Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Motorhome driver hit cyclist with wing mirror after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told

George Racz had previously beeped horn at riders before "flying past"...

A motorhome driver involved in an exchange of words with a cyclist at traffic lights shortly after overtaking a group of riders at speed subsequently hit him with his wing mirror, a court has heard.

Appearing at South Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court, 66-year-old George Racz from Glossop pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention, reports Derbyshire Live.

The incident happened on Chatsworth Road, Chesterfield, at 9.30am on Saturday 4 August 2018, said Lynn Bickley, prosecuting.

"The defendant was driving a motorhome vehicle and the victim was on a push-bike,” she said.

"There were seven cyclists in total. There were four cyclists in front of the victim and two behind."

She said that according to the victim, Racz had been "honking his horn" before "flying past" him.

"They came to some lights and the motor home came to a stop at the lights.

"The cyclist accepts he swore at the defendant, saying 'what a f*ck*ng waste of time that was'.

"The defendant was shouting and swearing back at him."

Subsequently, Racz hit the back of the victim’s head with the wing mirror of his motorhome.

The cyclist, who had been wearing a helmet, was left feeling “dizzy,” and was checked over at hospital and given the all-clear.

Speaking in mitigation on behalf of Racz, Thomas Wild said: "The defendant is a cyclist himself. He sounded his horn on his approach to let them know of his presence."

Racz, who already had six points on his driving licence, was fined £500 by District Judge Jonathan Taaffe and ordered to pay £200 costs and a £50 victim surcharge. He was also given five more penalty points.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

47 comments

Avatar
srchar | 4 years ago
2 likes

The only times I ever use my car horn are when negotiating a tight, narrow bend; when the car in front's reversing lights come on; and when the driver in front of me is finishing off a text rather than responding to a green traffic signal. Even then, I'll give a couple of pips rather than leaning on the thing, as most mouth-breathing road users are wont to do.

Can't think of a single scenario where it would be useful to communicate with a cyclist.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 4 years ago
1 like

Car horns are so lacking in nuance and variation, though.

 

  I once lived in a rented flat where the doorbell was this incredibly angry aggressive loud electrical buzsing noise.  It made me increasingly disinclined to answer the door, as I started to form an unconcious view of every caller as angry and threatening, before even seeing who they were.

Avatar
srchar replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
2 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I once lived in a rented flat where the doorbell was this incredibly angry aggressive loud electrical buzsing noise.  It made me increasingly disinclined to answer the door, as I started to form an unconcious view of every caller as angry and threatening, before even seeing who they were.

I'M FROM THE FLAT UPSTAIRS, TURN YOUR F*CKING DOORBELL DOWN!

I actually live in a rented flat at the moment where downstairs' doorbell is louder in our flat than our own doorbell.  I'm not sure why they have a different doorbell, as they use the same entryphone system as us.  I haven't found myself driven to shout the above at them though.  Yet.

Avatar
zero_trooper | 4 years ago
0 likes

As a sometime professional driver (my words, not yours), I have often tooted cyclists to make them aware of my presence behind them on country lanes. Give them a wave as I (safely) overtake and if they reciprocate, a quick (and admittedly illegal) flash of the hazards as they disappear in my rear view mirror.

I’ve never been aware of cyclists taking offence to my use of the horn.  However, as a cyclist I have often taken offence to poor overtaking.

Avatar
EK Spinner | 4 years ago
1 like

nicely put Mungecrundle.

There definetly seems to be a difficulty in some cases of interpreting what the signal is from a horn (it is a single tone after all) and we all know that long blast as someone is passing isn't meant as a plesantry. But making another road user aware of your presence especially when they may not be otherwise aware is an important communication tool and your comparison with peds and horse riders is perfect.

 

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to EK Spinner | 4 years ago
5 likes

EK Spinner wrote:

nicely put Mungecrundle.

... your comparison with peds and horse riders is perfect.

 

No it's not. You don't beep your horn at peds and horse riders, do you?!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to ChrisB200SX | 4 years ago
2 likes

ChrisB200SX wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

nicely put Mungecrundle.

... your comparison with peds and horse riders is perfect.

 

No it's not. You don't beep your horn at peds and horse riders, do you?!

I agree. I'd much rather that cars reduced their noise when it's not necessary.

Avatar
EK Spinner replied to ChrisB200SX | 4 years ago
0 likes

ChrisB200SX wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

nicely put Mungecrundle.

... your comparison with peds and horse riders is perfect.

 

No it's not. You don't beep your horn at peds and horse riders, do you?!

 

On the bike I tend to call out to make them aware I am coming up from behind, unless I can tell they are aware of my presence.

I wouldn't give a long blast on the horn right behind someone obviously (just like I have said all along) but a couple of very short touches of the horn (Bip Bip as someone said earlier from furhter back) can communicate this. I would be much more wary of doing the likes of that with horses since they are obviously more skittish and less predictable. Though I can't honestly ever remember needing to do that for a pedestrian when driving as they don't have the same wind/hearing issue as we get cycling and I would be driving past them at not much more than walking pace if I was vaguely close to them anyway so they would have plenty time to see/hear me

Avatar
brooksby replied to EK Spinner | 4 years ago
3 likes

EK Spinner wrote:

On the bike I tend to call out to make them aware I am coming up from behind, unless I can tell they are aware of my presence.

Which is a completely different thing from honking a car horn.

Quote:

I wouldn't give a long blast on the horn right behind someone obviously (just like I have said all along) but a couple of very short touches of the horn (Bip Bip as someone said earlier from furhter back) can communicate this. I would be much more wary of doing the likes of that with horses since they are obviously more skittish and less predictable. /snip/

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this, for the same reasons I've posted before.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 4 years ago
3 likes

Use of horn is for when you need to warn other road users of your presence. I can see the argument that if you pose no danger then no warning is needed, but personally I appreciate a courtesy beep especially on country roads when the wind noise can easily mask a following car.

I'd far sooner be aware of a following vehicle and the courtesy beep reassures me that I have been seen if nothing else. I'm not exactly going to dive into the hedge to get out of their way, but just like when we call out to horse riders and negotiate a safe pass, I'll acknowledge their presence and if possible ease the car driver's pass . It isn't a hard and fast rule, situations vary but it's about all road users respecting others and a bit of courtesy from all parties makes for a safer and more pleasant cycle ride. As part of that I'll trade a car ahead of me and buggering off out of my road space for one itching to get past at the first sketchy opportunity any day.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Mungecrundle | 4 years ago
2 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

Use of horn is for when you need to warn other road users of your presence. I can see the argument that if you pose no danger then no warning is needed, but personally I appreciate a courtesy beep especially on country roads when the wind noise can easily mask a following car. I'd far sooner be aware of a following vehicle and the courtesy beep reassures me that I have been seen if nothing else. I'm not exactly going to dive into the hedge to get out of their way, but just like when we call out to horse riders and negotiate a safe pass, I'll acknowledge their presence and if possible ease the car driver's pass . It isn't a hard and fast rule, situations vary but it's about all road users respecting others and a bit of courtesy from all parties makes for a safer and more pleasant cycle ride. As part of that I'll trade a car ahead of me and buggering off out of my road space for one itching to get past at the first sketchy opportunity any day.

Wind noise doesn't matter - I don't know about you, but I'm frequently checking over my should for following vehicles.

A car horn is just a single tone (like a cow, as Eben Weiss has written).

How do you know whether that single tone means "I've seen you, and I'm just letting you know I'm here until I can safely pass" or "Get out of the #@££$$ing way!!!"?

(Obviously, if they hit the horn several times or are just pushing on it then that's easier to interpret, but that's not what we're talking about here).

Avatar
kil0ran | 4 years ago
4 likes

In related driver fuckwittery, look at this monumental hard boy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48362596

I just don't get the bystanders - there were at least three, I'd have intervened to try to restrain him until the police arrived.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to kil0ran | 4 years ago
5 likes

kil0ran wrote:

In related driver fuckwittery, look at this monumental hard boy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48362596

I just don't get the bystanders - there were at least three, I'd have intervened to try to restrain him until the police arrived.

JHC, that was literally incredible; what kind of horrible person does that.  I hope someone got the car number and he ends up in prison for a very long time, where he might find out that being hard isn't quite as easy if your victims aren't 80 years old.  Or failing that, the victim's grandchildren exact a not very subtle revenge.

There seems to exist in our society a group of people who feel entitled and that they are better than everyone else, as demonstrated so many times by drivers' treatment of cyclists, and they behave with complete lack of empathy, pyschopathic.

Avatar
srchar replied to kil0ran | 4 years ago
4 likes

kil0ran wrote:

In related driver fuckwittery, look at this monumental hard boy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48362596

I just don't get the bystanders - there were at least three, I'd have intervened to try to restrain him until the police arrived.

Unbelievable.  When he gets sentenced to a few months in chokey for GBH, he'll wish he'd stayed in the car and run the old man over, incurring a small fine.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to kil0ran | 4 years ago
5 likes

kil0ran wrote:

In related driver fuckwittery, look at this monumental hard boy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48362596

I just don't get the bystanders - there were at least three, I'd have intervened to try to restrain him until the police arrived.

Weirdly, it looks like the octogenarian jumped out in front of the car, although it's hard to be sure. Notice how fast the next car overtakes, possibly the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge island?

Cowardly and pointless attack though, we can't have people like that operating motor vehicles!

I do wonder if the police advised this pedestrian to retrieve any CCTV himself before the police could do any investigating.

Avatar
PRSboy replied to kil0ran | 4 years ago
4 likes

kil0ran wrote:

In related driver fuckwittery, look at this monumental hard boy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48362596

I just don't get the bystanders - there were at least three, I'd have intervened to try to restrain him until the police arrived.

 

Wow.

That guy deserves a Game of Thrones style punishment.

Hopefully he should not be too hard to track down.

It said in a newspaper which shall remain nameless that the old fella had remonstrated with the driver for not slowing as his wife crossed the road.

I don't suppose the suspect's female companion will come forward as he probably beats her up too, being the big man he is.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 4 years ago
7 likes

5 points, how convenient...

 

Then again, if he'd got 6 he could have spoken of the inconvenience of not being able to shit in a plastic bucket whilst enduring a miserable, wet, English campsite...

Avatar
bobbinogs | 4 years ago
8 likes

I am struggling to undertsand the charge of Driving without due care.  It seems like it was anything but, in that the driver took a great deal of care to ensure that they drove as close to the cyclist as possible to 'let them know who's boss on the roads' and either got the spacing wrong or spot on (although only the driver will know the answer to that).  So, attempted murder charge?  Nope, just 5 points and he gets to keep his license.

Avatar
PRSboy | 4 years ago
8 likes

Out of curiosity, how do we think it would go in court if the headline were "cyclist removed door mirror and hits motorhome driver with it after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told".

I imagine this would be assault, and rightly so.  So why can you plead guilty to driving without due care when you deliberately hit someone with a mirror when attached to a vehicle?

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to PRSboy | 4 years ago
7 likes
PRSboy wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do we think it would go in court if the headline were "cyclist removed door mirror and hits motorhome driver with it after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told".

I imagine this would be assault, and rightly so.  So why can you plead guilty to driving without due care when you deliberately hit someone with a mirror when attached to a vehicle?

Or even. The driver stopped his vehicle, removed the wing mirror and struck his victim with it.

Why does leaving it attached to the vehicle make it a lesser crime in the eyes of the law?

Avatar
jh27 replied to Mungecrundle | 4 years ago
9 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:
PRSboy wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do we think it would go in court if the headline were "cyclist removed door mirror and hits motorhome driver with it after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told".

I imagine this would be assault, and rightly so.  So why can you plead guilty to driving without due care when you deliberately hit someone with a mirror when attached to a vehicle?

Or even. The driver stopped his vehicle, removed the wing mirror and struck his victim with it. Why does leaving it attached to the vehicle make it a lesser crime in the eyes of the law?

 

Just a pedantic note... the wing mirror isn't attached to the vehicle - it is part of the vehicle.  The cyclist wasn't hit with something attached to the vehicle, he was hit with the vehicle.

Avatar
quiff replied to PRSboy | 4 years ago
4 likes

PRSboy wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do we think it would go in court if the headline were "cyclist removed door mirror and hits motorhome driver with it after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told".

I imagine this would be assault, and rightly so.  So why can you plead guilty to driving without due care when you deliberately hit someone with a mirror when attached to a vehicle?

This is intended to be an explanation, not a justification:

  • In criminal proceedings the prosecution has to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. 99% chance they did it) 
  • Some offences (including assault) have a mental element - so you have to prove 99% chance not only that they hit you, but that they hit you intentionally / intending certain consequences 
  • It can be difficult to persuade a jury to come to a unanimous (or sometimes I think 10 out of 12 majority) decision, particularly where the offence has an element of intent 
  • The CPS has to decide whether it's in the public interest to prosecute, and what charges to bring. They consider factors including the severity of the act, the seriousness of the consequences, and the prospect of securing a conviction. That means the CPS will often opt for a lesser charge to improve prospects of conviction. So while we know a punishment pass when we see / feel one, it's not enough that the CPS think someone hit someone else deliberately with their vehicle; they also have to think there are reasonable prospects of satisfying a magistrate / jury that is the case. If they do, they should (subject to those other factors) go for the more severe charge.
  • FWIW though, the maximum sentence for dangerous driving is higher than for assault (assuming no injury in either case). I appreciate this was a careless not dangerous charge.
  • The defendant pleads guilty / not guilty to the charges brought - the CPS has to decide what the appropriate charges are

The CPS website has a lot of information on charging decisions and prosecution for anyone interested / bored enough.                

Avatar
brooksby replied to PRSboy | 4 years ago
2 likes

PRSboy wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do we think it would go in court if the headline were "cyclist removed door mirror and hits motorhome driver with it after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told".

I imagine this would be assault, and rightly so.  So why can you plead guilty to driving without due care when you deliberately hit someone with a mirror when attached to a vehicle?

I have to admit when I read the headline I thought - just for a moment - that the motorist had stopped, taken off his wing mirror, and then walloped the cyclist with it...

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to PRSboy | 4 years ago
4 likes

PRSboy wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do we think it would go in court if the headline were "cyclist removed door mirror and hits motorhome driver with it after words exchanged at traffic lights, court told".

I imagine this would be assault, and rightly so.  So why can you plead guilty to driving without due care when you deliberately hit someone with a mirror when attached to a vehicle?

It recently didn't go too well for the ex-special forces guy who tried to rip the door off of the car that was being driven at him aggressively, in fact, I think the car actually hit him?

6 previous points is only relevant to show that he's not a good driver, but the judge seems to have used it in reverse to give less punishment to ensure that this driver is free to do the same thing again, quite perverse justice.
 

Avatar
FrankH replied to ChrisB200SX | 4 years ago
0 likes

ChrisB200SX wrote:

...

6 previous points is only relevant to show that he's not a good driver, but the judge seems to have used it in reverse to give less punishment to ensure that this driver is free to do the same thing again, quite perverse justice.

Or

The judge has put him on 11 points so that he will drive carefully in future for fear of losing his licence.  At least until the previous six points expire.

Maybe it'll work. If it doesn't he'll get banned the next time he's caught speeding or using a mobile or something.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to FrankH | 4 years ago
3 likes

FrankH wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

...

6 previous points is only relevant to show that he's not a good driver, but the judge seems to have used it in reverse to give less punishment to ensure that this driver is free to do the same thing again, quite perverse justice.

Or

The judge has put him on 11 points so that he will drive carefully in future for fear of losing his licence.  At least until the previous six points expire.

Maybe it'll work. If it doesn't he'll get banned the next time he's caught speeding or using a mobile or something.

Or not, seeing as 12 points doesn't even mean you automatically lose your licence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/driver-62-penalty-points...

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

EK Spinner, pretty much all use of the horn can be seen as aggressive.

Do you have one of those silent motor homes too?  I'm sure they can hear the motor part of your motorhome as you approach.  There is one that is sits on the Ash side of NorthCamp station that makes one hell of a lot of noise even when parked up.

Oh, and revving your engine is quite aggressive too.

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to ktache | 4 years ago
6 likes

ktache wrote:

EK Spinner, pretty much all use of the horn can be seen as aggressive.

It's quite common on the continent for drivers to do a "pip, pip" on the horn as they overtake (or shortly before they overtake) a group of riders. It warns the riders of the car (which they may not have heard over the wind), it also says to them - I'm a driver and have seen you there, I am taking the necessary avoiding action.

We were warned when we were out in Belgium - don't give the finger as soon as you hear the horn, it will not be abuse, it will be a friendly "notification".

I've considered doing it a few times here in the UK when driving but I fear it'd just be misinterpreted and I'd get a whole load of abuse and fist shaking so I just settle for indicating and moving as far right as possible.

Avatar
jh27 replied to crazy-legs | 4 years ago
2 likes

crazy-legs wrote:

ktache wrote:

EK Spinner, pretty much all use of the horn can be seen as aggressive.

It's quite common on the continent for drivers to do a "pip, pip" on the horn as they overtake (or shortly before they overtake) a group of riders. It warns the riders of the car (which they may not have heard over the wind), it also says to them - I'm a driver and have seen you there, I am taking the necessary avoiding action.

We were warned when we were out in Belgium - don't give the finger as soon as you hear the horn, it will not be abuse, it will be a friendly "notification".

I've considered doing it a few times here in the UK when driving but I fear it'd just be misinterpreted and I'd get a whole load of abuse and fist shaking so I just settle for indicating and moving as far right as possible.

 

In the UK, the only permitted use of a horn is to warn.  There's generally* no need to sound your horn if you are driving safely - if you are passing safely or passing dangerously, sounding the horn doesn't make it safer.

 

* there are times when sounding your horn is advisable - e.g. on a narrow blind bend - in addition to take due care, ofcourse.

Avatar
Gus T replied to ktache | 4 years ago
1 like

ktache wrote:

EK Spinner, pretty much all use of the horn can be seen as aggressive.

Do you have one of those silent motor homes too?  I'm sure they can hear the motor part of your motorhome as you approach.  There is one that is sits on the Ash side of NorthCamp station that makes one hell of a lot of noise even when parked up.

Oh, and revving your engine is quite aggressive too.

I personally like a short beep from drivers to let me know they are there because I have partial loss of hearing in my right ear and don't always hear moter vehicles due to wind noise. It's also common practice in Europe for drivers to give a brief toot of the horn when overtaking. As previously stated there's a big difference between a brief "I'm here" toot and an agressive blast on the horn and this should have been identified/clarified in Court.

Pages

Latest Comments