Two drivers whom a police officer described as using a road “like a racetrack” when one of them crashed into a cyclist who was out on a ride with his family, leaving him with a broken neck, have been jailed for causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Thomas Lycett, aged 21 and from Totton, near Southampton, and Jacob Reginald Titt, aged 23 and from Ringwood, close to the New Forest, had been driving at speeds of up to 100mph on a 40mph road just prior to the crash, according to Hampshire Police.
Coming round a bend on the A36 Salisbury Road in Totton, Titt crashed into 45-year-old Thomas Watt, who was on a bike ride with his wife and two young daughters, with the cyclist thrown 43 metres by the force of the impact.
The crash, which happened at 2pm on Sunday 11 October 2020, left Mr Watt with what police described as “life-changing injuries,” including two fractured vertebrae in his neck, plus fractures to his right ankle, right ribs and right shoulder blade.
Appearing at Southampton Crown Court yesterday, both Titt and Lycett pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Titt was handed an 18 month prison sentence and banned from driving for three years and nine months, while Lycett was jailed for 14 months and disqualified from driving for three years and seven months.
After the pair were sentenced, Detective Constable Mark Furse, of Hampshire Police’s Roads Policing Unit, said: “Titt and Lycett were driving so fast they are lucky to have not killed someone. It was a matter of pure luck that neither of the children were struck by either car as well.
“Mr Watt will now have to live with the injuries they caused by their reckless and selfish actions.
“Speed limits are there for a reason and to exceed them by this much – more than double in some parts of the roads they were driving on – caused a huge risk to themselves and other innocent road users.
“This case highlights the dangers posed by inexperienced drivers who decide to use the roads like a racetrack and drive way beyond their capabilities. The rules of the road are there for a reason and apply to all drivers.
“Please think of other more vulnerable road users before making the decision to drive in such a dangerous and selfish manner,” he added.
42 thoughts on “Drivers who “used road like a race track” at speeds up to 100mph jailed after cyclist left with broken neck”
“Please think of other more
“Please think of other more vulnerable road users before making the decision to drive in such a dangerous and selfish manner”
Here’s an idea… Don’t just think about it before you do it. DON’T FUCKING DO IT AT ALL.
Have you been on the double
Have you been on the double espressos this afternoon, STFD?
Having looked at your more recent posts I think you need to calm down and take a deep breath… 😉
Honestly, I’m just so fed up
Honestly, I’m just so fed up of people thinking that driving unsafely is something that is ever acceptable and I’m sick and tired of people pandering to it and/or not calling it out for what it is.
.
.
That’s good.
.
Now, whatcha gonna do about it?
.
Call it out every time I see
Call it out every time I see it. Online and in person. Just yesterday I was nearly run over on a zebra crossing because someone was overtaking 2 cyclists approaching said zebra crossing, and because they were committed to the stupid overtake, felt that they had 2 options. 1) abandon the overtake and pull back into their lane (trouble being that the cyclists were, funny thing, still there) or 2) continue their overtake at the expense of running me over. Fortunately they went for seemingly hidden option number 3, moments before hitting me (which was of course, to come to a stop).
And I made sure to tell the driver (just in case they hadn’t already realised it) that what they did was very dangerous and endangered 3 lives for no reason at all.
I don’t disagree, I just
I don’t disagree, I just think your use of language is beginning to raise some eyebrows on here 😀
Good.
Good.
I admire your passion but I’m
I admire your passion but I’m not sure the way to make progress is to use bad language. Most of us are frustrated with poor driving around vulnerable road users and the lack of police action when it is reported. Some of us are trying to do something about it by uploading to NMOTD, which road.cc has very kindly provided as a repository for examples of poor and inconsistent police responses. Hopefully it will bear fruit when cycling organisations realise that the way to get people cycling is not infrastucture but dealing with the minority of dangerous drivers effectively. They will then have the evidence needed.
I am afraid it won’t happen in my lifetime but I don’t think we should give up just yet.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Yes, swear it better – on a niche forum too – probably won’t change the world. I can relate to getting pretty het up by the general lethal ignorance / DGAF attitude out on the roads though.
I’d like it if this were the case because that would make it much easier. (I do think mass cycling is a good thing even for existing cyclists. I’m not an elitist / I’m alright Jack type). The majority of people in the UK (e.g. not us here on road.cc) don’t cycle not because they’ve looked at the stats, or even been scared off by stories in the media. They don’t cycle because they have a car or otherwise use motor transport which we’ve prioritised. They don’t cycle because no-one else they know does and they’re not “cyclists”. They don’t cycle because it’s not social and if they did they’d have to ride single file unlike any other transport mode. They don’t cycle because it’s not enjoyable and they just don’t feel comfortable cycling around motor traffic. They don’t cycle because the whole environment is reinforcing that it isn’t convenient and there’s a lack of good parking and bike storage. They don’t use the existing infra because it’s crap and it doesn’t form a network.
So if the question is “how to get more people cycling” then the answer is both much better enforcement AND infra. The infra part is the only thing which has actually been shown to get more people cycling (see examples in Seville, Bern, Copenhagen, The Netherlands, Germany …). I guess removing the cars would do as a start. Remember the lockdown during the pandemic? There were some other factors there too however e.g. little to do and the increase was likely in “recreational” cycling. However I can’t see any likelihood of removing even 50% of all motor traffic – especially on the main streets and arteries which get people where they actually want to go. Certainly not without “alternatives” e.g. mass cycling!
I should add – another note
I should add – another note about “police it better” is that most people I’ve talked to seem to believe that if you hit someone with your car you will have the book thrown at you! So they already believe that policing / enforcement is much better than it currently is. And they still don’t cycle. They also have little idea of the actual “safety” of cycling – they just go on gut feeling.
Behaviour change is possible. In the short term people fight to keep things the same – so there is some competition between transport modes for users. Noting this you can see that like the example of Stevenage if you build good cycle infra but it’s great for driving, people will drive. So for the journeys which have potential to be cycled e.g. mostly short trips within urban settings these need to be more convenient than driving or getting a bus. Change needs both push and pull. The hard part (push) is this needs restrictions on motor traffic. The “positive” (pull) side has lots of options. As well as dedicated cycle paths it can be made possible / easier for cyclists to take shortcuts through existing infra (e.g. “filtered permeability”). There are ways for cyclists to avoid traffic lights or pass them more efficiently. More direct routes, basically.
As always, very much in
As always, very much in agreement.
Though I must mention that it’s not just gut feeling, a lot is mind, but many have purchased the bicycle with great intentions, but been terrified/bullied within a couple of journeys.
It’s the reason that there are so many almost new bikes gathering dust and growing cobwebs in sheds and garages across the land.
Yup. For most people lack of
Yup. For most people lack of access to a bike isn’t the issue. (I know it is for a few people).
My last flat was in a really poor neighbourhood. There was some car ownership but it was low. Most balconies had bikes sat on them. Not all were kids ones either. We were almost directly on a really good mini network of off-road paved paths: you could get direct to town, one of the stations, a couple of supermarkets. And far as I could see most bikes never moved from one year to the next.
Now that place was definitely a different world than the media’s “just about managing” (lower) middle classes. However some of the factors were the same. Convenience of storage and use was poor. The only safe storage was inside or carrying bikes through your small flat to the balcony. That’s after you’d got them up the stairs when the lift wasn’t working, which was quite often. The paths and pavements were sparkly with broken glass and daubed with dogshit which is a great combination for maintenance.
A bike would be a chunk of money there – if one was nicked or trashed that would be a big drama, you might not bother again.
Lots of young families there – not easy to take several kids around if you’ve only got a cheap mountain bike and you still have some roads to deal with. Lots of disabled people / people in poor health too. Our fast road speeds and cycling infra which sometimes requires climbing stairs is no help for that.
Absolutely. When you get
Absolutely. When you get close-passed, beeped at or even sideswiped for being too slow in the roads, and berated for cycling faster than walking pace (or just plain unable to cycle at more than walking pace due to pedestrian traffic, dog leads, etc) on cycle paths, what else is left?
Titt by name tit by nature…
Titt by name tit by nature….
Quote:
Wow. Imagine how hard they would have been charged/sentenced had they hit a horse…
“This case highlights the
“This case highlights the dangers posed by
inexperienceddrivers who decide to use the roadslike a racetrack and drive way beyond their capabilities. The rules of the road are there for a reason and apply to all drivers.“Please think of other
more vulnerableroad users before making the decision to drivein such a dangerous and selfish manner,” he addedFTFY
The last two sentences
The last two sentences certainly seem to indicate that you can treat the road as a race track as long as
a) you are driving within your capabilities
b) you have thought about other vulnerable road users first
I’m sure Detective Constable Mark Furse is a capable police officer, but I think he needs more training on what to say to the media…
Why are these two allowed to
Why are these two allowed to ever drive again? It is very rare to get a conviction for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving, indicating the extreme nature of the case (careless driving being the usual conviction). So I would advocate that such a conviction should carry a mandatory life ban from driving, in the same way that someone who caused death or serious injury with a gun because of delibrate dangerous behaviour, would never be allowed to hold a gun license again.
Do you believe not having a
Do you believe not having a driving licence, would prevent those two ever driving again ?
Awavey wrote:
No I don’t but I would also advocate that anyone caught driving whilst banned be locked away for a very long time as they clearly represent a danger to society.
Do you believe that speed limits stop people from speeding? They don’t but they still serve an important purpose.
Every episode of Police
Every episode of Police Motorway Interceptor Cops, there will be some person pulled over and charged for drink driving or drug driving or extreme speeding, usually while having no licence or insurance and/or while actively disqualified from driving. They practically never get jail – almost always get a fine and, er, a driving ban. Personally I think they should put together a special episode where they track how many times and how often the same person gets fined-and-banned…
It must be extremely
It must be extremely frustrating for the officers involved, often in dangerous pursuits.
Every episode of Police
Every episode of Police Motorway Interceptor Cops…
I have seen few of these for more than a few seconds, because I know how the real police operate when they’re not on a TV hagiography, but those were all ancient episodes. You can tell from the police number plates- they’re always in new cars. The hilarious bits are where the officers take a lack of MOT, insurance or VED to be an offence. That’s the trouble with this ‘reality’ junk TV- it’s nothing like real life.
Given the amount of tech we
Given the amount of tech we have why can cars not be automatically stopped from exceeding speed limits?
That would be an attack on
That would be an attack on basic human rights.
And also an anti growth policy.
An attack on basic human
An attack on basic human rights isn’t incompatible with making stacks of money and thereby
purchaseearn the gratitude of politicians though…I think the problem is the “who has to pay for ‘the spy in the car'”? When the spying is centralised it comes quietly from taxes. I imagine that includes GATSO. When it’s hidden under “free lunch” (e.g. all social media) it can be funded by the advertisers / spymasters. The problem here is presumably anyone introducing such a measure would want the manufacturers to fit it. They’d obviously pass the cost on to the buyers – who don’t want to pay for “interfering in my affairs”!
levestane wrote:
Did a quick search and this is from confused.com. It’s not perfect but it’s an encouraging start.
Speed limiters are mandatory in all new cars, and have been since 6 July 2022.
It is possible to switch off your speed limiter device. However you cannot permanently disable it – the next time you switch on the engine the speed limiter will be switched on again.
However, even when the speed limiter is on, there are some circumstances when you can override it. An example of this is if you’re overtaking on a road where there’s a decrease in speed limit.
After alerting you, the car should automatically start to slow down. By pushing down hard on the accelerator, you can override the system and complete the manoeuvre safely.
If you stay above the speed limit, the system should sound a warning and display a visual alert. The alerts remain on until the driver is within the speed limit.
This is encouraging. I guess
This is encouraging. I guess as self-driving technology become better developed, and maybe mandatory as well, then reckless behaviour will be more difficult.
It’s also part of that new EU
It’s also part of that new EU regulation (ratified by the UK) that all cars also are fitted with data logging and there are supposedly plans to share this information with insurers so they can penalise drivers for excessive speeds.
NOtotheEU wrote:
I’m shocked that the UK freedom fighters had restricted our rights to drive stupidly in such a flagrant manner. But then I found this:
“If you buy a new car today, there’s a strong chance it will have a system called Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), often referred to as a speed limiter. This is because legislation from the European Union dictates that all cars newly launched from 6 July 2022 must have Intelligent Speed Assistance.”
Cleary Misstrusst will repeal that as soon as possible, damn EU redtape putting our costs up.
Legin wrote:
At least passive ISA would just mean that freedom lovers (i.e. speeding drivers) have to ignore the ping/beep/voice warning them that they’re going too fast. It’s only active ISA that would limit speed.
At least the ‘freedom drivers
At least the ‘freedom drivers’ won’t have the (admittedly feeble) defence that they’d unwittingly crept over the limit n a moment of distraction. Not much progress, but something I suppose.
pockstone wrote:
Unless they claim that their music system was too loud for them to hear the ISA
You’ve met the people who
You’ve met the people who park at the side of me, then?
That poor child of theirs. Every time – thump, thump, thump.
“Timmy’s hearing test threw up a couple of things”
It unfortunately be defeated
It unfortunately can be defeated by pressing down on the noisy pedal.
Which is pretty much the way speed limits have always been overcome.
It would be nothing more than
It would be nothing more than an OTA software update on most modern cars.
killer driver walks free
killer driver walks free
every bloody week
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23030663.southampton-man-avoids-jail-killing-grandmother-bassett-green-road-crash/
“He is a hard-working man who
“He is a hard-working man who is a credit to his family. His character is exemplary.”
Somebody could close pass cyclists every day and the police would ignore all reports and there would be no record of the behaviour- so after he eventually kills one, ‘he came out of nowhere’, ‘I didn’t stand a chance’, ‘the sun was in my eyes so I had to put my foot down to get out of danger’ etc. etc., his shyster lawyer will make the statement above along with claiming the driver was ‘relatively inexperienced’. Another joke community penalty for killing with a car.
Once again I have to ask if
Once again I have to ask if the current licensing system we have in the UK is too lax. Should these people ever be allowed to drive again? For drivers who have committed such extreme offences, the live driving ban should be an option courts can use.
I hope the victim of these nutters can recover. I also hope he sues them so they’ll be paying him back for the rest of their lives.
Of course they shouldn’t.
Of course they shouldn’t.
You could solve the energy crisis by harnessing all the driver wailing, gnashing of teeth and general crying if you suggest a more stringent approach, or even just better enforcement of existing rules.
I doubt the current govt has any appetite, though, “the white van must get through” seems to be the attitude.
Someone I know has a lifetime
Someone I know has a lifetime driving ban and has never been behind a wheel.
If a medical condition can get someone a ban on the chance they might cause an accident then surely having the mind of a dangerous driver who does cause accidents should too.
This is pretty common round
This is pretty common round my way now. I call 999 when it happens, but the police have _never_ responded by sending a car. I’ve even got video footage of it, including vehicle registration numbers. Plod’s response was to send some PCSOs to the registered keepers’ houses for a chat. Unsurprisingly, nothing has changed.