A professional triathletebelieves missed the chance to make a breakthrough in the sport after a van driver rugby-tackled her while she was out training on her bike, causing a fracture to one of her vertebrae.
The motorist, Martyn Lee, told Caroline Livesey “I thought you were a bloke” after the incident in May this year, reports The Sun.
Lee, a 46-year-old plumber, pleaded guilty at York Crown Court to assault causing actual bodily harm.
Shawn Morales, prosecuting Lee, told the court: “The defendant had been driving along when the complainant, who was at the left side of the road, had moved over to the right to avoid hitting a dog.
“As she pulled across the road, the defendant had to then drive into the middle of both carriageways to narrowly miss Mrs Livesey.
“The complainant said the defendant then drove past her shouting something about ‘undertaking’ referring to a previous incident of driving down the inside lane.
“Further down the road he had stopped and, as the complainant went past, he rugby tackled her from the bike and she hit the back of her head on the road surface.”
He added: “After the incident, he told her, ‘to be honest, I thought you were a bloke’.”
Mrs Livesey, aged 38, had been aiming to qualify for the world championships and had been spending 48 hours a week training, having decided to work part-time in her job as an engineer.
Her injuries, which besides a broken sacrum as well as cuts and bruises meant she was unable to run of cycle for eight weeks.
“I have lost earnings – I lost out in prize money for qualification to these events and I am still in part-time employment,” she wrote in a victim impact statement read out in court.
“I’m not someone to dwell on things, I’m positive and pragmatic and I have put it behind me and carried on,” she added.
In mitigation for Lee, Ayisha Smart told the court: “He says that he merely pulled over further up the road to try and speak to the victim, but the build up of stress he was under at work let his anger get the better of him.
“This is the defendant’s first blemish on a record of 46 years.”
Recorder Nicholas Barker has ordered Lee to demonstrate he can pay compensation to Mrs Livesey, otherwise he may face jail when he is sentenced on 9 January next year.
She told him: “This was a one-off event, however, it is a very serious matter. In the complainant’s statement is the financial impact therefore unusually in the circumstances I am going to defer sentencing.”
43 thoughts on “Van driver pleads guilty to assault after rugby-tackling female triathlete on training ride”
So he beats up a cyclist and
So he beats up a cyclist and he says it is caused by stress.
Luckily the cyclist was female as I think he would have killled a male cyclist due to his “stress”.
Bluebug wrote:
Ah, the old “I lost control due to stress” defence. If the cyclist had been a 6′ 4″ bloke built like a brick shithouse, I don’t mind betting that this cunt would have had no problem keeping control, despite “stress”.
Perhaps he should have his
Perhaps he should have his licence revoked until he’s got his stress under control. I’m genuinely thinking about his wellbeing here, driving in itself can be a very stressful business. If his stress is as bad as his defence lawyer states and it manifests itself in this way, I’m sure his lawyer will support me in this call.
don simon wrote:
But then he won’t be able to work to pay his £150 costs and £50 victim compensation.
Bluebug wrote:
I suspect the plaintiff will have his house for compensation once the criminal case is done. With a guilty verdict the civil suit becomes a turn up and collect day which is what Ms Livesey is aiming for.
From the Telegraph’s report
From the Telegraph’s report:
“This has affected his ability to work as his partner is also off work and not in receipt of benefits.”I’m struggling to even begin to have any sympathy for him. This c**t is not sorry and reaping what he sowed.
Hopefully prison and a driving ban, and the fine people of Harrogate will continue to boycott and humiliate him.
Simon E wrote:
Sorry but that’s uncalled for. After all, a cunt has warmth and depth…
How come this guy isn’t
How come this guy isn’t immediately jailed? If anyone had attacked a random person because of some perceived slight, and caused serious injury affecting their earnings and medium term health, would they be given the option of paying compensation or going to prison.
While I can only agree that he should pay compensation, and if necessary bankrupted as a warning to others (see fat, ugly, stupid 4×4 drivers) it would appear that drivers are still being treated more leniently than the rest of the population, for no other reason than that they are drivers.
Moronic comments as expected
Moronic comments as expected on that Sun article. Not even the victim have been a former military personnel and being quite photogenic (usual sympathy triggers for the knuckle draggers) could prevent the cyclist hating comments and the nonsense about ‘undertaking’ (not contrary to Highway Code unless on the motorway in any case).
Of course, had the victim
Of course, had the victim been male, he would not have apologised for his assault & ABH.
As for 46 years unblemished driving career. If this is his first error, he must really be the best, most careful driver ever. Ever. #justbecauseyouhaventbeencaughtbeforedoesntmeanyouhaventbeenguiltyofcountlescrimes
Fraxtured spine, so why isn’t
Fraxtured spine, so why isn’t this cunt up for GBH, extended injury and motivated hatred against a minority group. CPS are a bunch of bottleless knobs, the fact he hasn’t plead guilty and aggravated factors should hopefully see this wanker get a stretch but he won’t.
The victim should have said she has being affected by this ever since and is worried if she’ll be violently attacked in the future, because those who don’t are less likely to get justice comensurate with the offence.
I hope she fucking nails this cunt into the ground for compo.
And as for this BS, is the prosecutor a moron? “the defendant had to then drive into the middle of both carriageways to narrowly miss Mrs Livesey”
no, if the defendant had being driving properly he’d have left plenty of space and being able to brake without impinging on the vulnerable road user, he might also have being able to see the hazard and simply ease off his speed but no he pressed on like an arrogant moton scum-bag and then attacked his victim for his wrongdoing.
Basically he didn’t have to drive into the middle of the road, it was his piss poor driving that led to that not the actions of Mrs livesey.
If I was walking down the
Yeah, a total WTF moment. “The defendant had to drive into the middle of both carriageways”… because he was an impatient dickhead with an inferiority complex… and luckily, narrowly missed Mrs Livesey.
If I was walking down the high street and decided to randomly rugby tackle a woman to the ground, the same arseholes making anti-cyclist comments on the Sun article would be calling for me to be strung up for attacking a woman. These same arseholes probably think Wiggins is ace because he plasters himself in the Union flag and has a camper van with RAF roundels on the headrests.
It’s actually getting genuinely quite worrisome, the level of hatred for someone just because they’ve swung their leg over a bike.
srchar wrote:
Worry no more! I’m sure the government’s investigation into road safety, and specifically the safety of cyclists, will be examining whether attacking a cyclist just because they are a cyclist, should be a hate crime. Of course they will. Almost certainly. Definitely.
burtthebike wrote:
Worry no more! I’m sure the government’s investigation into road safety, and specifically the safety of cyclists, will be examining whether attacking a cyclist just because they are a cyclist, should be a hate crime………
[/quote]
It’ll all get watered down to the nothing that has happened in the 3years since the parliamentary enquiry….of cause i might be wrong and a government minister is already penning a letter to the Association of Plumbing and Heating Engineers with handy tips on how their members can work out the gender of a cyclist before assaulting them
Both of these people are
Both of these people are victims of the Sun, Mail etc .
UK brain poison, turning normal folk into zombies.
Mitigation reaches new lows.
Mitigation reaches new lows.
Thanks Halfwheeler. I too
Thanks HalfWheeler. I too don’t understand why one of the nicer things in the world gets used as a hate word. Is it like calling good things sick? Think of him a a diseased lamprey, a guinea worm or a Gonococcus.
“This is the defendant’s
“This is the defendant’s first blemish on a record of 46 years.”
Can you claim an unblemished 46-year record if you are only 46 years old? At least we know he didn’t randomly attack a stranger as a toddler…
My great publicity for
My great publicity for Harrogate in run up to the Worlds
I’m shocked that he thought
I’m shocked that he thought saying ‘I thought you were a bloke’ would somehow justify it. Some people really have such a shitty attitude towards other humans.
I am just gobsmacked.
I am just gobsmacked.
If the cyclist hadn’t avoided the dog, no doubt the same twat would have lamped her for being cruel to animals.
Still, let’s be grateful that it is now ok to hit cyclists only if you think they are male.
Surely that deserves a jail
Surely that deserves a jail sentence… Pretty disgraceful.
I made the mistake of going on The Sun website. Hard to believe those comments come from the same species who are able to send rockets into space then land them in reverse on a barge in the ocean.
wellsprop wrote:
Yeah the quotes on The Sun website are utterly beyond belief. Some pretty experienced oxygen theives may read the Sun.
Apparently all cyclists need to wear helmet and gloves for their own protection….. I would be willing to place money on she was wearing helmet and possibly wearing gloves as anyone who ever races in a triathlon is requried to wear a helmet, and most people train as if they were racing.
I doubt a helmet and gloves would have prevented a fractured vertebra….. but then again it might have been a magical unicorn horn helmet which makes the rider invulnerable……
what an absolute prick
what an absolute prick
“Shawn Morales, prosecuting
“Shawn Morales, prosecuting Lee, told the court: “The defendant had been driving along when the complainant, who was at the left side of the road, had moved over to the right to avoid hitting a dog.
“As she pulled across the road, the defendant had to then drive into the middle of both carriageways to narrowly miss Mrs Livesey.”
No he didn’t. He could have slowed down or stopped.
This isn’t a pedantic point but (I think) the crux of the problem with drivers, the feeling that they must under all circumstances keep going and drive around any potential problem
No you should be travelling far enough back and at a speed that allows you to stop if the vehicle in front stops dead, or someone or in this case a dog runs out.
and yes it does apply to cyclists, but in this case she was only avoiding a dog, the driver was avoiding a dog AND overtaking at the same time
“This is the defendant’s
“This is the defendant’s first blemish on a record of 46 years.”
As per the previous comment – was he able to inflict ABH straight from the womb (and keep your smut to yourselves), was he driving his transit at that point.
As for the judge – “She told him: “This was a one-off event”” – seems like she’s already starting to side with him. More like, this is the first time you’ve appeared before a court charged with assault and I’m surprised the judge being a female and the rider also hasn’t played a slight part (sorry but these things do have an influence).
Also, why is this not attempted murder given the potential to kill someone by such actions. Isn’t premeditaed where the line is normally drawn. Well, checking mirrors, pulling in safely, exiting your vehicle and rugby tackling someone is pretty premeditated…
I did make the mistake of
I did make the mistake of looking at the Sun comments, and to be honest, there are a lot of people on there that I would have no hesitation in banning from driving.
But, somewhat incredibly, the comments on the DM site are almost the exact opposite, with massive support for the cyclist and condemnation of the driver http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4962776/Road-rage-motorist-smashed-female-triathlete-s-pelvis.html#comments
Have I finally gone through that wormhole and emerged in a parallel universe?
burtthebike wrote:
damn you, you made me read the Daily Mail!
I’m developing a theory that the gene which codes for blimpish fascism and cyclist hatred also codes for amusing mis-spellings:
“I don’t particularly like cyclists but this is beyond the pail”
“I’m not a lover of the Lycra lot but I always give them a wide birth “. That’d be the helmet, I suppose.
Nah, the Daily Mail readers
Nah, the Daily Mail readers are probably confused as you shouldn’t hit a woman unless you have married or procreated with her.
The prosecuter seems to have joined the ranks though on second viewing:
Shawn Morales, prosecuting Lee, told the court:
“Further down the road he had stopped and, as the complainant went past, he rugby tackled her from the bike and she hit the back of her head on the road surface.”
I’m interested in this rugby tackle. Usually in rugby you would tackle low to stop someone moving at speed – if a rider was side on or head on to you then the handlebars, wheel, drivetrain etc. would cause potential damage to you. A higher up the body tackle would normally require more force and is quite a violent collision using the chest and shoulders, the force here should really have been iterated by someone prosecuting. Alternatively it was a clothes line, outlawed from rugby or a simple cheap shot push which has nothing to do with rugby.
If you want to go further, Rugby players are now charged with returning the opponent to the ground safely (especially when someones legas go beyond 90 degrees), given she hit her head, he was stressed et al. I doubt any consideration was given. Again the Rugby analogy goes out of the window. And finally, on the whole, most Rugby tackles are expected and the body responds accordingly, and is trained accordingly both pyhsically and mentally. Have you ever seen anyone rugby tackled when not expecting it – horrible!
I think he’s gone for a comparison he thinks will add impact but in the modern day actually reduces it…
You can get an idea of the
You can get an idea of the road (Low Wath Road, between Pateley Bridge and Lofthouse) from this route guide.
Since the reports mention two carriageways, I guess the incident happened near Pateley Bridge not up at Lofthouse. Generally, the road isn’t quite single track, but it’s a fairly narrow country road, with bends. Drivers can overtake, but not everywhere.
It is a good road for cycling, but not traffic-free, and inevitably some people drive too fast.
The Telegraph article someone linked to is interesting, but a bit garbled, suggesting two incidents (undertaking, and dog avoiding), but not quite explaining the order.
Quote:
I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.
Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.
kitsunegari wrote:
Hey, how else can they afford to pay for their kids’ private education?
And you won’t be going on 3 foreign holidays or pay for your exclusive apartment/5-bed house by working the tills at Boots, dontchaknow.
Everyone’s soul can be bought, it’s just that some are keener to sell than others.
kitsunegari wrote:
I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.
Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.
Defence lawyers represent any and all kinds of people, some innocent, some guilty, but each of them is entitled to a reasonable defence, and if they didn’t get it, that would be a miscarriage of justice. Don’t criticise somebody else doing their job to the best of their ability because you don’t like the person they are doing their best to defend. How would you like it if you were up in court and couldn’t get anyone to defend you because they all thought you were a nasty person? This is an absolute basic human right, and no matter how bad you think the defendant, they have the right to be defended.
burtthebike wrote:
— burtthebikeAgreed. The right to a fair trial is essential for the law to work.
However, it is another thing entirely to use misleading language in an attempt to airbrush the character of a guilty defendant for no better reason than to reduce his sentence.
I believe the latter is what kitsunegari is alluding to.
Simon E wrote:
They weren’t in court and neither were you and it ill behooves you and them to criticise something you know only from third and fourth hand reporting, which may or may not be accurate and is at the very least, only the reporters impression of what happened. What she said was said in mitigation, and presented the best possible view of the driver, THAT’S WHAT SHE’S PAID TO DO, and it seems she did a good job, but you don’t like it.
Is it ok if I criticise you for your lack of empathy and your willingness to condemn someone for doing the job they are paid for, based on nothing else than your posts on here? At least they are your posts, not the opinion of someone else who had read your posts and summed what they thought you said.
Yes, the defendant is a despicable human being, but they are still entitled to a defence, otherwise it’s mob rule, but perhaps you’d prefer that.
burtthebike wrote:
Yes, the defendant is a despicable human being, but they are still entitled to a defence, otherwise it’s mob rule, but perhaps you’d prefer that.
— burtthebikeGo ahead. It’s open season on rugby-tackling people you disagree with out on the roads so why not give both barrels on here too? Though I don’t think I condemned them and, since you don’t know me, you won’t know anything about my degree of empathy for someone in that position.
Perhaps you’d like to defend the Spanish police for violently attacking apparently peaceful voters in Catalonia too. After all, they were only doing the job they are paid for. Personally I am disturbed by it and feel no ’empathy’ for the police. If, as individuals, they don’t like beating people up for a job perhaps they should make a career change and sacrifice their job security, excellent pay and pension provisions* (not forgetting the useful connections made through the force, freemasonry and other methods).
* I am making the assumption that Spanish police are treated in a similarly privileged manner as the ones in the UK and most other countries.
Simon E wrote:
That’s her job.
Whatever side the lawyer represents they use weasley words to state their case.
In this case the weasley words are so hopefully the judge doesn’t give the harshest sentence possible, though the defendant can help with that by appearing sorry and if they pleaded guilty by apologising. Judges however aren’t thick ( though some are clearly out of touch ) as they use to do the same job.
kitsunegari wrote:
I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.
Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.
I’m imagining a smart lady in a suit sneering those words and peppering them with air quotes while rolling her eyes.
Either that or she goes home and cries herself to sleep.
davel wrote:
why not both? – there’s no reason for her to limit herself
beezus fufoon wrote:
Fair point, well made.
‘may face jail.’ May?!
‘may face jail.’ May?!
This is nothing more than GBH
This is nothing more than GBH.
Where and why are irrelevant, surely.
Let’s hope the Judge sees it that way and issues a custodial.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
Nothing less, I think you mean. But yes, a custodial sentence should be a certainty.