- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Motorist who "inadvertently" hit cyclist while trying to hurl abuse at him avoids jail sentence
A Newcastle motorist who left a cyclist with a fractured knee after veering into him as she tried to hurl abuse has been spared a jail sentence. Aimee Baty was convicted of careless driving and pleaded guilty to failing to report an accident after fleeing the scene and was handed a community order and had 10 points added to her licence, triggering a ban.
Chronicle Live reports that on December 21 2017, Baty cut up cyclist Matthew Smith when changing lanes on City Road, forcing him towards the kerb.
Smith put his hand on Baty's VW Polo and asked what she thought she was doing.
"That made you cross,” said Judge Penny Moreland, “and you pulled your car across his lane in the junction just past the traffic lights and braked sharply, causing him to stop. You drove off and were still cross. You came alongside him and decided to shout abuse at him.”
At this point, Baty opened her window and leant across, intending to shout at Smith, and her car "inadvertently" hit him.
"The jury's verdict means they couldn't be sure you deliberately drove into him,” said the judge. “But you did drive too close to him as a consequence of opening the window and leaning across, intending to hurl abuse at him as you were still annoyed at what you believed was his bad behaviour.
"There was evidence he continued in a straight line and your car diverted into his lane. You saw him fall from the bike and move from the middle of the road to the side and I'm satisfied you suspected he had been injured when you knew he had come off his bike."
During the trial, Baty argued that Smith had been deliberately trying to cause an accident.
She alleged that Smith came in front of her car, forcing her to do an emergency stop. "I thought he was trying to cause an accident, just based on him coming out in front of my car and stopping for no reason."
The judge said: "In my view, having heard the evidence, the reason for the defendant's car leaving its straight line and turning into the path of the bike was she was preparing to shout abuse at him through the window and in the course of that she inadvertently allowed her car to move into the path of the bike, thereby causing the accident. That, I regard as a form of aggressive driving."
Baty already had three points on her licence, so the 10 imposed triggered a ban.
The judge rejected her argument that a ban would cause her multiple sclerosis-suffering friend exceptional hardship as she relied on Baty for lifts to the hospital and care in emergencies.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- ktache 11 min 30 sec ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 1 hour 7 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 1 hour 14 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 1 hour 18 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 2 hours 4 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 2 hours 13 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 3 hours 21 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 6 hours 1 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 6 hours 18 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 6 hours 44 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
31 comments
Such is the way of the modern world in that she's probably blaming the cyclist for the ban, rather than reflecting and modifying her behaviour.
Bans are not the best solution.
No they're not, but the police tend to take a dim view if you say aloud what the real solution is.
Education and less press bollocks?
Erm, yeah. That's it.
This cunt is a disgrace to the human race. Not buying the 'inadvertent' for a second. She meant to hit him and then speed off like a true coward. Her family and employers must be so proud.
Glad she's off the road. And do we believe she's the main transportation for her ill pal ? Hmmmn.
There might be some good come out of this if young Aimee, now unable to drive, was forced to cycle to work. Her current employer, which rhymes with Retards, offers Defensive Aid Systems... maybe they could design some for cyclists?
I think the numbers are correct just the cost increase is erroneously labelled as 'Old cost' - in the small print it says the original cost is £682.
Well I guess whatever she has to pay it'll certainly make her think again. Maybe like you say she simply won't be able to get insured again.
You're right. They are merely illiterate, but we already knew that.
They certainly don't know the common meaning of the word 'careless'. While you can see how the other examples might result from carelessness, drink driving and driving without insurance are not 'careless' acts, unless they mean I the sense of 'I know what I'm doing is wrong, and I don't care'.
because you assume people who cant get insured to drive, simply dont drive anymore ? thats why there is only supposed to be, at a rough estimate, a mere 1million uninsured drivers on the road, or 1 in every 38 cars you pass.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure how you could write legislation that deals with dangerous driving, if a jury is unwilling to say that driving up close to someone, purely to hurl abuse, knocking them down and then driving off, was not dangerous. I mean, FFS.
It is worse than this. There are many cases where driving in a manner that kills pedestrians and cyclists is not even considered careless, let alone dangerous.
The idea that standards of danerous/careless are set against average drivers is fine whilst average standards are high enough. The system breaks down entirely when driving generally gets worse. This is just the time you need the law to step in and enforce higher standards but it is, by definition, unable to do so.
I thought it was decided what charge to answer before getting to court, so it would've been the CPS who decided to go for Careless rather than Dangerous Driving?
I thought it was decided what charge to answer before getting to court, so it would've been the CPS who decided to go for Careless rather than Dangerous Driving?
Still dont get it. Suppose I had a disagreement with a woman about who should walk out of Tesco's first, got into a heated argument, and whilst walking alongside verbally abusing her 'accidentally' shoulder-barged her over, how would that not be an assault charge?
The fact that people do these things with a car is immaterial, much as it does not matter if you injure someone with a knife, .22, or a scaffolding pole. As well as the penalty for careless driving there should be a common assault charge.
Surely, if he was "trying to cause an accident", it would actually be a "deliberate"? Does this assume all cyclists want to bash into 1ton metal boxes, because why wouldn't we? Surely a jury of sane people should have been able to see through this in 5seconds flat, at the point she intimated he was trying to do her car in....
How is it possible to use "inadvertently colliding with while deliberately veering towards the cyclist" as some sort of mitigation. She deliberately veered at him and then collided, how is any of that inadvertant?!
Lack of jail time just reinforces that this behaviour on the roads is acceptable
It's about time that the judiciary considered removing licenses (temporarily?) from people for any display of aggression with a vehicle. I'd consider that it should be a power that the police can wield as well - if they see you doing something stupid/dangerous in a car, then BAM, revoke your driving license for a month (or if you'd prefer, go to court and potentially face a much bigger sentence).
Of course, not having traffic police that give a flying fuck or judges that will sentence appropriately makes a mockery of trying to improve road safety or have any kind of justice.
The way I seee it:
Instant licence removal because they've shown they aren't worthy, cannot retake test for 6 months or whatever, they have to start from scratch to earn their licence as if they had never passed a test... could also impose the extended test in some cases.
a license can be revoked, after all, to hold a driving license is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be taken away should the need arise.
This stuff is depressing, all those who argue that a cyclist's life is not the same value as another person must lap this stuff up. When or how can we as cyclists make this change? I'm fed up of being the butt of jokes from people at work, even my own wife talks about "bloody cyclists" and she doesn't have a driving licence!!!
Since when has it been vallid to say the other party was trying to cause an accident? It's a shame she didn't crash her crappy car and really do herself an injury, she might then have some idea what it is like to be a cyclist on our roads.
90 kg bike/person v 1500 kg car/person
Clearly a fair contest.
I mean seriously - WTF - judge finds that someone in a car was driving that car aggressively to hurl abuse at and intimidate and vulnerable user and that doesn't justify a stay at Her Majesty's leisure - that's absurd.
I mean lets just pause a moment to rephrase this and imagine the outcry:
"Gun own who inadvertently shot someone whilst using said gun to aggresively threaten and intimidate person escapes prison" - I mean admittedly not as catchy but can you imagine how the Daily Fail would respond!
Until we as a society recognise cars as what they are (i.e. useful and for some trips incredibly effective modes of transport but lethal) we will continue to see pathetic sentences and apologism for poor motoring.
What difference does it make whether she deliberated drove into him?
I do get fed up with this binary options: didn't do it on purpose; did it on purpose. It's like speaking to a 5 year old who kicks a ball in the lounge and breaks an ornament - 'I didn't mean to'.
Where's the "acted negligently" ?
She chose to : "You came alongside him and decided to shout abuse at him.”
At this point, Baty opened her window and leant across, intending to shout at Smith, and her car "inadvertently" hit him."
The result was the consequence of her deliberate actions.
Failing to stop and leaving the scene should be jail in it's own right.
Jesus fucking christ. I think I'm going to have to stop reading these. Every time I see another horrendously lenient sentence after someone has badly injured a cyclist whilst driving like a complete cunt, I feel the anger ratcheting up another notch.
Another case of what by any sensible analysis would clearly be dangerous driving, isn't dangerous driving according to our insane laws. Knocking someone off a bike accidentally while shouting abuse at them through the window and driving dangerously is, by definition, dangerous, but not in the eyes of the law.
Still, at least she's been banned, but for how long? And has to do community service
"Baty, of George Street, Wallsend, was sentenced to a community order with 100 hours unpaid work and must pay £2,500 compensation. Judge Moreland said that figure is not meant to represent the value of the harm done to Mr Smith and it may be he can claim compensation in the civil courts."
I don't think her insurance company will be entirely happy with her, and hopefully, she'll never be able to get insurance again. I wonder if the £2.5k will be taken off his personal injury claim? Which is another bugbear; the financial level of such payouts in the UK is very low.
There's definitely an argument for revising the relevant legislation, but the issue is that the jury did not agree that this was dangerous.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure how you could write legislation that deals with dangerous driving, if a jury is unwilling to say that driving up close to someone, purely to hurl abuse, knocking them down and then driving off, was not dangerous. I mean, FFS.
There are strict rules against asking juries to explain their decisions, even for academic research purposes*, so we can't even try and figure out what the hell was going through their minds. I suspect the judge is probably right - the jury decided it would only be dangerous if she was deliberately trying to knock him down. And that is the problem.
Having said all that, possibly restating the present law so that it is more clearly an objective test might be helpful. At the moment of course it is by reference to falling far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. We've all seen what many people consider competent driving and how oblivious many are as far as endangering other road users...
Perhaps simply restating the offences in terms of passing the driving test would be enough to get Juries to reconsider:
* unless the rules have changed, the only way in England and Wales to research jury thought processes is to have an entire mock trial in as much detail as a real trial, have the mock jury deliberate and then ask them about it. Stupidly time consuming and stupdly expensive. And juries are the cornerstone of our criminal system...
The bit when she moved into his lane and forced him to the kerb - I can see how legally speaking that can be considered careless driving, if she truly didn't see him. The bit where she goes into a rage and knocks him off, because hurling abuse is more important than driving safely - that has to be dangerous driving, legally speaking, as it is aggressive driving.
The judge said "That, I regard as a form of aggressive driving.", it is the jury who decided that it wasn't. I get the impression that if the judge had the power, she would have upgraded the jury's careless driving verdict to dangerous driving and in turn, causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Perhaps this is a way to effectively "ban" people from driving if the law won't acquiesce? Prohibitively high subsequent insurance.
I realise there won't be a universal number, but cost wise how does dangerous and careless driving convictions affect insurance premiums? How long until the endorsement is spent on your license?
A quick google finds this from the DM, sorry, which if nothing else, proves that the DM staff are innumerate:
DMIns.jpg
Pages