A Somerset cyclist has released shocking video footage of the moment a motorist ploughed into the group he was riding with, leaving one of them – his wife – unconscious.
The driver, 81-year-old Michael Tarrant, received a two-year driving ban at Taunton Crown Court last week after pleading guilty to dangerous driving at Taunton Crown Court.
Prosecutors decided not to proceed with a separate charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving following his guilty plea to the less serious charge, reports Somerset Live.
Tarrant, from Wincanton, will have to take an extended retest to get his licence back once his ban expires.
He was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £20 victim surcharge.
The footage was shot in Mudford, near Yeovil, on 23 November 2017 by Martin Wills who was on a group ride with fellow members of Yeovil Cycling Club, reports Somerset Live.
Shot from both front- and rear-facing cameras, it shows Tarrant knocking several cyclists from their bikes as he passed them at speed.
Mr Wills said: “The first shows my wife Sandra being hit. The second video shows one of the group being knocked off and crashing into me.”
In an interview with Somerset Live shortly after the incident in November 2017, Mr Wills gave a fuller account of how it unfolded.
“The first I knew was a heavy blow to my right buttock,” he explained.
“This sent me off balance and I fell heavily with my bike landing on top of me.
“Propping myself up, I found I was looking north along the road we had come down.
“One of the riders was lying in the road a few feet away with her wrecked bike next to her.
“Another rider, who had miraculously escaped injury, was putting my wife, who was unconscious, into the recovery position,” he continued.
“Several cars had stopped and three of the occupants were first aiders, who immediately joined us attending the three prone ladies.
“As I was speaking to my wife she regained consciousness but had no recollection of what had happened or where she was.
“Two people were attending to another of the riders so I had a look at one of the other riders, who was in shock and shivering violently.
“Her bike lay behind her completely wrecked. A lady from a following car covered her with a coat and stayed monitoring her.
“I returned to my wife and within 15 minutes the ambulances and paramedics arrived.”
Four of the cyclists required hospital treatment and Mr Wills added: “Apart from being knocked unconscious, my wife sustained a broken finger, cracked ribs, a bump on the back of her head and various bruises. I had cuts and bruises.
> Four cyclists in hospital after driver hits group ride from behind
“The emergency services did a brilliant job. The paramedics, ambulance and first aiders were all brilliant. Yeovil Hospital also treated us quickly, efficiently and with compassion during this stressful incident.”
62 thoughts on “Video: Shocking footage of driver ploughing into group of Somerset cyclists”
At least the garmin auto
At least the garmin auto-paused and so maintained your average. Joking aside, glad everyone recovered and seriously, what exactly do you have to do to lose your privilege to drive in this country?
hampsoc wrote:
— hampsocMy wife drew a parallel with how Americans – generalisation – are about their gun rights. No matter the death toll, they are immovable.
vonhelmet wrote:
A very interesting and valid on some grounds, comparison. Both guns and driving seen as inviolable rights, not responsibilities, and any challenge seen as a restriction on freedoms. The freedom may be to kill and maim at will, but most people just don’t want to think about that. The question is, how do we change the perception that behaving dangerously is a right to be enjoyed by all citizens?
Clearly, the law relating to motoring and dangerous driving has to change, but more importantly is public perception. As any tobacco campaigner will tell you, it wasn’t the damage that smoking did that brought in the law, it was public opposition to smoking, brought about by many, many years of campaigning. The first thing we should be concentrating on is getting rid of the cycle haters from the media, since they can have a disproportionate effect on how the public view cycling.
burtthebike wrote:
Isn’t part of the problem also that successive governments have encouraged a situation where many people feel that they MUST have a personal car, even for something as simply as shopping. Look at how many specialist stores have been moved out of town, which is a direct consequence of tax perks granted by governments, and they’re often not exactly accessible without private motorised transport. By design.
brooksby wrote:
One of my pet hates is how you are not allowed to use the recycling centres (in Bristol at least) without a car:
hawkinspeter wrote:
Even though there’s no official ‘pedestrian access’ the St.Phillips or Avonmouth tips on foot, i’ve seen plenty of people going into St.Phillips without a car over the years. Long old walk for most though…
fukawitribe wrote:
I’ve seen people being turned away from there as well as they tried to get in pushing a bike with a basket of rubbish.
fukawitribe wrote:
Although I grumble about Bristol most of the time, as that’s where I work and spend most of my time, I actually live in what the Bristol Traffic blog refers to as the Elf Kingdom (North Somerset).
My nearest tip is Black Rock, off Valley Road in Portishead (here: https://goo.gl/maps/dVQTk2oitjF2 ). And that’s marked up as no pedestrian access because there are no footpaths anywhere near it (haven’t ever tried to cycle in there, as most of my recycling is huge bags of hedge cuttings, but to be frank that’s a scary road even when driving a car…).
hawkinspeter wrote:
One of my pet hates is how you are not allowed to use the recycling centres (in Bristol at least) without a car:
[/quote]
Indeed, it is a sign of just how car dependent our society has become when perfectly normal everyday activities can’t be undertaken if you don’t have a car.
I was knocked off in January, and an appointment was made for me to see a specialist doctor, which I can’t attend because I don’t have a car. The site isn’t accessible by public transport and it’s over an extremely busy motorway junction reached only by other very busy roads, so cycling isn’t feasible either.
When you have to drive twenty miles to buy a loaf of bread or a pint of milk, will it all have been worth it?
burtthebike wrote:
Which sort of brings us back to my point, which was about elderly people who probably really really shouldn’t be driving on the roads any more, but who have to (or feel they have to) because otherwise how the f- are they going to actually get to hospitals/shopping/friends/etc?
brooksby wrote:
Which sort of brings us back to my point, which was about elderly people who probably really really shouldn’t be driving on the roads any more, but who have to (or feel they have to) because otherwise how the f- are they going to actually get to hospitals/shopping/friends/etc?
[/quote]
One of the really great things that John Prescott did was to introduce bus passes for pensioners, so that the cost of public transport isn’t a barrier. Old people are no different to anyone else; they’ve been told for their entire life that you’re a success if you have a car and a failure if you use public transport, so prising them out of their cars isn’t easy.
If only they had introduced more of the measures in Prescott’s White Paper on transport, things would be radically different now.
burtthebike wrote:
Except he put all the cost of funding it on bus companies and local councils, who aren’t charities or given social care status goals or much funding for it and faced with incredibly offset loading patterns as efforts were made to not unduly impact fare paying passengers found themselves increasingly running completely unviable services,and faced with going out of business or cutting loss making services, do the math as they say. Even a token fare amount would be better than free bus passes.
But i do I think this so called ‘pre boomers/silent generation’ are the first to reach that situation where they’ve relied on cars to get them around nearly all their life but are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with that or what the loss of a car would mean,as very few would have had parents who had owned cars in their lifetime
teakay wrote:
This driver was inches away from killing several people through sheer negligence. At the age of 81 he really shouldn’t have the ‘freedom’ to do it again.
They often don’t need to drive. Plenty of people don’t drive (including my wife and several of her colleagues and friends) and there are lots more who don’t own a car. If you choose to live 10 miles from any shops then it’s your own bloody fault!
My father is 81 and I can see that he may have to stop driving soon. Taxis and buses exist, my mother is a capable driver, there’s even to-your-door services like Deliveroo… it’s not a life-ending situation. My mother does the grocery shopping online, they can walk the mile or so to the shops etc. TBH he would be a lot healthier without a car!
When our office building was the base for issuing the bus passes the majority of claimants turning up to claim their free pass were driving shiny new-ish cars (and this in one of the poorest parts of the town).
That’s horrific! One can only
That’s horrific! One can only hope the offending driver chooses to do the honourable thing and not apply for his license back when the ban runs out
.
Quote:
So little!
What? Is that a joke?
For which he was given a conditional discharge… So nothing!
4£ per cyclist. That is our value in Pounds these days. Not a tenner, not a fiver, just 4£. Somewhere around a meal deal, a pint or 30 minutes at the minimal wage.
C-Baron-Roger wrote:
I think victim’s surcharge goes into a separate pot -Revenue raised from the Victim Surcharge is used to fund victim services through the Victim and Witness General Fund.
Damages for injury and bikes would be an insurance matter, hopefully they will have a specialist who will take the old bloke to the cleaners on that front.
How on earth the CPS decided
How on earth the CPS decided to go for the lesser charge I do not know, someone need to take a long hard look at themselves.
It’ll only change when its someone then know and love that is killing or injured
mrchrispy wrote:
How did they also not do leaving the scene of the accident too ? The car disappears off round the corner,and nothing in the witness reports suggests the driver returned immediately,how can you claim you didn’t notice that happening.
I can’t understand how a
I can’t understand how a court can accept a plea of “guilty” for dangerous driving and “non-guilty” to causing injury by dangerous driving for the same accident leaving 4 people in hospital and 4 bikes in pieces.
Add inn the apparent failure to stop as there are no indications of braking. leaving the scene of an accident.
Ban should have been a lifetime one, even though he’ll clearly never pass the extended test at 83.
2 year ban – was that 6
2 year ban – was that 6 months for each one knocked off ?
Since he is 81 and I guess too old for jail, so why not a ban for life ?
This is exactly the kind of
This is exactly the kind of case the government’s review of cycling safety should be looking at. If such clearly dangerous driving, which caused injuries and could have caused fatalities, is treated so lightly, our justice system is clearly failing to protect the vulnerable, which I thought was its primary purpose. It needs to be much easier for blatantly dangerous driving to be charged and found guilty in court, instead of which it is extremely difficult with any number of loopholes for clever lawyers to use to exonerate the driver.
I’m sure the review will find for this type of change in the law and not just recommend hi-viz and helmets. Ho, ho, ho.
low winter sun m’lud
low winter sun m’lud
Seriously though, having driven an MX-5 if you haven’t got shades or a cap on it is very, very easy to be blinded by the sun – the visors aren’t fit for purpose, particularly if you’re an average height bloke.
Not excusing the driver at all but I remember the original report and expecting them to play that card based on the orientation of the road and time of day.
Fucking horrible to watch though, I’m amazed they got away (relatively) unscathed. The whip on her neck is truly horrific.
kil0ran wrote:
So remove them from the road, like Fixie’s with no brakes, wanton and furious driving.
I think the driver definitely saw them, this was a lazy, dgaf, close pass gone wrong!
kil0ran wrote:
Most people I suspect rarely clean the *rear* of their windscreen – that makes a huge difference.
I keep having a go at my OH but she never does it AFAIA (“I don’t drive in low sun”) so I wind up cleaning the sodding thing myself and having a f***ing good whinge at her.
How did they also not do
How did they also not do leaving the scene of the accident too ? The car disappears off round the corner,and nothing in the witness reports suggests the driver returned immediately,how can you claim you didn’t notice that happening.
Our local paper did report that:
The incident, which took place at around 1pm, resulted in a police chase and arrest, a source has said.
ooldbaker wrote:
That’s outrageous. Knowingly leaving the scene should always result in prison time.
Nowhere does it state why the
Nowhere does it state why the driver ploughed into them, and with his age, its usually bad eyesight or some other condition from old age that makes them unsuitable to retain their driving licence.
I’ve said on previous occasions that its a joke you have to renew your passport every 10 years but once you have a driving licence, you have it for life.
It should be compulsory re-testing every 10 years, reducing to every 5 once the driver reaches 60 or 65. Add onto that compulsory eye-testing.
I’m sorry but what the actual
I’m sorry but what the actual fucking fuck!!! Justice for the car driver as is the norm.
Short of commiserating with
Short of commiserating with the driver about his rotten luck in coming across the cyclists when he did, the judge really could not have done more to stick 2 fingers up at the victims of this shocking act of hit and run. Probably in the same Masonic lodge or golf club, or know each other from the incontinence clinic.
Also I hate this plea bargaining game. Plead guilty to dangerous driving when you have clearly and definitively caused serious injury by dangerous driving and get a reward by way of far lesser punishment for letting their Lordships and Justices out a bit earlier for their luncheon?
The message here is that you can drive into old age until you get into a situation where you really hurt someone, because there will be no effective punishment for making that choice when you really shouldn’t be in charge of a motor vehicle any more.
Hang on – the CPS thought
Hang on – the CPS thought they could make a charge of Dangerous Driving stick, but not a charge of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving. I can only imagine that’s because they didn’t think the riders’ injuries qualified as “serious” in law. In which case – I wonder how much damage a driver has to do before the more serious charge is considered. No charge for failing to stop either.
We all know why, but for some reason it’s always left unsaid – at 81 years old, the driver’s field of vision will be considerably narrowed, their reactions will be slow and their hearing will be compromised.
My mum used to work in a Post Office back in the days when road tax discs (OK, VED certificates) were a thing. It was very common for elderly folk to require help filling in the necessary form due to poor eyesight, then merrily hop in a car and drive off.
srchar wrote:
There was a prog on the radio a few years ago, about failing eyesight, and one optician said it was a common occurence for him to tell people that their eyesight was no longer good enough to drive and that they should inform the DSA. In every case, next year he’d tell them the same and watch them drive off, again.
burtthebike wrote:
So it’s not the opticians duty to report them? Ridiculous!
brooksby wrote:
So it’s not the opticians duty to report them? Ridiculous!
[/quote]
Patient confidentiality etc. The optician could probably be prosecuted if they did report them.
burtthebike wrote:
Which is, when you think about it, in this particular circumstance, ludicrous. The system depends on the person who’s going to lose their licence to do the decent thing and hand themselves in…
If anyone knows the victims
If anyone knows the victims in this case and they are interested in pursuing a private prosecution for causing serious injury by dangerous driving I’ll happily help fund it. Age is no excuse and Michael Tarrant should be made to account for his behaviour, including time in prison.
gcommie wrote:
Seconded.
Edit: I just heard on the radio that this video has gone viral. Am I foolish in expecting a wider discussion of the pathetic sentence?
hawkinspeter wrote:
You may well be disappointed. I’ve just seen this on fakebook and the twats lining up to parade their ignorance of the Highway Codes and attack the cyclists is truly depressing. Makes the Daily Mail look like The Guardian. One tosser has a close-up of the distance between a bike wheel and the hedge, suggesting that the bike should be further to the left. Stupid cunt seems unaware of the existence of handle bars…
Lets say he was too old an
Lets say he was too old an infirm for jail, surely there was an option of a big fine ?
All that will happen is the insurers will pay out, so the bloke does not have much of any penalty.
The soft sentencing on older
The soft sentencing on older drivers is disgrace. A few years back one in an automatic ‘got confused’ (as you do) and drove forwards instead of backwards…..through a local off-licence front. Luckily nobody was on the pavement at that point and she only killed some Jack Daniels.
She didn’t even get banned, with some crap from her solicitor that she’d suffer unduly if she had no licence. It was only luck some didn’t unduly suffer being pinned between a car and a shop.
It’s annoying that for example, they’re making kids jump through hoops to get a motorbike licence and you can’t get a decent bike until x,y and z but yet any daft bastard can have any car. I wish they’d do a performance driving test for faster cars.
Everyone should provide
Everyone should provide negative feedback to the CPS let them know what a bunch of tossers they are for not pursuing the charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/form/feedback
I hope one day to be the only witness to the death of a partner/family of an MP/prosecutor/policeman killed in a road traffic accident so I can turn around and say I’m not giving evidence ’cause it’s a complete waste of time, then watch them jump and down about the injustice.
gcommie wrote:
Probably did not clearly meet the requirement for “serious”, bearing in mind that this is a criminal trial and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is required, so the threshold to meet would be high.
Thankfully, there are civil remedies with a lower burden of proof.
———–
I checked the highway code and it says for dangerous driving “2 years’ imprisonment / Unlimited fine / Obligatory disqualification”
Where was the fine ?
We have far too many
We have far too many behaviorally challenged drivers on our roads
Here was an opportunity to remove one of the worst examples
Two years and he will be back driving?
Not stopping?
Not stopping?
Accidents can happen (altough this wasn’t an accident), but not fucking stopping. That is absolute scum of the earth. That’s a conscious decision made at the time and should have been added to the dangerous driving.
As for sun in ther eyes… Slow the fuck down, or watch the shadows.
If only those cyclists had:
If only those cyclists had:
Rode single file – they are
Wore helmets – they are
That just leaves number plates, cycling proficiency tests, and road tax. Wonder how much difference they would make.
pjm60 wrote:
Come up keep up. Everyone knows full well that a bell and pedal reflectors would have prevented all this.
This to me precisely
This to me precisely demonstrates why riding single file on this type of road was a mistake. They are pretty much all hugging the curb as good little indoctrinated cyclists should, (the widest and first to be hit is maybe 40cm out, the rest are less than a rulers length away) and yet it is this very thing aligned with a person who shouldn’t be in charge of a wheelbarrow as to why this occured.
Ride two/three abreast, the position clearly invited this coffin dodger – just like others with better eyesight/reactions to think they could squeeze through. Riding wide and/or two or more abreast negates this instantly, yes you might get honked at, yes you might get some choice words but driving into and through the back of you particularly in a large group is rare as rocking horse shit., it certainly is compared to the squeeze/close pass and then being struck/forced off the road.
Even if your eyesight/judgment is poor psychologically it’s very difficult and a different consideration altogether to do that, a totally different thing to misjudging distance or thinking you can just get past to simply mowing down people from behind.
This is yet another thing CUK and others can do to get the bullshit in the HC code changed and to get people on bikes to ride primary at the very least on these narrow roads (and bends) with government information adverts throughout the year to remind drivers of what other road users can and will do and why and if in a group ride two or three abreast forcing drivers to overtake in the opposite lane.
yet another example of CPS not fit for purpose and their clear discrimination against people on bikes, the amount of time and money spent on the Alliston case who was charged incorrectly with manslaughter and was stitched up like a kipper and killers like Helen Measures, that wankpuffin that killed the 4 poor sods in Rhyll and so many more just shows you how fucking unjust and slanted the system is!
Judge, I hope a member of your family gets mowed down and one of your pals lets off the criminal with as light a sentence as yours you cunt!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I agree with your latter sentiments but really find it a 50:50 with regards to this.
I ride quite wide so I have the choice to move left/right, don’t get pushed into the curb and make the majority of drivers have to make a concious decision. However, for some drivers it causes more of a conflict because they simply wont cross the white line. Thus sometimes riding primary, even on a clear road, I’ve had ridiculously close unneccessary passes. I’d be willing to suggest they’d have took the same line if i was further left.
That’s not to say it still isn’t the better option, however again there should be no question of where you ride, the onus should be on those in the killing machine!
alansmurphy wrote:
I totally agree that where we ride should not be criticised and I wasn’t criticising simply pointing out why I would never ride in that position and that I beleive it to be incorrect. That they like many others are indoctrinated to think they are required to ride in the gutter, continually deferring and by definition encouraging wank overtakes and bullying through.
It absolutely should not make a jot of difference as to our safety, however more than anything else, road position makes a huge huge difference with respect to close passes, being able to make a maneouvre more readily and IMHO being less delayed. Some people move off to the left and stop before turning right and then wobble out to cross sometimes three lanes – if you look at how some road designs are now going cyclists are been told they should do this which is frankly ridiculous. IF you are already riding primary it’s massively easier to make a right turn, if you’re in primary it makes avoiding crap in the gutter not an issue at all, there are so many upsides to riding in a strong position and absolutely none to ride in the gutter.
When you watch the footage, it’s hard to see how it looks anything other than deliberate. I’d be less bothered about people on the road if it actually was.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
It’s a deliberate action, but not deliberate attempt to collide with the riders IMHO, it’s simply a combination of a shit attitude to driving, safety of others and piss poor eyesight/ability to judge distance.
Either way it deserves prison time plus a lifetime ban.
Fuck
Fuck
Without the camera footage it
Without the camera footage it’s questionable if the Law would have cought up with him.
BTW I’d do time for that cunt.
A lifetime ban ought to be a
A lifetime ban ought to be a given, and an absolute minimum concequence.
Not as ‘punishment’ but merely as a recognition of the fact the guy isn’t able to drive to the required standards (assuming he ever was – probably age-related but could be that he should never have had a licence in the first place and has just been lucky till now).
The punishment for injuring people ought to be additional to that. I’m not sure what is appropriate for someone of his age, but surely there should be something if only for the callous failure to stop, that can’t in any sense have been accidental?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
At the age of 81 he may have got his license before testing was required
balmybaldwin wrote:
He’s not old enough, everyone had to take a competency test after 1934, my grandad had started driving his dads fruit and veg lorry/van at about 12/13 (1930ish) but by time WWII came about he’d already taken a test and was a specialised driver driving anything from munitions to fuel to pretty much anything with an engine and wheels.
I just made the mistake of
I just made the mistake of googling for Michael Tarrant, and there were quite a few hits, especially msm newspapers; many of the comments are horrific, with a lot of people saying that the cyclists deserved it. The government review of the safety of cycling really does have to address the issue of cycle hating drivers, there are a lot of them out there.
When you have law firms
When you have law firms advertising the fact they have a great result rate of getting motorists off these incidents you down have much hope any more.
Many don’t want to rob people of the freedom driving gives, but then on the other hand want to take away the greater freedom cycling gives.
There are so many things
There are so many things about this case that enrage me but what gets me most is how he didn’t receive a life ban from driving. He failed to stop at the scene of the accident but was charged with failing to stop. The only reason I can possibly think of that CPS didn’t prosecute was that he claimed that he wasn’t aware that he’d hit the cyclists and that CPS felt it would be difficult to prove. If that was the case then clearly he should not be allowed to be driving a car. For me it’s not a case of punishment, it’s simply a case of not allowing someone to drive who is clearly a danger to the public at large when behind a wheel.
Of course it could be that he has the right connections – I have witnessed this!
I’ve just watched the video
I’ve just watched the video again.
Conditional discharge, driving ban and extended retest, and a £20 victim surcharge? – what a f-ing joke
What on earth was Mr Tarrant looking at, that he failed to see the cyclists? Was he focused on the speed limit signs ahead, perhaps? (Probably not, as he didn’t brake when passing them).
He appeared to be travelling faster than the other cars in the video, too.
Seriously, if it was “accidental” then how on earth did he fail to see the cyclists? Did he forget he was driving a car? Did he panic when he suddenly realised that there were other cars on the road and he couldn’t safely move out and pass? Did he forget that “brakes” had been invented some time ago? (Edited:) Perhaps he thought that one of those fabled invisible sacks of potatoes had dropped from the sky and hit the side of his car?
If he pleaded guilty, then do we have any record of what he said in court? He must have provided some sort of mitigating explanation, or did he just play doddery for the judge?
In the 14,000 miles I’ve done
In the 14,000 miles I’ve done since I took up cycling again 5 years ago, I’ve only ever had near misses with two drivers and both were extremely elderly men who’s powers of observation and situational awareness were clearly somewhat lacking…
I reckon he would of run into
I reckon he would of run into them wherever they were positioned. Heck I reckon he would have run into the back of a tractor.
Motorists should have to take
Motorists should have to take an eye test every two years, and be issued with a certificate if they are safe to drive, or need glasses to drive. The certificate should be registered with the DVLA, and their insurance company.
Driving without a valid certificate should be treated as harshly as drink driving.
Did anyone else notice the front and rear cameras in the video were on different bikes?
You can see the rear camera from the front footage, and the front from the rear.