A van driver in Bristol who fled the scene of a collision with a cyclist, driving over and crushing the bicycle which still had a toddler strapped into the child seat, has been handed a community order and banned from driving for nine months.
Robin Tippett, aged 22 and from Pucklechurch, pleaded guilty yesterday to failing to stop after an accident, failing to report an accident and driving without due care and attention in relation to the incident, which happened last September, reports the Bristol Post.
at Bristol Magistrates’ Court heard that Paul Squires had been waiting at a junction on Cossham Street, Mangotsfield with his two-and-a-half-year-old son Daniel when they were pushed forward by Tippett’s flatbed van, knocking them over.
In a statement read out to the court, Mr Squires said: “We fell to the right.
“The white van was alongside and the driver’s window was open. I saw a male and I made eye contact.
“I shouted: ‘What are you doing, what are you doing? I’ve got my son!’”
However, Tippett revved his engine and drove off, turning right and crushing the bicycle.
Fortunately, neither Mr Squires nor his son were hurt in the incident, although both their cycle helmets were damaged.
Police subsequently traced and arrested Tippett, who works for a scaffolding firm.
“The incident left me very angry. Hitting someone off their bike, then driving off,” Mr Squires continued.
“It was only good luck the equipment protected (my son), even though that is what it is designed for.
“I cannot forgive that, it is unacceptable. It is a thought I cannot get out of my head.”
He revealed that the episode had made him think about swapping a bike for a car as his means of getting around, saying: “I’m considering purchasing a second car due to his reckless inattention.”
In mitigation, solicitor advocate Mike Wynter said that Tippett is blind in his left eye but acknowledged that Mr Squires and his child were to his right.
“He knew the cyclist was there and he drove away, knowing he hit the cyclist.”
The court heard that Tippett had told a probation officer that he did not know there was a child on the bike and he had driven off because he was worried about losing his job if he was late.
Sentencing him, District Judge Lynne Matthews imposed a 12-month community order under which he will be required to perfortm 300 hours of unpaid work.
He was also banned him from driving for nine months, fined £500 and ordered to pay costs of £85 and an £85 victim surcharge
The judge told him: “You may lose your job. So be it. You are not safe driving.
“There would be a public outcry if your licence was not taken away from you.
“You were inches away from a death by dangerous driving.”
She added: “I sentence you for what happened, but I look at the risk that you pose.”
Mr Squires gave more details of the incident in a comment on the Bristol Post’s report of the case.
He wrote: “I was stationary at a T junction, looking to turn right.
“I had waited for 10-15 seconds for a vehicle coming from the right to pass, when the van struck me from behind, pushing us forward into the road.
“I assume he was not looking forward, or was looking left approaching a junction.
“I was not overtaking anybody. He then turned right at the T junction to escape and his rear right wheel drove over the bike and my son’s car seat.
“There were four independent witnesses, he was stopped two minutes after the incident and told to return to the scene of the crime, and didn’t.
“I also understand he failed to attend his first six requests for interview, and didn’t turn up to his original hearing last week, after which a warrant for his immediate arrest was issued.”





















62 thoughts on “Van driver who crushed bike with toddler still in child seat receives community order”
&*^%ing hell
&*^%ing hell
Either the Judge and CPS are useless or there is something wrong with the article,
“You were inches away from a death by dangerous driving.”
So where was verdict of dangerous driving or the lesser careless driving?
Full of remorse
“I also understand he failed to attend his first six requests for interview, and didn’t turn up to his original hearing last week, after which a warrant for his immediate arrest was issued.”
I’m almost going BTBS on this.
That has to be jail time for
That has to be jail time for leaving a scene of an incident. This is ridiculously lenient.
Also, how can he possibly use poor eyesight as a mitigating factor? Lock him up and lifetime driving ban seems like a more sensible sentence. We don’t need drivers like him on the roads.
I find that Flatbed
I find that Flatbed scaffolding lorries tend to be driven by some of the most psychopathic arseholes on the road.
Housecathst wrote:
You are so right. There’s one local to me that has nearly had me off on a number of occasions. Having made eye contact with the guy more than once, he seems to be a bit psycho.
tonyleatham wrote:
Most of them are just scaffolders who happen to hold the 7.5t category license, a lot through grandfather’s rights. It’s a bit of a grey area with regards to using tachos and ongoing CPC qualifications, I’ve learned to give most of them a wide berth.
tonyleatham wrote:
I was told to give them plenty of room regardless of the mode of transport I’m using.
Lots of them drive without securing the poles down properly so if they suddenly stopped then they could fall out and impale you.
Word on the street is that
Word on the street is that the bastard who killed Frank Cubis got a 12 month ban and 120 hours of community service. Hasn’t hit the news sites yet.
For those that didn’t know him, Frank was a timekeeper, a cycle instructor and an all-round fantastic bloke.
SteppenHerring wrote:
Confirmed. And it was another flat bed van.
Andy KPRC.
9 months driving ban only??
9 months driving ban only??
Usual bullshit from what
Usual bullshit from what surely must be either a corrupt or broken system of law because I’m fucked if that is justice.
There are some seriously
There are some seriously stupid people out there behind steering wheels- Your life in their hands – proper serious shit.
Once again it’s Bristol. Is
Once again it’s Bristol. Is it one of Dante’s levels of hell for cyclists?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
No. It’s a reflection of how many cyclists there are.
burtthebike wrote:
Although it must be said that the Centre is still a *Special Hell*
lols. What a farce
lols. What a farce
And the national outcry…is
And the national outcry…is where???
Once again. Cunts. Lot of them.
Can’t make this shit up!!
Can’t make this shit up!! Thankfully the new law against furious and wanton cycling will put an end to all this idiocy
I see; you need to be
I see; you need to be carrying a child around as a human shield to get any kind of ban enforced. This is actually one of the strongest punishments I’ve seen, normally it is just a suspended ban and community work or some other BS. This might actually have an impact on the driver for 5 minutes.
FFS what does it take to get
FFS what does it take to get a prison sentence, he almost killed a child, but hey-ho have your license back in 9 months, cough up £500, write a letter (probably on crayon) and couple of days litter picking!!
lllnorrislll wrote:
He can write?
“Words cannot express the deep personal grief I experienced when your wife/husband/son/daughter was killed/injured/scared/shat himself as a result of our unfortunate incident”
There’s even two morons on
There’s even two morons on the Bristol Post website defending this wanker, stating they shouldn’t be risking the child by cycling on the road.
Seriously makes one think you’d like to go into full vigilante mode and rid us of these oxygen wasting pieces of excrement.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
One utter wankpuffin called:
Complete rubbish. He did not feel any impact and was completely unaware of the accident but had as it was his word against the witness was advised to plead guilty.
Who is unable to read seems the main protagonist. And who the hell has that as a user name ?
hirsute wrote:
One utter wankpuffin called:
Complete rubbish. He did not feel any impact and was completely unaware of the accident but had as it was his word against the witness was advised to plead guilty.
Who is unable to read seems the main protagonist. And who the hell has that as a user name ?
[/quote]
Having completely ruined my mood by reading the comments of this completely unapologetic idiot, and that’s being polite, I’m pretty convinced that he is the driver. Seems like a nice guy.
Heartening that the majority of the comments on the Post site support the cyclist.
This isnt internet tough guy
This isnt internet tough guy talk, it really isnt, but if that had been me and one of my kids the bystanders would have had to peel me off his corpse, if I could have caught him.
All cycling advocacy and «us against them» aside – you just dont fuck around like that when there are kids involved.
Science Fact.
Crampy wrote:
I would hope that this isn’t the case, I would hope that your first instict would be to check and take care of your child! I know that would be my first instinct, after they are safe however………
Crampy wrote:
You don’t fuck around like that when there are humans around whatever size they are.
Put me down for a tenner on
Put me down for a tenner on the just giving page to have this shit stain of humanity removed from society. Permanently.
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
I’d join you, but I’m afraid that would be in breach of just giving’s rules. We’d have to try something like gofundme.
Absolutely ridiculous. Guy
Absolutely ridiculous. Guy should lose his licence permanently.
How do you get a magistrate
How do you get a magistrate taken of the bench? Sounds like the ones dealing with this case are total <choose your own expletive>!!!
And whilst it’s extremely
And whilst it’s extremely unpleasant an MP used the word ‘cunt’ today when describing the hate messages she’s been getting and mysogeny is going to be classified as a hate crime but as yet no-one has being seriuously injured or killed because of words
Meanwhile people on bikes are suffering hate crimes every single day, threats of harm and are just fair game to be driven at with killing machines even when there’s a small child involved and the powers that be just sit by and say ‘yup, here’s a dangerous cycling law, how’d you like them apples you two wheeled freaks!’
The cycling organisations should get together, get a top lawyer and take the government to the highest court and get them to act to change how things are because at the moment they are complicit in the harm we as a group are being subjected to with next to zero protection.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I agree. Hate crimes. Cyclists are hated & targeted. Every day. Vanishingly small protection in law.
A presumed liability law is the only thing which will persuade these 4-wheeled supremacists to take a modicum of care around vulnerable road users & pedestrians.
I get close passed regularly
I get close passed regularly when cycling. I don’t like it, but it’s an unfortunate fact of cycling.
However, I’ve also been close passed, and even left hooked, when out with my daughter, which is completely unacceptable. It’s a rear-mounted seat, so it’s not as if she can’t be seen from behind.
I’m sure they’re trying to tell me I should be using the hopeless shared-use path, but I don’t want to have to stop every 10 seconds to cross a side-road or bugger about passing pedestrians, dog walkers and runners.
If we hadn’t been on the way to swimming lessons, I would have chased the left-hook driver, as he turned down a slow road that I would have had a good chance of catching him on. Equally, I wouldn’t have wanted my daughter to have seen what happened when I caught him. Certainly wished I’d had the camera on that morning.
LastBoyScout wrote:
I got close passed and brake tested by a bloke in a 4×4 over Christmas when I had my 8yo son on the tagalong. Ended up scraping down the side of his motor as we tumbled gracefully onto the verge. Had my son not been there I would have lamped the bloke and probably worse (he admitted it was deliberate because “you were in the middle of the road mate” – yeah, because it was a single track high hedged country road and we were heading downhill)
As it was I had to tend to my distraught son and as much as I wanted to D-lock the fuck out of him and his Range Rover he got away with it. If I ever see him on his own it will be a different story.
So driving appears to be such
So driving appears to be such a human right that even a HALF-BLIND, mentally incapable moron who has proved himself to be an extreme danger to other road users and to small children….. will be allowed back on the road by Christmas, with the blessing of the “justice” system?!
I nearly choked on my porridge!
Woke up, reasonable mood,
Woke up, reasonable mood, read this and spent the next 15 mins researching how to get out of this shithole country.
Others (and have said this
Others (and myself) have said this many times, but the fundamental problem is that driving is clearly seen as a right to be taken away, and not a privilege that needs to be earned and kept.
This is a view shared by most of the public, the judiciary, legislation and e.g. sentencing guidelines.
I get that prison sentences have to be covered by the criminal law and the criminal standard. What I have never understood is why the privilege of having a license to drive is not dealt with purely by the civil law. In Civil law, presumed liability is fine. It’s balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Trying to be as objective as possible, I just don’t see why life time driving bans are not a common thing given some of the very deliberate and recklessly dangerous things done by many. Proved on balance of probabilities that you chose to use a car as a weapon – lifetime ban, no questions asked.
There seems to be a collective blind spot when it comes to road injuries and deaths. How many deaths from tipper trucks in London (to pick just one example), and yet nothing has changed. No change to working practices focused on speed or number of deliveries per hour. No requirement for an escort for what are demonstrably dangerous vehicles in very busy urban areas. No routine involvement of HSE as well as the police for what are clearly work related incidents. Nothing done to remove the blind spots with use of cheap technology (how many HGVs have you seen with stickers that tell cyclists not to pass on the left yet also say they have a dash cam… ). Heaven forbid anyone actually discuss banning the bloody things and finding some other way of getting stuff from A to B.
I naively hope that driverless technology may lead to a sudden wake up call that 000’s of deaths a year is actually an appalling waste of life
gw42 wrote:
Others (and myself) have said this many times, but the fundamental problem is that driving is clearly seen as a right to be taken away, and not a privilege that needs to be earned and kept.
This is a view shared by most of the public, the judiciary, legislation and e.g. sentencing guidelines.
I get that prison sentences have to be covered by the criminal law and the criminal standard. What I have never understood is why the privilege of having a license to drive is not dealt with purely by the civil law. In Civil law, presumed liability is fine. It’s balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Trying to be as objective as possible, I just don’t see why life time driving bans are not a common thing given some of the very deliberate and recklessly dangerous things done by many. Proved on balance of probabilities that you chose to use a car as a weapon – lifetime ban, no questions asked.
……
I naively hope that driverless technology may lead to a sudden wake up call that 000’s of deaths a year is actually an appalling waste of life
— gw42
There is a serious problem with motorised transport in our culture. Fundamentally, the car et al are highly addictive with the common side-effect of bringing out the hidden psychopath lurking in many people’s primitive brain.
The law reflects this addiction insofar as it is written by the addicts – and by those who profit from the addiction, one way and another. It’s as though heroin addiction was marketed and encouraged, with those damaged by the drug or the associated crimes necessary to get the wherewithal to pay for it let-off because the judge and jury are dealers or petty-criminal addicts too.
*****
But the vigilantes commonly posting here are fools if they think prison sentences or public floggings will solve the problem. Personally I would far rather the moron in this case do 300 hours of community work (or several years) preferably in the hospitals and other facilities frequented by the mained victims of traffic “accidents”. Prisons cost enormous amounts of money and spew out people even more psychopathic than when they went in.
Permanent driving bans also seem appropriate – assuming they can be enforced. Many will simply drive illegally, which also means uninsured, doing no favour to their next victim.
At bottom, this problem will never be solved until the motor car is rendered as a much improved technology. Self-driving cars may or may not help. Personally I would like to see them somehow disappear altogether. No chance of that unless fly-free telekinesis pods can be invented soon.
CUgel
Cugel wrote:
Cugel, I do enjoy reading your calm and reasoned posts but disagree with the presumption of vigilantes. Maybe we shouldn’t be reading about more and more cases of such endangerment on the roads, maybe after we experience it first hand most mornings, reading yet another story where a personas life is risked by an incompetent selfish moron does us no good. However, we are not out there smashing up random cars so not exactly taking the law into our own hands.
The issue with suggesting prison is wrong is that by proxy this kind of behaviour has become increasingly acceptable. I’m sure there’s dozens of us here that have been put at risk only for the moron to suggest it’s our fault due to our position, not wearing the right clothing or generally being in the moron’s way. If as a nation, we had not bothered applying laws for sexual abuse with prison sentences then the world today would be a lot more scary!
alansmurphy wrote:
But the vigilantes commonly posting here are fools if they think prison sentences or public floggings will solve the problem. Personally I would far rather the moron in this case do 300 hours of community work (or several years) preferably in the hospitals and other facilities frequented by the mained victims of traffic “accidents”. Prisons cost enormous amounts of money and spew out people even more psychopathic than when they went in.
CUgel
— alansmurphy
Cugel, I do enjoy reading your calm and reasoned posts but disagree with the presumption of vigilantes. Maybe we shouldn’t be reading about more and more cases of such endangerment on the roads, maybe after we experience it first hand most mornings, reading yet another story where a personas life is risked by an incompetent selfish moron does us no good. However, we are not out there smashing up random cars so not exactly taking the law into our own hands.
The issue with suggesting prison is wrong is that by proxy this kind of behaviour has become increasingly acceptable. I’m sure there’s dozens of us here that have been put at risk only for the moron to suggest it’s our fault due to our position, not wearing the right clothing or generally being in the moron’s way. If as a nation, we had not bothered applying laws for sexual abuse with prison sentences then the world today would be a lot more scary!
— Cugel
As is the case for probably every cyclist, I have been driven at by dangerous and uncaring morons to within an inch of my life. The natural response at the time is to want to murder them in return. But the sensible-us knows that this is going to solve nothing but rather merely compound the weight of human stupidity and nastiness in the world. Perhaps it will even get you killed as the car-weaponised fellow outguns your mere expletives.
After the incident is well over, one can take a less emotional view. Punishment of the tit-for-tat sort doesn’t work, despite what Michael Howard (“Pwison werks”) thought. It merely hardens attitides and escalates the aggresion. It churns out the seriously disaffected who will punish you, me and everyone (at random) for putting them in the cell with Bubba.
Revenge is for red-eyed Hollywood filum actors, who may do Very Bad Things to the villains with no unintended consequences,as they have a neat script where the goodies win and the baddies disappear. In real life, when “two tribes go to war” the score is often zero-zero.
Why doesn’t the justice system seek rehabilitation, especially the kind that changes the attitudes of self-centred little skinbags by showing them the consequences of their actions (the victims) then doing service to make some degree of restitution to those victims, as far as possible?
Cugel
gw42 wrote:
This.
That attitude has created a country where its actually quite difficult to carry on your life as you always did if for some reason you are unable to drive (everything is “out of town”, for a start, and most people live a very long way from their place of work). But a large part of the problem is the psychological aspect – “OMG I *need* my car!”
But let’s take this bloke as an example – he drives from Mangotsfield to Avonmouth every morning, and then back again every evening. Presumably he goes to jobs during the day.
Lets assume he doesn’t want to ride a bike (added – got distracted when typing !) because there are all these scarry scaffolders running people over left right and centre…
He could get a Day Rider bus ticket, a bus goes straight from Mangotsfield into the Centre, and then another one goes straight out from the Centre to Avonmouth. Probably an hour, hour and a half, tops, on the bus: I bet he can’t drive it in much less than that…
Maybe he drives out to jobs during the day – but, he’s not going to be scaffolding on his own, is he? Presumably one of his colleagues could drive the van and then he’d be along for the ride.
Will be a change to his daily routine, but its certainly not the end of the world.
And there’s waay less chance of him running someone over
brooksby wrote:
Or <deity-of-choice> forbid, he picks up a bike to make his commute.
brooksby wrote:
personally, I think work vans and lorries should not be used for getting to and from work. These must be kept at the emplyors location, unless self employed of course!
Down our street is a joke sometimes, with all sorts of lorries and vans taking up parking and blocking the roads!
brooksby wrote:
Buses are generally slower than you own vehicle and this includes cycling, due to the amount of times they stop plus the route they take.
I would suggest the guy gets a bike while banned. Just a shame the ban wasn’t longer…
The seemingly endless torrent
The seemingly endless torrent of this type of story is making me consider becoming a Magistrate.
By virtue of necessity, cyclists are fast becoming subject matter experts on road safety laws and the impact of behaviour below the standard required to drive. I recall a recent article on this site where the magistrates were unaware of rule 163 and the Legal Advisor wouldn’t have mentioned it if the victim hadn’t quoted it in his video evidence.
If we’re more knowledgeable than those in the positions of power, surely doing our civic duty is the least we could do. I just wonder if my sense of actual justice is too radical to be accepted by the legal establishment?
In this case the judge’s
In this case the judge’s comments and her approach seemed ok. The sentence is light but presumably within the woefully inadequate guidelines that can be applied . It makes me furious though that this sort of offence cannot be more severly punished though.
Quote:
He thinks it would have been perfectly fine if there handn’t been a child?
Sentencing him, District
Sentencing him, District Judge Lynne Matthews imposed a 12-month community order under which he will be required to perfortm 300 hours of unpaid work.
He was also banned him from driving for nine months, fined £500 and ordered to pay costs of £85 and an £85 victim surcharge
The judge told him: “You may lose your job. So be it. You are not safe driving.
“There would be a public outcry if your licence was not taken away from you.
“You were inches away from a death by dangerous driving.”
She added: “I sentence you for what happened, but I look at the risk that you pose.”
The sentence doesn’t seem to match the words used. The incident and the guy’s behaviour beggards belief. He should not be driving.
The worst thing is there are
The worst thing is there are plenty more where he came from.
Unfortunately the sentencing
Unfortunately the sentencing seems to be in accordance with the guidelines (Fail to stop/report road accident Cat 1 and Careless Driving Cat 2 ). The difference between Dangerous and careless driving would have made little or no difference to the outcome due to the level of injury despite his complete disregard for somebody else’s life.
“Apologetic Tippett told a probation officer he had not realised a child was on the bike, and he was worried about being late for work and losing his job.” is not mitigation; I would like to see higher sentences for knowingly leaving the scene of an accident.
djcritchley wrote:
However, the judge used the language “dangerous driving” which is puzzling as to why it was just a careless driving charge.
Personally, I think that if you drive into someone and knock them over that you should stop and check that they are alright. To then drive off, crushing their bike in the process, is surely falling FAR below the standard expected by a competent and careful driver (“far” is the difference between careless and dangerous).
Also, other criteria for dangerous driving:
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree with your sentiments and would be happier if they took his licence away for min 12 months with a retest.
The sentencing guidelines mean that he would more likely have his licence suspended for careless driving.
Presumably his monocular condition was know to the DVLA otherwise the sentencing would have been more severe.
My dad has just undergone an
My dad has just undergone an operation on one eye and his doctor says he is not allowed to drive while he is recovering even though his second eye is perfectly fine. One of the main questions to arise out of this whole case should surely be how is it that a man who only has one eye can legally drive for his job? Also, if you are afforded the crazy leniency to be able to drive with one eye (i take it it must be legal) then you would think it would be under the strict caveat that you should be banned for life if you have a f@ck up???? . The rules on vehicle drivers are absurd regarding public safety. Another classic, you have to self diagnose any ailments which may render you unsafe to drive…great system….100% failsafe……for an unfit driver to get on the road that is!!!
I’m gobsmacked that doing a
I’m gobsmacked that doing a hit and run doesn’t result in jail time.
I’m gobsmacked that doing a hit and run and repeatedly failing to show for a police interview doesn’t result in jail time.
I’m gobsmacked that doing a hit and run, repeatedly failing to show for a police interview and not turning up for your court hearing doesn’t result in jail time.
I’m gobsmacked that doing a hit and run, repeatedly failing to show for a police interview and not turning up for your court hearing doesn’t result in jail time.
I’m gobsmacked that you can do a hit and run, admit that you’re blind in one eye, and not be forced to do an extended retest after being banned.
I’m gobsmacked that doing a hit and run doesn’t even get you banned for a year.
But I guess that I’m not really gobsmacked, as it’s depressingly familiar. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this country? Is it the laws and sentencing guidelines that are a problem, or the implementation of them?
I’d love to take my son to nursery by bike, but I see far too many appalling drivers in town every single day. They’re jumping red lights, they’re cutting other drivers up when it’s not their right of way, and they’re on their mobiles. Every. Single. Day.
So instead, I drive less than two miles to keep my son safe, and keep cycling restricted to the offroad stuff.
Jail would gain nothing here.
Jail would gain nothing here. If the scrot was jailed, he’d lose job, house, family, and would end up being kept by my taxes and yours.
The ban means he’ll never be a professional driver again, but he can still get another job.
I agree that the driving ban should have been longer, with the requirement to pass an extended test.
someone wise once said that an eye for and eye makes the whole world blind.
clayfit wrote:
If it was just the initial collision, I’d likely agree that prison would be harsh and I’d probably consider the length of the ban to be sufficient.
If it was just the initial collision followed by leaving the scene, I might agree that prison would be harsh, though I would consider the length of the ban to be too lenient.
If it was the collision, leaving the scene [i]and[/i] refusing to return then I’d probably consider prison appropriate and the length of the ban to be far too lenient.
However, considering his subsequent failure to attend [b]six[/b] requests to be interviewed and the original court hearing, then I believe a prison sentence [i]and[/i] a lifetime ban to be wholly necessary.
This shouldn’t be seen as an eye for an eye. For that, the driver would be made to ride a bicycle with a loved one strapped to the back while someone collides with him with a multi-tonne vehicle before driving off.
There are a number of reasons why a prison sentence should be given and in this case, I would think it might serve as a deterrent to others who might consider driving when unfit to do so, fleeing the scene of an incident, failing to return to the scene of an incident, failing to attend multiple interviews and failing to attend a court hearing.
clayfit wrote:
Sending him to jail would send a message to all the other careless drivers out there, no? And not sending him to jail sends the message that the state doesn’t care about my wellbeing or that of any other cyclist.
So, I can’t really agree with you.
This sort of liberal anti-prison stuff is one thing if it’s about prison sentences in general (I’m actually happy we don’t have the ultra-harsh sentences that the US does, for example, what with that place increasingly resembling a prison system with a country appended to it), but when it’s in the context of certain offences getting extra-light treatment compared to others, it carries a different message.
I also don’t share your confidence that he’ll ‘never be a professional driver again’. How do you figure that, given all the cases of professional drivers who have long lists of driving offences to their names yet still find employment as drivers?
e.g.
https://lcc.org.uk/articles/lorry-driver-serial-killer-of-london-cyclist-and-pedestrian-pleads-guilty
http://road.cc/content/news/155627-freight-firm-bosses-banned-after-unlicensed-uninsured-driver-killed-cyclist
clayfit wrote:
This guy quicker than most though, and if he has no eyes he will not be able to drive*
* probably, unless he has a great lawyer…
Personally I’m not too
Personally I’m not too bothered whether this behaviour results in jail time but what it should mean is a very long, properly enforced ban. Whereby the ban is a bit like a suspended sentence – if you’re caught driving whilst banned then its say a mandatory 5 year sentence. So many incidents we hear about involve a disqualified driver, often in a vehicle with no MOT and insurance.
kil0ran wrote:
Which always makes me laugh when the anti cycling brigade bring out the “bikes should have licence plates and be registered” argument.
We seem to have got to the stage that people feel they have the right to drive how they want at the speed thet want and all obstacles that prevent this need to be removed or punished. Then if there are consequences to this behaviour they don’t want to face the music and drive off. We had another hit and run yesterday in Deal.
If I see a scaff truck I am
If I see a scaff truck I am very cautious. They are driven by thugs.
Lukas wrote:
I had a scaffold truck deliberately try to run me over in Ramsbottom. I know it was deliberate as the passenger was grinning like a dull twat, flicking the Vs at me.
If they had brains, they wouldn’t be scaffolders.