A motorist who drove into the back of a cyclist has been banned for driving for just 18 months and has also avoided a jail sentence after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
The Helensburgh Advertiser reports that the injuries sustained by Andrew Whittaker when he was struck from behind by James Campbell in March 2017 resulted in him receiving a six-figure insurance payout.
Campbell, a 28-year-old shepherd from Luss, Argyll & Bute, was driving his Toyota Hilux pickup truck when he hit Mr Whittaker on the A82 between Balloch and Dumbarton.
Last month, he pleaded guilty at Dumbarton Sheriff Court to causing severe injury and returned there last week for sentencing.
Sheriff Maxwell Hendry told him: “You’re 28 years old, no previous convictions, a good member of the community and, in a matter of seconds, everything changes.
“You fell massively below the level of a careful driver. You simply drove into him from the rear. In other situations I would have to be thinking whether custody was appropriate.”
He sentenced Campbell to perform 210 hours of unpaid work and he will also have to take an extended retest when his driving ban ends.
A witness heading in the opposite direction on the A82 told the court at last month’s trial that he had seen Mr Whittaker riding around 300 yards ahead of Campbell’s vehicle at around 6.50pm on 23 March 2017.
The witness said that they slowed down to enable Campbell to move out and safely overtake the cyclist, but instead he drove straight into the back of him.
Mr Whittaker suffered head and back injuries and had to be operated on at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow for surgery.
He was forced to take eight months off work as a result of his injuries and once he returned, could only undertake light duties.
Campbell had also been charged with assault to severe Injury, permanent disfigurement and danger of life, but that was dropped due to his guilty plea to the less serious charge.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
13 thoughts on “18-month ban for dangerous driver who drove into the back of cyclist”
……………………..
……………………..
Quote:
Does that mean changing channels on the radio, texting/social media-ing on the phone, watching sheep gambolling in the fields, or just seeing how far he could drive with his eyes closed? (I know we’ve had a case on here recently where someone said they’d not been looking at the road for four seconds…).
I’m surprised the court coverage doesn’t have more (any) detail on exactly how he ‘failed to keep a proper lookout’ at the things directly in front of him. He should probably have a chat with Gail Purcell about that…
“You fell massively below the
“You fell massively below the level of a careful driver. You simply drove into him from the rear. In other situations I would have to be thinking whether custody was appropriate.”
What, kinda like, if the guy hit had been on anything other than a cycle?
Oldfatgit wrote:
Sadly the only other ‘situation’ I can think of is if the cyclist had actually died. As opposed to suffering terrible life-changing injuries.
Yepp, fortunate that the
Yepp, fortunate that the driver only hit a cyclist or he could have been in serious trouble.
Exactly the same thing
Exactly the same thing happened in our neck of the woods a few years ago. Driver was sent on a re-education course. The cyclist has received no compensation at all, despite being unable to work. There should be minimum sentencing guidelines that all judges abide by.
Aw diddums – this sad apology
Aw diddums – this sad apology for a human being driving had “lost most of what he valued in life – his job, his dogs and his relationship.”
Not quite the same as the cyclist lost.
Awwwwww – but he plea-bargains. Sick.
FFS – he’s just a driver who f***ed up … “slightly and momentarily”.
An action far more dangerous
An action far more dangerous than that of Alliston and by pure luck the cyclist not killed and yet the disparity in sentencing and media attention is an absolute chasm apart as it always is.
disgusting leniency!
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
Every time one of these cases come up I think of that Aliston case and the attitude of the police and the media to it. Aliston is the very last person I’d want to turn into some sort of martyr-figure or representative of cyclists – he seemed to be a complete knob. But the contrast with how everyday knobhead motorists are treated never ceases to be glaring.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You mean the tests they carried out which proved you should be able to slow from 20mph to a dead stop in 0.105 nanoseconds and/or 3 centimetres or else you’re being utterly negligent…?
brooksby wrote:
One of the reasons that Alliston had a harsh sentence is that after initially slowing down a bit, he decided to aim for a gap behind the pedestrian and stopped attempting to reduce his speed (after all, he thought he had priority due to the green traffic light).
In a similar fashion, the cyclist/lawyer collision where the cyclist got landed with a stupendous bill after being found 50% at fault (the lawyer was looking at her phone whilst crossing the road which was why she was 50% at fault too), was a situation where the cyclist decided to use his horn to clear the pedestrians from the road and didn’t make an attempt to slow down and avoid a collision.
The take home message is that the most important thing to do is to take steps to avoid a collision or at least tell the court that you did everything you could to avoid hitting someone.
It was a fair test Brooksby,
It was a fair test Brooksby, a policeman on a motorbike in a car park heading towards some cones then applying the brakes is exactly the same as riding a road bike in the city and someone stepping in front of you…
Alliston also had an
Alliston also had an obsession with fixies and courier culture. Obviously to the public this is like being into some sort of perversion of a perversion.
SEND HIM DOWN!