Suspended sentence for motorist who doubled back to deliberately drive into cyclist

As far as the penal system goes, I'm not fixated on making perps suffer.  For me the main point of the system is neither punishment nor reform, but incapacitation.  A non-custodial punishment is fine as long as it stops someone from offending again.

  If, for whatever reason, you lack the self-control to obey the rules of society you have to have some of your freedoms removed so you stop causing harm to others.  One doesn't have to take glee in the idea of criminals suffering to acknowledge that.  In this case that would include never driving a car again.

The legal situation is so f'ed up that I found myself feeling a smigeon of sympathy for zombie-knife-guy, something I wouldn't normally feel.  I found myself wondering what exactly that motorist did to 'provoke' him.

  It's obvious had the situation been reversed, and if the driver had attacked him with a weapon (i.e. his car) causing damage to the bike, the legal outcome would have been completely different.   (And even on here there would have been a lot of muttering about what the victim did to provoke it and comments about how 'its no good being in the right if you are dead', while on the likes of the mail and LBC the comment would have been overwhelming that the victim probably deserved it).

This is unbelievable. If the excuses given by the defence for his behaviour behind the wheel of a car are genuine, and in the case of the sentencing they were deemed to be, then why is he ever allowed to get behind the wheel of a car again as the defence have clearly demonstrated that he is unfit to drive. There is no logic let alone justice in this sentencing. 

But a cyclist who hit a pedestrian who stepped off the pavement without looking because she was too engrossed with her phone gets jailed? Stop the world, I want to get off. 

https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/item/bike-bias-in-jury-selection-and-u... until this changes it is a tough battle to see justice.

Simply unbelievable, but it has got to the stage were it is expected. As mentioned before social media is so full of anti cycling sentiment that I don't think a cyclists has any chance of getting justice. I wonder if the London Bridge attackers would have been sent on there way if they had said they were only trying to teach some cyclist a lesson. We need to do something to stop this, but what?

And in somewhat similar circumstances, a driver who knocked down two pedestrians gets 9 years and 9 months.  Disqualified for five years and has to take extended retest.  Justice: if anyone sees it around anywhere could they return it to whoever is in charge of the legal system please?

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/jail-female-d...

He seems to have a thing for number plates with 666 in them. Best give any chavv'd up old banger matching that description a wide berth...

The Plymouth Live article says that he was "smart suited" but I've never seen anyone less smart in a suit.

I'm rather doubtful about his claims to have learning difficulties and other problems, as his fb page shows that he studied "Studied Electrical and Mechanical Engineering & information technology" and owned and ran several stores.  Lots of pix of him and his mates with fast cars, but nothing about this case.  Interesting pic of him on July 22, less than a month after he tried to kill the cyclist.

https://www.facebook.com/Mega.Paul

Sentencing guidelines are available - google UK sentencing guidelines dangerous driving - not that easy to follow and show how complex the role of Judges and Magistrates is...problem with this case is that the sentence fits the guidelines. ..only debatable point is that the driver had a prior conviction resulting in  a driving ban that the Judge seems to consider minor and mitigating when should be treated as aggravating 

The problem with this case is that the charge doesn't reflect the intent of the driver which was to harm and injure the cyclist  - charge should have been assault of some sort - using road offence law when drivers have malicious intent and are choosing (through anger) to use a vehicle as a weapon is wrong and the law needs changing to cover this if the prosecution service can't see how to pursue these cases to conviction

As to the outcome of this case possibly prison isn't the solution but the light sentencing sends the message that you can deliberately  use a vehicle to cause harm, have the victim get "lucky" and then suffer very limited consequences... business as usual

Of all the ridiculous court rulings I have seen regarding dangerous driving and injured cyclists, this is one of the most disturbing.

Surley the driver is suffering from one or a number of notifiable illnesses that the DVLA should be told about?

https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

His illnesses were bad enough to be used in mitigation for his actions.

Why on earth has he received a short term ban and not given up his licence? 

As Alan Partridge once said "you're a big spastic and a mentalist".

Wtf are these people doing on the roads.

A juror was quoted as saying, "He spent five grand on a toy? There's only one thing worse than a cyclist, and that's a rich cyclist."

I have been saying for a while that i truly believe it is almost legal to kill cyclists.This does nothing to make me suspend that belief. Take care.

Soooo, he got off because of a lack of a previous “serious” conviction. So, this time they give him a conviction that’s not serious. Hmm.

But he was “smartly dressed”, that must be how 007 gets away with it... if it were not for the fact I’ve never seen someone so out-of-place in a suit as Nodder (pics on the Plymouth news article).

It should have been treated as assault and maybe also as a hate crime. If another driver had "urged him to get over" onto the correct side of the road, he'd never have turned around to teach them a lesson. It was because the other guy was a cyclist that he felt the rage and sense of entitlement to attack a member of an outgroup. But regardless of specifics, a lifetime driving ban would have been more than appropriate.

If the cyclist has turn round and follow the driver and attacked him with his dlock I wonder what the charge would have been. Careless cycling ? 

How is this different to the Gravesend nightclub attack?

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/nightclub-attack-driver-jail...

It's pre-meditated and deliberate

"The intent to kill here is obvious. Why else deliberately drive at speed into a group of defenseless people offering no threat at all? In reality, the defendant could have had no other intention whatsoever."

I'm with the Croydon zombie knife guy on this one.

Michael Green, defending, said Nodder suffered from learning difficulties, anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder and had suffered a breakdown several years ago.

Typical BMW driver then.

Judge Townsend needs suspension off the bench, after spending some time as a cyclist.