A man who attacked a cyclist, fracturing his shoulder and leg, has been ordered to pay £10,000 in compensation.
The road rage driver, Michael Gibbins, became angry when the cyclist moved into the centre of the road to cross a narrow bridge near Kibworth, Leicestershire.
Gibbins, a self-employed driver, drove his Mercedes ‘intimidatingly close’ to the cyclist, before pushing him off his bike, reports the Leicester Mercury. The judge ruled Gibbins should keep his driving licence in order to pay compensation to his victim.
Tony Stanford, Prosecuting, told Leicester Crown Court: “The defendant lowered the passenger window and shouted something, with animated waving of his hands.
“He pulled up ahead of the cyclist and opened his door as he was passing. A witness said it looked as though the driver was deliberately trying to knock the cyclist over as he passed.
“The defendant then accelerated away and stopped further down the road.
“He got out of his vehicle and ran at the cyclist and either shoulder-barged or pushed him, knocking him off his bike, causing him to fall heavily on the floor.”
The victim who was described as fit and healthy, with 40 years’ cycling under his belt, was in hospital for three weeks, off work for two months and walks with a limp after the incident left him with one shorter leg.
The Mercury reports the victim is no longer able to cycle long distances, and is still undergoing physiotherapy.
Gibbins was given a 16 month jail sentence, suspended for two years, with 210 hours of unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £10,000 to his victim within 12 months, and £250 court costs.
Judge Philip Head said: “This was road rage.
“He was an active man whose life you’ve impacted upon gravely.
“You were in a blind rage because of the affront you felt you’d suffered.
“He avoided your car door when it opened and you accelerated away, pulled up ahead of him, got out and raced over to push or shove him, propelling him off his bicycle.
“You stood over him saying he shouldn’t have been mouthing off – even if he did say something to you, it was you who started this and you were the one who resorted to violence.
“You have no previous convictions and I accept it was an isolated incident – but you have to keep a lid on your temper.
“The public is best served by you continuing to earn a living and being able to pay compensation to your victim.”
Mara Silva-Romefort, mitigating, said: “He left the scene only after he was told to leave by others who felt his presence was causing further distress and he didn’t try and evade the police – he fully expected to be contacted.
“He has, right from the start, said he wanted to admit his wrongdoing.
“It’s not a case of his having a lack of remorse, he’s trying to understand why he behaved in this way and he is remorseful.
“He’s a cyclist himself and that’s why he felt able to remonstrate with the cyclist.
“He also drives for a living.
“He doesn’t seek to excuse his behaviour.”
46 thoughts on “Road rage attacker fined £10,000 – but no driving ban”
You aint no cyclist, Bro, you
You aint no cyclist, Bro, you aint no cyclist
GBH and a custodial surely?
GBH and a custodial surely?
No driving ban for deliberatly knocking a bloke of his bike?
Judge and driver are both at fault here.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
I understand what you’re saying but if I had been the victim I think £10,000 (if it gts paid) would be worth more to me than the perpetrator spending 16 months in jail.
A shame it can’t be both though.
FrankH wrote:
The victim has been left with one leg shorter than the other and can’t ride long distances any more. If that was me, £10k is NOWHERE near enough. Never mind the psychological damage. And the perp is also a cyclist?! That’s a bullshit defence desperately trying to minimise the sentencing
FrankH wrote:
It’s the absence of a driving ban.
This dangerous idiot SHOULD NOT be allowed to drive. I don’t care if it’s his job, he should have thought about that before deliberately putting someone in hospital. There are surely other jobs he can do that don’t require a driving license…
10 grand for a physical
10 grand for a physical impairment for life? In Ireland recently a kid got 12 grand for a cut knee. The judge is delusional, that lunatic needs a jail sentence. He’s only 10,000 out of pocket and a bit of free labour, oh the hardship.
this is why people get angry
this is why people get angry …
this was attempted murder in my book using a car to deliver what could be a fatal blow and just 10K for that …
I don;t have the words to say this and who gives a stuff about the job, it was his bloody fault FFS.
this is a clear case where the person injured should ask the the CPS to appeal the sentence.
“The public is best served by
“The public is best served by you
continuing to earn a livingselling your car, house, pension and a kidney and being able to pay compensation to your victim.”There we go. That seems fair.
Maybe if it was 500 k, and
Maybe if it was 500 k, and then jail once he’s paid it. But this, this is just a sick joke by a judge with no interest in public protection or the victim.
my understanding of the law (
my understanding of the law ( based on being knocked off my bike by a motorist) is that the above relates to the criminal aspects of this matter. there will be an entirely seperate civil claim against the motorist regarding the injuries suffered by the victim. if the driver was insured, his insurance company will pay up. I guess he was insured as he drives for a living. this makes the judges logic that the public interest will be served by him keeping his license in order to pay criminal compensation ridiculous in my opinion. i can only hope the drivers insurance premiums for his chosen work are prohibitively expensive and this will keep this dangerous idiot off our roads.
philtregear wrote:
Or more likely the judge knows full well that motor insurance does not cover intentional assaults so awarded some compensation using crimal law (3rd party liability is just that – for damages to 3rd parties. An intended victim is a 2nd party.)
The cyclist can still sue him for civil damages and if they’re awarded then the cowson may well be selling his house and kidney. We can but hope!
who cares about his job ?
who cares about his job ?
People have to realise the consequences of their actions and yes the fine is heavy but chnces are he can afford that, so whats the punishment ?
So he gets a driving ban
So he gets a driving ban after he has paid up?!
No, I thought not 🙁
I always thought the reason
I always thought the reason why the risk of losing your driving licence was such a punishment/deterent was because you could lose your job, it seems that I am mistaken and having a job that you could lose if you lost your driving license it actually a defence against being properly punished for your crimes.
This seems to run counter to the old TV adds where they say you could lose your job for drink drink driving.
Really we know the reason why he’s not in prison and only facing a suspended sentence is because the country hasn’t got enough prison spaces and the overcrowding in prisons is causing problems.
Important detail not
Important detail not emphasized in the story: the judge’s name. From the Leicester Mercury piece he appears to trade under the name of “Judge Philip Head“. It might be worth keeping an eye out for other odd decisions from this person who feels that I would like to share the road with someone who assaults cyclists.
Personally I would rather have the vehicle currently misused by the convict sold, the money from that used to compensate the victim (not that it could) and the convict helped to find work that does not involve operating a motor vehicle (from which he should now be banned for life).
Even if you get awarded this
Even if you get awarded this money in a criminal case can you also then have a go at them in a civil case? If so I’d be after his house. Fuck him and his I’m a cyclist.
Bring back hanging.
Bring back hanging.
Ramuz wrote:
Nah, too easy.
Make him ride to work on a bike. Every day for the rest of his life.
Simon E wrote:
That’s not a punishment, that’s a blessing (even if it means ‘sharing’ the road with motorised dicks).
“The victim who was described
“The victim who was described as fit and healthy, with 40 years’ cycling under his belt, was in hospital for three weeks, off work for two months and walks with a limp after the incident left him with one shorter leg.”
“Gibbins was given a 16 month jail sentence, suspended for two years, with 210 hours of unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £10,000 to his victim within 12 months, and £250 court costs.”
So that’s all right then.
One guy gets put in hospital for three weeks, off work for two months, is physically damaged forever, and the guy that does it just has to pay some money? Doesn’t lose his licence? Doesn’t have his car crushed in front of him?
No F****ng way. Maybe the judiciary sees this as justice, but I beg to differ. Surgical removal of driving licence, with certain other useless apendages like the brain, and descending to south of the waistline.
Sorry if I’ve offended anyone, but I’m sick of people getting away with killing and injuring innocent people and avoiding reasonable punishment.
Judge Philip Head needs to
Judge Philip Head needs to stand down.
The public is clearly best
The public is clearly best served by putting this dangerous unstable individual behind bars.
Some people are too stupid
Some people are too stupid for help. Had he stayed in the car and simply run the cyclist over claiming sun in eyes or other mitigating circumstance then he may well have been clear and free. Small fine and his insurance would have picked up the compensation claim. By getting out of the car not only has he put himself at risk of taking on someone who may well have been able to defend themselves but his assault gets treated as such hence the relatively massive fine and suspended jail sentence.
Just making people pass the
Just making people pass the test again seems more reasonable than simply letting them carry on driving. i.e. no ban as such, just put them back to provisional and have to pass both theory and practical again.
You never know it might be lack of training and understanding rather than mentality.
atgni wrote:
That may be true of some collisions, but I’m not clear how you think “lack of training” explains a deliberate assault. Maybe “lack of understanding”, but not of the sort that a driving instructor could remedy.
oldstrath wrote:
That may be true of some collisions, but I’m not clear how you think “lack of training” explains a deliberate assault. Maybe “lack of understanding”, but not of the sort that a driving instructor could remedy.— atgni
seems like anger management would be a better option
oldstrath wrote:
That may be true of some collisions, but I’m not clear how you think “lack of training” explains a deliberate assault. Maybe “lack of understanding”, but not of the sort that a driving instructor could remedy.— atgni
It was a general rather than specific comment. Hence my use of ‘people’ rather than the criminal’s name.
Every court convicted motoring criminal should at least have to prove they know the rules and pass the theory test before simply resuming driving.
Wow. He keeps his licence
Wow. He keeps his licence ‘to ensure he has income to pay for his crime’ and the judge feels the very best singular way for this individual to earn a crust is to stay on the road?!
Are there not a myriad of other incomes available that would mean this prick is no longer driving around?
Just what do you have to do to get a ban these days?
ironmancole wrote:
Run over a judge.
Hopefully the fact he
Hopefully the fact he received Criminal Compensation does not stop the victim taking the driver through the civil courts for Personnal Injury
And as he was out of his car when he pushed the cyclist, I imagine his motor insurance will refuce to pay out. So the driver could be losing his car and home to cover the costs
Oh I do like a witch hunt by
Oh I do like a witch hunt by a lynch mob. Such justice. I do look forward to the day when cyclist who jump red lights are left hanging by the neck at the same lights as warnings to others…………….
Once you take the emotion out of this, the judge is right.
If I’ve read the piece correctly, the defendant was actually out of his car when he pushed the cyclist off. He admitted to GBH and was convicted of GBH, not a driving offence. Therefore the driving ban comments is are nullified to a point as this guy was on foot. I wasn’t away you could be banned from driving for a crime committed on foot. If so there’s a hell of a lot of people that should have driving bans.
If he was banned, he would loose his job probably become dependant (as could his wife and children) on state handouts for quite a while and not be able to pay any compensation.
This way he will be working for free for quite a while whilst the compensation is paid off. His wife and kids will also be affected but not disproportionately so. Hopefully Gibbons will learn the art of patience and understand that he is not the most important person in the world.
Now if he had driven his car into the cyclist, I would agree that a ban would be best. However as others point out, there is always the no lights, no hi-viz, low sun, ninja cyclist just jumped out of a bush in front of me excuses.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
Have another read then….
“Gibbins, a self-employed driver, drove his Mercedes ‘intimidatingly close’ to the cyclist, before pushing him off his bike.
He pulled up ahead of the cyclist and opened his door as he was passing. A witness said it looked as though the driver was deliberately trying to knock the cyclist over as he passed.”
Both these crimes committed whilst still in the vehicle.
hampsoc wrote:
neither of those actions resulted in injury to the cyclist. If they are going to start dishing out bans for driving intimidating close then the country’s congestion problems will be solved. Also I am yet to see a driving ban for a dooring, so a ban for ‘attempted dooring’ woukd be disproportionate. I have to say I agree entirely with Yorkshire whippet.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Have another read then….
“Gibbins, a self-employed driver, drove his Mercedes ‘intimidatingly close’ to the cyclist, before pushing him off his bike.
He pulled up ahead of the cyclist and opened his door as he was passing. A witness said it looked as though the driver was deliberately trying to knock the cyclist over as he passed.”
Both these crimes committed whilst still in the vehicle.
— hampsoc neither of those actions resulted in injury to the cyclist. If they are going to start dishing out bans for driving intimidating close then the country’s congestion problems will be solved. Also I am yet to see a driving ban for a dooring, so a ban for ‘attempted dooring’ woukd be disproportionate. I have to say I agree entirely with Yorkshire whippet.— Yorkshie Whippet
I suspect both of those could be dealt with under threatening behaviour.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Have another read then….
“Gibbins, a self-employed driver, drove his Mercedes ‘intimidatingly close’ to the cyclist, before pushing him off his bike.
He pulled up ahead of the cyclist and opened his door as he was passing. A witness said it looked as though the driver was deliberately trying to knock the cyclist over as he passed.”
Both these crimes committed whilst still in the vehicle.
— hampsoc neither of those actions resulted in injury to the cyclist. If they are going to start dishing out bans for driving intimidating close then the country’s congestion problems will be solved. Also I am yet to see a driving ban for a dooring, so a ban for ‘attempted dooring’ woukd be disproportionate. I have to say I agree entirely with Yorkshire whippet.— Yorkshie Whippet
Probably a ban would be disproportionate yes, but I’d expect points and a fine for these driving offences.
hampsoc wrote:
A ban might be unacceptable in the joke that is our current system of not dealing with poor driving, but actually would be very sensible, since Gibbons has shown very well his lack of fitness to drive. And yes, banning everyone who does so would remove a lot of drivers from the road. This would be bad because?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Have another read then….
“Gibbins, a self-employed driver, drove his Mercedes ‘intimidatingly close’ to the cyclist, before pushing him off his bike.
He pulled up ahead of the cyclist and opened his door as he was passing. A witness said it looked as though the driver was deliberately trying to knock the cyclist over as he passed.”
Both these crimes committed whilst still in the vehicle.
— hampsoc neither of those actions resulted in injury to the cyclist. If they are going to start dishing out bans for driving intimidating close then the country’s congestion problems will be solved. Also I am yet to see a driving ban for a dooring, so a ban for ‘attempted dooring’ woukd be disproportionate. I have to say I agree entirely with Yorkshire whippet.— Yorkshie Whippet
So, if I take a swing at your head with an axe and fail to connect and then try and stab you and miss then that’s all hunky-dory and I should be considered a sane person who should be allowed to acquire and use axes and knives in the future? That’s great.
Ush wrote:
also – you should practice more
This point may be too obvious
This point may be too obvious for anyone else to mention, but I will. What the victim did, by taking the lane, was plainly correct. On such a narrow road, there was no possible safe way for the criminal to get past in his vehicle, so why on earth would he get angry?
And yet, I’m sure we’ve all been in situations where a fellow citizen in a car fails to understand the situation, and gets agitated because they perceive that someone on a bike is slowing them down and taking ‘their’ road.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
it’s interesting that most of these comments seem to take an entirely rationalist approach in an age where romanticism – the prioritising of the emotionally charged self-obssessed individual – has been in the ascendancy for a good couple of centuries.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I’d wondered about that too, if the photo at the head is the location of the incident. Looks like a single lane, so nobody can pass anyone on it anyway: are there traffic lights at each end or something?
brooksby wrote:
Yes, traffic lights at either end with ASL for cyclists! It really is a very short section of road and no excuse for the driver’s behaviour. It’s Warwick Road in Kibworth.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I have a similar situation on my commute and even though there is no room to safely pass, I’m amazed how angry a minority of drivers get. The usual response in these cases is for them to carry out a ‘punishment pass’ when I move over after the restriction, only for me to catch them up at the T-junction 100 yards further on.
I think an educational video would help a lot, I’m sure any sane person would realise that they are in the wrong if it’s properly explained to them.
hampsoc wrote:
I had a situation where a cabbie pulled out on me, I said something unpleasant, and the whole situation escalated – we came to blows and the police were called and told us to both behave.
next day I saw the same guy and avoided him, instead going for a coffee, when I felt a tap on my shoulder – it was him, saying sorry and offering to pay for my coffee.
so yes, while you’re right – and even this this chap in the story above realised he was at fault and admitted he had no excuse – it’s hardly a strategy for prevention.
police who drive in high speed pursuits are trained to detect the triggers and implement a strategy for when the red mist starts to descend – but of course, if everyone was well behaved it would put a stop to a lucrative sourse of revenue for the various institutions involved.
hampsoc wrote:
I’m very doubtful that it would, but I’m not saying I’m 100% sure. Just in general I think ‘education’ tends to be over-rated as a solution for things. It takes more than just giving information for people to change their habits and attitudes.
In what context would drivers see this hypothetical video? I suppose it might be good if such situations were to be included in the driving test (at least it might help for the first month after someone gets a licence, before they completely forget it all in favour of the usual rules of ‘might is right’ and ‘it must be OK if I find I repeatedly get away with it’).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I think an educational video would help a lot, I’m sure any sane person would realise that they are in the wrong if it’s properly explained to them.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I’m very doubtful that it would, but I’m not saying I’m 100% sure. Just in general I think ‘education’ tends to be over-rated as a solution for things. It takes more than just giving information for people to change their habits and attitudes. In what context would drivers see this hypothetical video? I suppose it might be good if such situations were to be included in the driving test (at least it might help for the first month after someone gets a licence, before they completely forget it all in favour of the usual rules of ‘might is right’ and ‘it must be OK if I find I repeatedly get away with it’).— hampsoc
I was thinking as part of the driving test, combined with presumed liability legislation would be ideal. Some years ago I was in a taxi in Denmark, and the driver was ultra cautious around cyclists, he told me it was because of the trouble he would be in if he knocked one of them off.