School caretaker receives £350 fine for deliberately running down cyclist

If this had been America he would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

This is an area where at least some places in the USA have got it right. When Dr Christopher Thompson overtook and then brake tested two cyclists in LA leading to serious injuries he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and five other offences. He was jailed for five years.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/la-doctor-jailed-for-road-rage-att...

I'm not sure people have read this article properly. The offender has to pay £850 and has nine points on his license (which means he came very close to losing it). That's not a light punishment at all.

Of course, cases like this depend on witnesses having the nerve to stand up against this behaviour. Sadly too many people don't want to get involved.

I'm wondering also why it says he was a churchgoer. I am as well and I wouldn't want it to be used as an excuse to get more lenient treatment. That would be very bad if it's true.

This article sums up my feelings:
Detective Chief Inspector John Oldham said that the relatives of car-crash victims resented the “very small” sentences when motorists had been reckless. He added that many cases were wrongly considered “accidents” when they were the result of human decisions.
Causing death by dangerous or careless driving carries a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison, compared with up to life for manslaughter and an automatic life sentence for murder. “The sentences are very small, and the families hate that,” Mr Oldham told The Times. “In my particular world we get very upset by the word ‘accident’. For families there is no accident about it. An accident on the road is the result of the decisions people make.”
....Mr Oldham added that motorists who were reckless or negligent should be given penalties more in line with homicide offences. “We should amalgamate the two acts,” he said, explaining that he was referring to drivers who could be proved to be at fault. “When you have a proper case — eg, a cup of tea in their hand, [or] they’ve been driving for 24 hours.”
.... Mr Oldham also warned that there would be “more and more” cycle fatalities unless there was a radical rethink of the way London and other big cities are structured....

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3317831.ece

If he had got out of his car and beat the cyclists up he would have received a prison sentence. This is telling drivers it is better to use a car to hit someone than your fists!!!!

Unfortunately the politicians won't do anything until one of them has a close friend/family member get injured, or worse, and then there will be a huge outcry...similar to The Times only doing something about cycling once one of theirs became a victim.

Shame on all of them for not protecting vulnerable road users.

People frequently come back from Holland asking why are drivers so nice to bikes compared to UK drivers. OK so most of them cycle as well but believe me, like anywhere Holland does have it's fair share of numpties (putting it nicely).
Anyway, why? because according the law over there if a driver hits a cyclist they are always at fault. They are the ones in charge of a deadly weapon. Simple.
Short of personality tests, lifetime bans for aggressive drivers, we need proper legislation changes in the UK.
Judging by what we've seen in the last 40 years if we don't get 1970's on this government and take to the streets in our thousands with our bikes and take our case to government, this will carry on.
Cyclists in the UK put up with hell but they are as much to blame, out of the hundreds where I live who commute to the station, we have about a dozen members of our cycle campaign. Talk about divide and conquer, cyclists have so many different opinions on what's best, so we have this mess. We are as much to blame for not getting our case heard.

I agree with the general sentiment. From the report, the driving did not seem careless at all but very purposeful and as such seems much more akin to an assault.

> Do you think drivers who kill or injure are getting the sentences they deserve? Let us know in the comments below.

Talk about showing a red flag to a bull !!!

I wonder if the sentencing would be any different if the victim had been a pedestrian rather than another road-user? When we're on bikes people seem to forget that we're as vulnerable as pedestrians, rather than car drivers in their metal box.

Anyway, I think anyone guilty of any driving offence (speeding, etc) should automatically have their license revoked for 2 weeks - it would help teach people how to survive without their car for a short period of time, boost public transport and encourage people to try healthier forms of transport. Also I think it would be a better deterrent than a few points and a small fine.

Sentences given to drivers for breaking the rules do not reflect the seriousness of their offences. If home owners can be fined for very minor issues such as putting out wheelie bins on the wrong days for example, then fines for injuring or killing other road users should be proprtionately higher.

Hi TheHatter, there hasn't been any change in the way we treat stories here and hopefully not to the tone either.

We always try to be as objective as possible, certainly not out to bash drivers… we're not keen on bad driving though. Sarah's statement may be sweeping but it's backed up with links to other stories that illustrate the points she mentions.

'Road.cc is usually a great place with intelligent, balanced articles and I hope this doesn't signal a change in direction.'
I do.

We've got some idiot drivers round here that would happily pay £350 to knock someone off!

Ridiculously lenient ... where is our protection?!

I'm not overly comfortable with the tone of this article - summarising an entire court case in a few hundred words is always going to be tricky but then to finish with a sweeping statement about "a number of cases recently that appear surprisingly lenient" and asking "Let us know in the comments below" if killer drivers get the sentences they deserve feels a bit Jeremy Kyle/Daily Mail.

Road.cc is usually a great place with intelligent, balanced articles and I hope this doesn't signal a change in direction.

Joke of a charge. I hope the cyclist is ready to sue for the cost of the physiotherapy and the eefect on his mental well-being.

I agree with therverent on this. The drivng licence seems more sacrosanct than a custodial sentence and any deliberate attack using a motor vehicle should result in a minimum ban of a year and sitting the test again.

Although this mollusc is a caretaker all those hard luck stories about 'I drive for a living...' piss me off. If you risk losing your job along with your licence then you shouldn't lose your temper. If you don't like speed cameras - don't speed.

I guess its worth pointing out that for someone on a caretakers wage, that fine and those points are /right at the top end/ for this charge. The judge threw the book at him - working with the charges the CPS brought.

The most severe sentence available is a Band C fine (125%-175% of weekly income, starting point 150%) + Consider disqualification OR 7 – 9 points.

Though you have to wonder if some cases like this don't warrant a charge of common assault (for which the sentences are much more severe).

Leaving aside potential cusodial sentences or fines, if someoneones driving is that bad, they use a car as a weapon, or they can't control their temper, they should lose their liecence until they can prove they are capable of driving in a safe manner (how ever long that takes).
No hardship pleas to keep their licence should be allowed. If driving is that important, then be more careful.

Why isn't he in Prison? Want to bully or injure or kill someone? use a car it seems is popular.

I was a tad staggered that the charge in this case was careless and not dangerous driving, as reported on the This Is Hull And East Riding website that would seem obvious. But there is a telling comment below the story by sedg1210 :

“I can't say too much as someone who was witness to the incident and the trial, but the reason why the sentence was careless driving and not dangerous is the fact that it was the driver's right of way at the roundabout, and the cyclist who cut him up. The cyclist was the aggressive one, and the driver did not 'aim his car' at the cyclist or 'mow him down' as the article says, but drove away from an argument and accidentally hit the cyclist. The article doesn't mention that although he did not stop, the driver drove straight to a police station which under the highway code you can do. There is more to this story than is reported.”