Suspended sentence for impatient driver who knew he'd caused cyclist's crash but said it was 'karma'

ktache wrote:

Legs, the troops on Bloody Sunday shot innocent British lads, not Irish.  

Of course.  My mistake......

atgni wrote:

I've requested a sentence review.
Feel free to do the same.
https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

Thanks for that, it was very simple to add another request.

janusz0 wrote:

atgni wrote:

I've requested a sentence review. Feel free to do the same. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

Thanks for that, it was very simple to add another request.

It says something about only certain crimes being eligible, like rape, murder etc. 

Ah, well.  Can't hurt.  Just e-mailed them.

ktache wrote:

It would be a shame if someone would document his potential illegal driving over the next 30 months, especially in the next 2 years, which the court may view rather badly.  Karma ?

Now to me, that truly is karma in action. Could this be something the cycling community took charge of... lets see if this chap is playing ball or not? 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

To understand this, cf what I wrote on 'Anti-cycling agenda' fifteen minutes or so ago.

In any other domain of British life, someone who caused this level of injury through recklessness, and who then showed so little remorse or concern for the victim, would be looking at an immediate custodial.  

But cars are different.  The state considers them essential for the creation of and maintenance of wealth and prosperity, and the people consider them as essential for 'freedom of movement'.  

It's cultural.

This will not change in my lifetime, no matter how many public campaigns, no matter how many petitions and no matter how many 'die ins' in front of City Hall.  

All agreed. 

However, one small part of the current culture which should be possible to change is the approach of the CPS.

The CPS decided to charge him with: "causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of a collision, failing to report a collision and driving a vehicle without an MOT". 

This is despite evidence of pre-meditation (honking horn, verbal abuse), that he deliberately steered towards the kerb, that he caused a GBH level of injuries and that his subsequent comments re Karma again reinforced the evidence that his actions were deliberate. 

Dangerous Driving replaced the old offence of Reckless driving. That is how I think most people see it - it's not about causing something deliberately. Yes, they may have been deliberately driving like a dick, they may have realised the chance of a crash or other incident was very high, but they didn't deliberately set out to actually crash or injure someone else.

Whilst you could argue (Devil's advocate/defence lawyer) that he only meant to scare not to actually injure, he was still (at best) reckless as to the possible consequences of his actions. On my very rusty understanding of criminal law, would usually be seen as sufficient as far as intent is concerned. I don't think it could be difficult to prove that he must have appreciated that his actions had the possibility of causing these sorts of injuries. 

So, why* was this not charged as an intentional attack i.e. GBH?

I would be genuinely interested in a comparison between sentencing for equivalent offences such as GBH, as opposed to sentences handed out for causing serious injuries by dangerous driving. For a start, I doubt a sentence for GBH would have been suspended.

*rhetorical question - it's because the CPS think dangerous driving will be easier to prove and/or have a cultural blind spot that anything done whilst driving must be viewed as a driving offence. 

TedBarnes wrote:

So, why* was this not charged as an intentional attack i.e. GBH?

For the same reason that the CPS routinely decides not to prosecute armed officers who kill suspects, even when the latter are unarmed.   And that is because no jury would convict.   

In death by dangerous driving cases, it's the 'there but for the grace of God go I' syndrome.  We all drive, and we all drive like self-entitled twats.  

And so, who among us is going to send someone to prison when all he did was maim a cyclist for life, for god's sake?

It's the 'them and us' effect.  Look at all the people protesting about a soldier being held accountable for shooting an unarmed Irish Catholic or two.  Fuck the Catholics, they shouldn't even be in Britain, m8!  And as for them brown skins out in Afghaniland, eh?   Free Marine A, awight!  Fuckin' liberty, innit?

Sorry, did you say something?

meursault wrote:

I would like to see a change in the law that includes a lifetime driving ban. There appears to be some cultural ideology that we have an inalienable right to drive a car. Why is that? Imagine how a potential lifetime ban would change drivers behaviour. I am a car driver and cyclist.

For me, this is probably the single biggest thing that could be done to change driver behaviour.  If there were no exceptions, things would change.

I've also said before that another option would be to take people licences not for any fixed term, but until such a time they can pass an advanced driving test. In theory, if there is a mis-carriage of justice, or someone needs to drive for whatever reason, they can get their licence back quickly and, assuming they are competent, easily. However, I am sure that many of our problem drivers are those that scraped through their test in the first place. 

Finally, why not utilise the driver tech used by insurers as a way of punishment / monitoring of convicted motorists. Your sentence is a lifetime driving ban suspended, on the basis of three years close driver monitoring... change your behaviour or lose it forever. 

burtthebike wrote:

Police: "The case also serves as a timely reminder to motorists to give cyclists as much room as they would when overtaking a car when passing them."

Judge:  "Sorry, what?  You heard the driver, it was karma."

Why is using  vehicle as a weapon considered to be less serious than a knife or a gun?

I'm sure the next election will be fought on the real issues, like when the government is going to carry out the thorough review of road law that it promised a generation ago*.

 

 

* May be an element of hyperbole, but not much.

Exactly.  The driver knew that he should give cyclists as much room as he would when overtaking a car, but has made it quite clear that he chose not to (so that he could act as an avenging angel of justice or something...).

Deleted:replied to the wrong thread. Sorry

Zebulebu wrote:

One look at this fuckwit's Facebook profile should tell you all you need to know. Gammon central. If you get curious and Google your name and this post comes up Ralph, you're a cunt.

Wow!  I did take a peek and he really is the epitome of gammon.  Full of pro-military, anti-islamic, jingoistic, xenophobic crap.   I do hope not being able to drive for a few years is extremely inconvenient for him and he has to ride a bike, and then meets his alter ego in a car.

burtthebike wrote:

Zebulebu wrote:

One look at this fuckwit's Facebook profile should tell you all you need to know. Gammon central. If you get curious and Google your name and this post comes up Ralph, you're a cunt.

Wow!  I did take a peek and he really is the epitome of gammon.  Full of pro-military, anti-islamic, jingoistic, xenophobic crap.   I do hope not being able to drive for a few years is extremely inconvenient for him and he has to ride a bike, and then meets his alter ego in a car.

I did suspect he might fit a certain stereotype, but didn't see any pictures of him.  Frankly, for me, that all gives it an element of 'hate crime'.  I suspect his hostile attitude that lead to the victim being badly injured, has a connection to his general culture and politics.

I doubt he'll ride a bike.  I think it's more likely he'll just drive while banned.  If he doesn't let not having an MOT stop him, why will he worry about a licence?

Zebulebu wrote:

One look at this fuckwit's Facebook profile should tell you all you need to know. Gammon central. If you get curious and Google your name and this post comes up Ralph, you're a cunt.

If it's the same profile I saw....

The irony of him posting a motorcycle safety awareness campaign featuring all the same dangers cyclists face.

PRSboy wrote:

Nice guy.  Karma would mean he would spend eternity upside down in a burning car in a ditch, with endless streams of cyclists riding past... 

Well hopefully the local newspaper will publish his address and someone can help assist with this albeit not eternal..

PRSboy wrote:

Nice guy.  Karma would mean he would spend eternity upside down in a burning car in a ditch, with endless streams of cyclists riding past... 

I for one would stop and piss on him, but only if I knew it wouldn't put the fire out.