Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Drunk driver who knocked cyclist off bike in hit and run caught after witness followed him home

Gordon Salt banned from driving for four years after being found to be three times over legal limit

A drunk driver who knocked a cyclist from his bike and drove off without checking on the rider was caught after a motorist who witnessed what had happened followed him home and alerted police.

Gordon Salt, 71, was three time over the drink-driving limit as he drove to his home in Salford after watching football in the pub, reports the Manchester Evening News.

Manchester Magistrates’ Court was told by Eileen Rogers, prosecuting, that Salt had told police he had needed to swerve to avoid another vehicle that had pulled out, but claimed he did not believe he had hit the bike rider.

“The defendant said he only clipped the cyclist and didn’t think he had knocked him off so he continued as he didn’t think the cyclist was injured,” she said.

“One witness saw the red car didn’t stop after colliding with the cyclist. The gentleman stopped to ensure the cyclist was OK and then followed the car.”

The motorist who followed Salt home said that he was “slurring his words” as well as “smelling strongly of intoxicants.”

Police subsequently breathalysed him and he was found to have 112 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath – three times over the legal limit of 12 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres.

Salt pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was banned from driving for four months as well as being handed a three-month curfew from 7am to 7pm and being told to pay a £115 victim surcharge.

Speaking in mitigation, Matthew Wallace told the court that his client recognised he had a drinking problem and plans to seek help for it.

No details were reported of the cyclist involved in the incident.

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

20 comments

Avatar
Stumps | 7 years ago
0 likes

71 yr old with a big drink problem - will probably be dead before his ban finishes cheeky

Avatar
FatBoyW | 7 years ago
0 likes

that's what makes driving bans so pathetic, maybe  the first step when caught driving without a licence should be vehicle seizure? Prison? 

 

What at can a society do to protect itself from such anarchy?

Avatar
tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
7 likes

Yep, 71 year olds are well known for changing habits. Looking forward to seeing this changed man in 4 years time.

Avatar
Jackson replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
3 likes

.

Avatar
stonojnr replied to Jackson | 7 years ago
3 likes
Jackson wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Yep, 71 year olds are well known for changing habits. Looking forward to seeing this changed man in 4 years time.

71 years old and a drinking problem, with any luck he'll be in the big pub in the sky before his ban is up. 

why do you assume the ban will even stop him driving ?

local paper reported today police caught a guy driving whilst 4.5 times over the drink drive limit, he was caught less than 2 hours after he'd appeared in court that morning for an earlier drink driving offence, for which he'd been given a 12month driving ban and surrended his licence. it was his 3rd drink driving offence within 15months.

Id like to think his now extended driving ban will make a difference, I really would  2

Avatar
Dan S replied to stonojnr | 7 years ago
1 like

stonojnr wrote:

 why do you assume the ban will even stop him driving ? local paper reported today police caught a guy driving whilst 4.5 times over the drink drive limit, he was caught less than 2 hours after he'd appeared in court that morning for an earlier drink driving offence, for which he'd been given a 12month driving ban and surrended his licence. it was his 3rd drink driving offence within 15months. Id like to think his now extended driving ban will make a difference, I really would  2

I once walked out of court at lunchtime and was nearly run over by a guy who had, about 10 minutes previously, been banned from driving by the same court...

Avatar
Simon E | 7 years ago
0 likes

A four year ban is simply not long enough.

Avatar
musicalmarc | 7 years ago
6 likes

"Speaking in mitigation, Matthew Wallace told the court that his client recognised he had a drinking problem and plans to seek help for it."

how is this mitigation?  He should have his license removed until he has sought help for his drink problem.  recognising that you need help and actually seeking it are not the same thing.

Avatar
FatBoyW | 7 years ago
0 likes

to  be fair - don't know if the cyclist would go to court. The witness is reported as hearing not seeing so unlikely there is enough evidence for more.

Plus the sentence would only be concurrent so make no difference in punishment terms.

Interesting use of the term vigilante - the member of the public reporting a crime is simple good citizenship. Vigilante is for example when you smash out someones lights because they did a hit and run on you - being your own police force and normally also meteing out the jsutice.

 

Would  not condone scaring a poor old man that his actions might end up with worse retribution in the future.

 

Avatar
Paul_C | 7 years ago
10 likes

and the really galling thing here is that the punishment is only for being over the limit... not for colliding with the bicycle rider or for failing to stop...

Avatar
Cupov | 7 years ago
0 likes

71 years old and doesn't know any better....god help this country

Avatar
FatBoyW | 7 years ago
1 like

It is a 48 month driving ban.

I would prefer people found guilty  of this type of incident to get a minimum of 2 years in prison.  

The costs and vicitim charges should be a lot steeper too.

Every one of us driving would think twice about speeding/ carelessness etc if the standard tariff for a 3 point offence was  £1,000.  Oh and £10,000 for mobile phones - either we'd be able to fund a lot more police or we'd all be safer.

 

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
5 likes

4 years.

I think the road.cc proofreaders have fallen victim to the recent cuts. I blame the Tories.

Avatar
TeamExtreme | 7 years ago
3 likes

Quote:

Salt pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was banned from driving for four months as well as being handed a three-month curfew from 7am to 7pm and being told to pay a £115 victim surcharge.

 

I'm not normally one to wail about lenient sentencing, but this is a absolute joke...

Avatar
STiG911 | 7 years ago
6 likes

4 Months.

 

4. Months.

 

This countries officially gone to shit.

Avatar
Woldsman | 7 years ago
3 likes

Simon wrote:

Salt pleaded guilty to drink-driving and was banned from driving for four months as well as being handed a three-month curfew from 7am to 7pm and being told to pay a £115 victim surcharge.

MEN wrote:

Magistrates banned him from driving for 48 months and he was given a curfew from 7pm until 7am for three months.

Is it too much to ask that they're both right?

Avatar
samuri | 7 years ago
7 likes

Note how the renowned anti-cyclist paper MEN refers to someone who had the gall to help a cyclist, 'Vigilante'.

Even people who provide some form of assistance to cyclists are being demonised by the media now.

 

Avatar
adamthekiwi | 7 years ago
16 likes

Er, the limit is 0.35mg/ml of breath, not 0.12mg/ml.

Most shocking is that the driver clearly has no understanding of how the law works in instances like these. Had he stopped and reversed back over the rider until they were dead, the judge would have been able to apply the 'killed a cyclist' tariff and reduce his sentence to a 10-minute ban and a 30p fine.

Avatar
Dan S replied to adamthekiwi | 7 years ago
0 likes

adamthekiwi wrote:

Er, the limit is 0.35mg/ml of breath, not 0.12mg/ml.

Actually it's 35 microgrammes, not millgrammes...

Avatar
dassie replied to Dan S | 7 years ago
1 like

Dan S wrote:

adamthekiwi wrote:

Er, the limit is 0.35mg/ml of breath, not 0.12mg/ml.

Actually it's 35 microgrammes, not millgrammes...

 

Full details here:  https://www.gov.uk/drink-drive-limit

Limits are lower in Scotland.

Latest Comments