avatar
Russell Orgazoid | 8 years ago
1 like

Fuck the loser.

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 8 years ago
1 like

Jailed for 2.5 years and banned from driving for 2 years. Isn't that a bit pointless, or does the driving ban start after his release from prison?

Scum from a family of scum. Just a shame he'll be back on the streets at all.

Pages

Latest Comments