Video: 12-month ban for driver who swerved into cyclist on purpose – social media users criticise leniency of sentence

That's horrific. Killed someone and smashed into a car, yet NYPD didn't charge him for anything criminal!

Capt Sisko wrote:

On a similar note there is an ongoing court case in my county where a driver (who killed one and serious injured four others by crashing off the road) told the police “I just blanked out for a second.” He said on the day he was driving as normal and suddenly he lost consciousness. He said he wasn’t on any medication, that nothing disturbed his concentration. The vehicle had no defects and there were “near perfect" driving conditions. xyz was also breathalysed by police but tested negative.

Assuming that's true (and he's using that as his defence), that driver should simply not be allowed back on the road until he can prove that he is no longer a threat to himself and others. Unfortunately, we all know how the Courts threat this things. A slap on the wrist and don’t be such a naughty boy.

If you're assuming that's true, how on earth is he supposed to prove that he's no longer a threat? How can he possibly prove that he won't blank out for a  second again? 

Honestly some of the pearl clutching in the comments on here is ridiculous. 

He cannot, and seeing that his alleged "unconciousness" is a wheeze (outrageous lie) in an  attemp  to get out of the responsibility for killing someone from awful driving, both to the law and probably his family and friends.

If we are to believe them (I do not) then as it has already happened it is likely to occur again, so any sensible prosecutor would say no to driving until medical diagnosis and treatment, if not to cure then to a point of reasonably mitigating occurance.  There are rules around both epilepcy and brain tumours.

If this was done just once then the defence would stop advising this course of action as it would cease to the get out of jail free card that it seems to be at the moment.

This happened to me, luckily it was a long straight empty road so I just took my foot off the pedal until I coasted to a stop but was never able to establish the cause despite numerous tests including an epedural to check for blood in the spinal column. Luckily DVLA's letters are so bad that both my GP and I thought my licence was suspended whilst DVLA investigated. Turns out that the investigation is carried out by DVLA's doctors and they make their decision  based on medical reports from your GP and the hospital. During DVLA's investigation your license remains valid and you can continue driving until they make a decision which is very worrying to say the least.

No not unusual at all,the local Norfolk based press didn't even pick up on Norfolk police close pass operation in Norwich last week. Much the same way as Road.cc havent reported this cyclist was killed on Norfolk roads the other week https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-51238825

Unless these things are highlighted in a very obvious way,either because they go viral on social media,or the police make a point releasing the info,they tend to go unreported.

And as if by magic, they catch up https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/police-cycle-blitz-catches-dangerous-...

and update two for the price of one https://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/driver-banned-after-swerving-into-cycli...

but then wheres the Road.cc article on this ?

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/great-yarmouth-haven-bridge-car-bicyc...

I ride over that bridge every day on my way to work and it can be pretty bad. There are traffic lights at both ends and cars will try and get ahead of you before the lights. I think that I've reported about 7 or 8 different vehicles for close passing me on it.

Just the tweet so far. Norfolk Police gave me the wrong location for the incident, but I managed to track it down in Street View anyway. Interesting that the local council downgraded plans for that particular cycle path.

Details: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/02/03/motorist-banned-from...

eburtthebike wrote:

So, spitting on a cyclist and calling them gay gets you eight months in gaol, but driving a car at them, actually threatening their life, gets you zero time inside.  British justice eh, finest in the world.*

 

*May contain great dollops of irony.

I think that guy was either on probation or already had a suspended sentance for a previous offence, which is why he got sent down. That is the only reason he was sent to prison.

Well, with you being a cyclist then probably hanging.

Seriously though, driving bans need to be longer and more common, and in certain circumstances for life. It's so frustrating that in our (and most other) society we treat driving as a right and not a privilege. In any other walk of life, if you demonstrated you were not safe to be in contact with other people, then you would be removed from society for the protection of others.

I'd be all for giving traffic police the ability to perform an immediate ban (e.g. for a month or two) for things like using a mobile or speeding etc.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'd be all for giving traffic police the ability to perform an immediate ban (e.g. for a month or two) for things like using a mobile or speeding etc.

An immediate ban is great, but I was thinking more in terms of castration, but what would we do to women drivers?

Take away the vanity mirror in the sunshade!

Driving bans need to be enforced. I suspect many just continue to drive - only discovered if they get pulled over for something unrelated.
If a person is banned from driving they should be required to submit a detailed plan of how they intend to commute, shop and socialise for the duration. This should be monitored in some way - bank statements proving the purchase of a season ticket, a photo blog of their journey, something. It would need thinking through, but some evidence ought to be demanded to demonstrate that they are using alternative arrangements. Their car could be subject to being stopped without other reason by any police to verify the driver. Losing your licence ought to cause major changes to someone's daily routine, so there should be evidence of this - otherwise we know they are just carrying on as normal.

There should be some marker placed against their motor insurance file aswell. They are obviously a 'high risk'. I don't know if this is done or how much information is exchanged between insurance companies, the courts and police.

So in an ideal world, if a driver is convicted of dangerous driving, or other serious offence; the courts should automatically inform some UK-wide motor insurance database. In an ideal world...

Some insurers do collect licence numbers (if volunteered) and will carry out these checks at point of quote.

Most it will only get flagged during claims investigation, so after there has been a claim and your will see if the conviction isn't declared.

But ultimately most insurers don't use convictions data past 4 years old due to data privacy regulation and what you can and can't price on. So after 4 years your licence is effectively clean again as far as insurance is concerned.

They should always carry a parallel suspended custodial sentence, caught breaking the ban then it's cuffs, nick and the nearest gaol the following morning.

If you swung and missed, common assault (where all that is required is that the victim apprehends violence); if you hit them, possibly something more serious - battery, ABH etc. Common assault without actual contact rarely results in a custodial sentence, no matter whether you're swinging your fist, baseball bat, bike or car. See e.g. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporat... and https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/com...  

based on that definition how in the name of any deity you choose, is the above not assault?