Police have released footage of a careless driver smashing into two female cyclists at a roundabout, causing the victims “life-changing injuries”. The motorist, Zahin Ali, has been jailed for 10 months and was also sentenced to a two-year driving ban at Reading Crown Court on Monday.
The incident happened on 2 June last year, the two female cyclists, one in their forties and another in her fifties, hit as they rode around a roundabout in Twyford on the A4 Bath Road towards Reading.
Ali, 20, was driving a Vauxhall Astra along the route when he failed to stop at the roundabout, smashing into the victims. Both women were seriously injured in the collision and sustained “life-changing injuries”.
The motorist responsible was eventually charged by postal requisition on 28 September last year and in December pleaded guilty to two counts of causing serious injury by careless driving.
The incident was captured on the dash-cam in his vehicle and, at a hearing in court this week, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison and handed a driving ban for two years.
Thames Valley Police released the footage as a “reminder to people who choose to drive in such a manner that there are consequences”.
Investigating officer Sergeant Matthew Cadmore, of the Joint Operations Roads Policing Unit, said: “The victims’ lives and those of their families have been tipped upside down due to Zahin Ali deciding to drive so carelessly. Everyone has the right to travel on the road safely, whether by car, motorcycle, pedal cycle, horse or on foot.
“Drivers should take extra care to avoid collisions with vulnerable road users, because a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist or horse rider will always come off worse. Whenever and wherever you drive: watch your speed, expect to encounter different road users, be patient, give others time and room, be ready for others to make mistakes, concentrate on your driving, never drive and use a mobile phone.
“I hope this sentence serves as a reminder to people who chose to drive in such a manner that there are consequences not only for them but for others too.”
In September, the force successfully prosecuted a “dreadful” hit-and-run driver who killed a cyclist before “calmly” boarding train to London. Edward Hinchliffe, on licence from prison for sex offences at the time of the fatal crash, struck triathlete Simon Chesher before driving through a red light and repeatedly hitting the kerb with a smashed windscreen, and was jailed for five and a half years.
The judge told the defendant, “any humanity that you had evaporated and you calmly went on your way to London as if nothing had happened”.
“Dreadful, dreadful behaviour. Any decent person would have immediately stopped and offered what assistance they could. You did not.”
78 thoughts on “Careless driver jailed for 10 months and given two-year driving ban for seriously injuring two cyclists”
Well, it’s something, I
Well, it’s something, I suppose.
I presume that they couldn’t prove whatever he was doing that made him so distracted?
(Probably gives him ten months to grumble about bl00dy cyclists…).
It is carless driving,
It is careless driving, however comparitively with some of the offences we see, this is an extremely harsh sentence. Bear in mind the law punishes the offence and not the consequences of the offence. The approach to the roundabout is littered with road furniture, the grass is overgrown, he didn’t appear to be speeding, but he should have spotted them.
I can’t help but hold the view that he recieved the sentence he did because he was found guilty of being called Zahin Ali; if he’d have been found guilty of being called called Michael Smith or Pete Brown or any Home Counties woman deemed “a vision of “elegance, fragrance and radiance”. It would have been a very different result!
What a load of bollocks, you
What a load of bollocks, you can see them clearly across the other lane and above the grass, he’s got lucky that its only carless driving.
I think you’ve posted the
I think you’ve posted the bollocks old son; clearly they didn’t teach comprehension at the school you were thrown out of.
He wasn’t found guilty, he
He wasn’t found guilty, he pleaded guilty. Not surprising given the footage from his own dashcam.
This is a relatively new offence, historic penalties were woefully inadequate.
It’s within the sentencing guidelines and do bear in mind two people suffered life changing injuries. Despite what you seem to be saying, the law does consider the consequences of the offence in the sentencing (there are two categories for harm).
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-serious-injury-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/
If visibility is diminished,
If visibility is diminished, then you should drive more carefully. It’s an often-used, deliberate, road design, in the run up to roundabouts, to obscure the view to the right – this obliges drivers to slow/stop, and properly check if it’s safe to enter the roundabout.
Its fucking ridiculous isn’t
Its fucking ridiculous isn’t it. Its used as an excuse for so many shit things drivers do. “I couldn’t see them because of X”. Well if you can’t see properly then you don’t do whatever you were planning. If I can’t see because of the sun I put the visor down and slow down and move my position so I can see. If I can’t see what is coming from my right I slow down and stop if necessary.
I understand what you are
I understand what you are saying but I would put it a different way,
Zahin Ali recieved a fair punishment for the crime, unfortunately a well to do white woman with a plummy accent would probably have been let off with a slap on the wrist.
That is precisely the point.
That is precisely the point. Different groups of people are treated very differently under the law. If Ali was a political donor, for example, he could apologise and our politicians would have let him off for showing contrition and being genuingly remorsefull. That’s assuming he’d slipped them £10m.
£200k will do it in Wales.
£200k will do it in Wales.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well that’s something to celebrate! Wales is a smaller place but the graft is almost two orders of magnitude cheaper than in England!
Scotland is apparently bent on a similar scale so maybe that’s the rate for Celtic Nations? Well, that is, if you just put the decisions in the Edinburgh trams saga down to incompetence (estimated project cost over 1 billion – could have had a lot of cycling and walking infra for that AND bunged the bus company some…)
For £200k you get the First
It’s great value for money. For £200k you get the actual First Minister in your pocket.
I’m sure lesser ministers are available for an absolute steal.
No need to worry about little things like being a convicted criminal or killing the odd worker either.
They should up their rates.
They should up their rates! (Although didn’t that business cleverly nab him on the way up, before he reached the heights?) In 2010 – a “cab for hire” was 3-5 grand a day.
Around 2016 lower rank ministers were around 100 grand a year (to get their attention). Services from former prime ministers have of course always commanded considerably more.
Again – glass half-full, or empty? Are we pleased these matters eventually came to light and even attract a tiny amount of censure? Or still upset that the general attitude seems to skew towards the only “crime” is having the bad luck (or utter lack of finesse) to be caught? (Parallels with unsafe and illegal driving, here…)
“and our politicians would
“and our politicians would have let him off”
How would that work? This isn’t Russia.
I think you need to catch up
I think you need to catch up with the news, it is now an established principal that politicians will forgive people their crimes if they apologise.
They’re free to do so. We
They’re free to do so. We should all try to be forgiving. You’re still going to get banged up though if the crime you committed warrants it.
Legin wrote:
are you sure? I thought it was that people are expected to forgive politicians, even if they don’t apologise
Pure speculation.
Pure speculation.
hutchdaddy wrote:
Possibly, or maybe an educated guess?
NOtotheEU wrote:
That’s not how I would describe Katie Price.
Legin wrote:
Er, no it doesn’t. If I punch someone in the face and they get a bruise, that might be common assault. If I punch them and break their nose that might be ABH or GBH. If I kill them with that punch (it happens) then it’s manslaughter or murder.
Legin wrote:
its a joke.
Anyone found seriously harming a relatively vulnerable road user and in fault should be sentenced to 7 years behind bars, by tariff, unless he pleaded guilty which the customary reduction applies. He should be banned from driving for life.
Anyone found DUI or killing a more vulnerable road user should be murder by statue.
Penalty for motorized vehicles are, obviously, too low for the potential harm they cause. Same for a cyclist maiming a pedestrian because of carelessness.
And to prove my point. In
And to prove my point. In another Road.cc post a Glasgow HGV driver gets a slap on the wrist for killing someone. His name wasn’t Ali!
‘Expect to encounter
‘Expect to encounter different road users’. This is what needs drumming in to the motoring population. If they can have adverts about how to drive considerately on motorways then they should be pushing the above statement too.
I believe that all drivers
I believe that all drivers should have to undertake cycle training as part of the driving test. Those unable to ride a bike would be offered a tricycle or motor-assisted hand cycle. The percentage of disabled drivers unable to operate a motor-assisted hand cycle would be vanishingly small.
I’d make this compulsory for anyone renewing their driving licence also.
Anyone refusing to undergo the compulsory cycle training would not be allowed either to complete their driving test or to renew their licence.
Research shows us that regular cyclists (and motorcyclists) make safer car drivers. So if we ensure every driver cycles, then the roads will become safer.
Careless driving? Careless
Careless driving? Careless is leaving the milk out of the fridge or letting your coffee go cold. Dangerous is using something that has the capacity to kill, and frequently does, and not looking where you are pointing it. This was dangerous driving.
Can’t wait for that comprehensive review of road laws announced all those years ago to report.
I suspect that the police
I suspect that the police accepted a guilty plea for careless driving to save themselves the seemingly impossible task of proving dangerous driving to a gullible judge and a jury full of drivers.
Agree, but why is it so
Agree, but why is it so difficult to prove that something blindingly obviously dangerous, because people were seriously injured, is dangerous? That’s what the comprehensive review of road laws was supposed to address.
I’m regretting this comment
I’m regretting this comment already. When I first watched the video without reading the article I was struck by how the cyclists made no eye contact with the driver or even looked at the car. I’m not saying the cyclists are at any fault, but some defensive road awareness may have reduced or removed the consequences.
robbo wrote:
What you’re asking for is that cyclists have to anticipate every possible piece of bad driving by every driver that they come anywhere near, but in the meantime, drivers don’t have to follow even the most basic of rules.
That’s the wrong way round – the person in control of the more dangerous machinery needs to be taking far more responsibility as they are bringing danger to the whole situation.
Not really! Just saying a bit
Not really! Just saying a bit of self preservation awareness is useful. Yes he needs punishing but that doesn’t reverse their life changing injuries.
I’d much rather avoid the
I’d much rather avoid the life changing injury in the first place than see the driver who hit me put in prison.
Well … yes, it looks like
Well … yes, it looks like they didn’t check… but the onus is the wrong way round and in the final analysis there simply may not be anything you can do. (For a “design” example there are some layouts where – if not impossible the road design will make it unintuitive / difficult to check).
I’m sure – like me and many others – you’ve had a few moments where you are looking right into a converging driver’s face as you realise “they’re looking but they’re not seeing me”.
I’d much rather this hazard was avoided entirely, or some mitigation by design was applied [1] [2], or the number of places the situation could arise at all was minimised. Plus of course it would help to encounter fewer motor vehicles, going more slowly.
Driving standards – and their enforcement – are pretty dire though.
“they’re looking but they’re
“they’re looking but they’re not seeing me”.
Yup. That second or two of uncertainty on your part, while you’re still thinking “there’s no way they can not have seen me; they must be about to take correction action any instant now”.
robbo wrote:
That’s a poor way to approach road danger – blame the victims for not avoiding criminally bad driving?
What next, “I’d much rather wear a stab-proof vest in the first place than end up in hospital with a knife wound”?
I don’t think your attitude is helpful.
That’s not what I’m saying.
That’s not what I’m saying. Putting someone in prison doesn’t fix my injury. Being aware of the danger might do! Nothing to do with stab proof vests
robbo wrote:
Unfortunately that’s exactly what you’re saying.
robbo wrote:
However, taking dangerous/careless drivers off the road should improve road danger directly due to there being less idiots behind the wheel and indirectly, by encouraging other drivers to pay attention and follow the rules.
Simply pointing at people who’ve been injured and saying “you should have avoided that” does less than nothing – it pisses off everyone who’s ever been injured and emboldens careless drivers.
I don’t think they’re victim
I don’t think robbo is victim blaming. The driver is 100% at fault but just maybe the (completely blameless) cyclists could have avoided a collision if they were paying even a little attention.
Personally I wouldn’t pass any junction or roundabout entrance without a glance or at least a good peripheral view of what could be coming.
We’ve all seen the disgusting victim blaming that usually follows a cyclist being hurt by a dangerous driver and I agree it could be damaging to talk about it right after the event or in court but now the driver has been convicted I think it’s a positive discussion to have.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for learning from avoidable situations, but I don’t think it’s applicable in this instance. The driver didn’t appear to be travelling particularly fast, so the cyclists had no reason to think that the driver wasn’t going to stop and it didn’t look like they had enough time to react between the driver going over the give-way line and hitting them. In my view, the only way that the cyclists could have avoided it would be by assuming that drivers don’t give way on roundabouts and that would make most roundabouts unusable by cyclists as you can’t just stop at each junction just in case.
Damn, you quoted me while I
Damn, you quoted me while I was editing what I’d written, oh well.
Totaly agree that they might not have had time to do anything in time even if they were paying any attention but we’ve all avoided collisions where we would have been the blameless party so I think it’s still worth talking about.
robbo wrote:
I do agree that heightened awareness can be useful when cycling, but in the greater scheme of things, not all cyclists have years of experience and roadcraft behind them. If we want to get more people to cycle (which we do), then it’s hardly practical to teach all cyclists to slow or stop at every possible place that a driver could not bother stopping.
What we do need is to get these unskilled drivers off the roads. If they can’t even follow the most basic rules (give way when joining roundabouts – the road markings are clear) then why should they be allowed to drive at all? The problem isn’t “unskilled” cyclists as they almost never cause life changing injuries to others. (Not that I think the two cyclists are “unskilled” at all – it doesn’t look like they had enough time to react).
When I had some motorcycle
When I had some motorcycle training 40+ years ago I was told to assume that every car driver was trying to kill me. That mindset has served me equally well cycling. I completely agree those inside metal boxes should bear more responsibility but the more vulnerable can’t assume that they will.
ChasP wrote:
I’m all in favour of defensive cycling and using that attitude, but there’s some circumstances where you just have to assume that drivers aren’t murderous imbeciles or else you’d be stopping at every side road and junction. I think it would be more hazardous to stop at each junction on a roundabout as other traffic on the roundabout wouldn’t be expecting you to stop for no reason other than “well maybe that driver is trying to kill me”.
ChasP wrote:
We must have had the same instructor!
I do regard every driver as an incompetent tw*t, and then rarely I’m surprised that they aren’t.
I think his point is that all
I think his point is that all good cyclists take the as much of the danger of cycling into their own hands where possible. There is no blame when cyclists don’t because they shouldn’t be expected to compensate for shit driving but i’m sure all of us have avoided dozens of accidents because we have seen and compensated for a driver doing something really stupid. On roundabouts I always look at the drivers about to join to see what they are doing. It won’t always save me but it certainly might save me one day.
mctrials23 wrote:
Unfortunately, there’s tons of blame shovelled onto cyclists from social media for any incident that they don’t have the foresight to avoid.
My issue with this particular incident is that it’s not a good example to learn from as there wasn’t anything the cyclists could practically do to avoid the collision apart from completely avoiding roundabouts.
Total nonsense, if you drive
Total nonsense, if you drive on a roundabout you should be looking at the vehicles at each exit and anticipating their likely behaviour. If you drive blindly around roundabouts assuming that everyone will do as they are supposed to please never drive again.
ITK2012 wrote:
So is this your recommendation to the two women who now face life-changing injuries?
Classy
No, it is my response to this
No, it is my response to this total piece of garbage that you vomited all over the keyboard:
“What you’re asking for is that cyclists have to anticipate every possible piece of bad driving by every driver that they come anywhere near, but in the meantime, drivers don’t have to follow even the most basic of rules.”
EVERYONE has to try to anticipate every piece of bad road use by everyone else. It doesn’t matter if you are in a car or a bike, you should always be trying to anticipate what the vehicle in front of you is likely to do.
ITK2012 wrote:
FTFY
Likely behaviour
Likely behaviour
Not their actual behaviour that you only find out about afterwards. That’s the whole thrust of HPs posts; there was nothing likely about the driver’s action.
hawkinspeter wrote:
What you’re asking for is that cyclists have to anticipate every possible piece of bad driving by every driver that they come anywhere near, but in the meantime, drivers don’t have to follow even the most basic of rules.
That’s the wrong way round – the person in control of the more dangerous machinery needs to be taking far more responsibility as they are bringing danger to the whole situation.— robbo
It is the wrong way round, but that is the adaptation made by cyclists to stay alive in UK driver culture, reinforced by drivers’ insurers and the insurance industry, most police, all judges, the CPS and 90%+ of a jury.
The ersosion of cycling in the UK is primarily down to this attitude, which also makes judgements on investment.
I made the same observation,
I made the same observation, but did not have the balls to stand up and say it. I think your choice of words is about right, It was about 5secs from first sighting to collision. The cyclists were partially obscured behind road signs for an instant. (This works both ways, if the driver cannot see the cyclst then the cyclist cannot see the driver) One cyclist wearing black and white rides in front of a black and white road sign. Motorist does not appear to slow down approaching the junction. Cyclists do not look towards the car. The bottom line is that the video says it all, the cyclists were there to be seen and the driver must be 100% responsible for the collision.
Cycloid wrote:
https://h2g2.com/entry/A387029
brooksby wrote:
I knew what that link was to without even opening it – top marks.
I wholeheartedly agree with
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Taking reasonable measures to avoid injury caused by someone else’s negligence is hardly victim blaming. This is what is taught in industry and has made many workplaces vastly safer and far fewer people fail to make it home because of it.
Stuff and nonsense. What has
Stuff and nonsense. What has made the workplace safer is a strict hierarchy of hazard controls. Something that if applied to road traffic would all but eliminate motor cars from it, and therefore it cannot happen.
marmotte27 wrote:
I like it, when can we start?
NOtotheEU wrote:
In 1992 – or again in 2005 – or even again in 2018?
Like with building infra, we’ll have to settle for the second best time, which is “now”.
your instinct is correct –
your instinct is correct – you should regret it. whilst good practice, exactly what difference would it have made? should they have hard stopped – just in case the car entered the roundabout – been rear ended instead?
i’d thought i’d caught a motorist’s eye at a roundabout before. they were fully stopped and, despite the totally clear visibility, waited until i was directly in front of before accelerating straight into me. luckily i only had a written off bike and cosmetic injuries – i can only wish the best to these two ladies.
bad driving is simply endemic in this and many other countries, and the only way to change this is to start enforcing road rules before people get killed and maimed, not posting videos afterwards.
robbo wrote:
. I use to live a couple of miles from there. You’d have to have a screw lose to cycle on that road at all, let alone without assuming that everyone was out to get you. Again, not victim blaming, just telling it like it is.
robbo wrote:
Yet you went ahead and made it, anyway…
Consider that regret is linked to things that have already happened, and you may realise that it was the wrong word…
https://g.co/kgs/r7dXHF2
…
For context, I think the
For context, I think the video starts about here.
Single lane becomes two at the roundabout entrance. Double-lane roundabouts are not considered “safe” for cycling (or indeed uncontrolled pedestrian crossings) in more enlightened places. Not even so much here – note the “metal trench in the sky” footbridge over one arm.
The roundabout design isn’t unusual AFAICS but joining at an angle means that close to the entrance to look for traffic on the roundabout you’ll have to look further to your right – and indeed maybe > 90 degrees.
It’s also a “standard for UK” design which prioritises flow – e.g. designed to be driven at speeds – I believe the A4 here is “national speed limit” is that correct? Hence the angled lanes on entrance.
The A4 appears to be a road for “going places” and kind of a ring-road here, but one road/street off it is residential – right up to the roundabout. Also standard in UK…
Speculation but I suspect the driver looked once (assuming “at all”) and missed the cyclists – and if they looked again possibly it was behind them (trying to see past the visual clutter on the island). The cyclists aren’t going particularly slowly but were slower than e.g. the car preceeding them so will have been behind the island for a longer time.
Also because of the two lane entry it’s possible the driver was also dealing with the van to their front then on their left.
The lesson learned by many of
The lesson learned by many of us is ‘please never post again’- here, that is
Lots of analysis and opinions
Lots of analysis and opinions in the comments below (including mine)
Regardles of the unique cicumstances I think it is a standard scenario
When the case comes to Court:-
The Driver says “I did not see the cyclists, they came out of nowhere”
Coucil for the defense says “My client looked but failed to see”
Council for the prosecution says “The defendent failed to look properly”
The cyclists say (if they are still alive) “The driver just drove onto the junction without looking”
The driver frequently gets off with minimum consequences. Seeing the video enables an objective analysis.
What will an objective
What will an objective analysis tell you other than the car and cyclists collided?
john_smith wrote:
That the driver failed to give way to traffic already on the roundabout
Is that under dispute?
Is that under dispute?
john_smith wrote:
No – probably due to having objective video evidence. If it was just based on witness statements then it could easily be under dispute.
In this case an objective
In this case an objective analysis tell us that the car crossed give way lines and collided with the cyclists, enabling us to correctly aportion blame rather than having to make a judgement based on unrelaible and possibly untruthful testimonies
I’m having difficulty seeing
I’m having difficulty seeing how the car could have collided with the cyclists on the roundabout without having crossed the give-way line. It’s not clear to me what objective facts need to be established. The article doesn’t seem to suggest that there’s any doubt about what happened.
Respectfully, I think you’ve
Respectfully, I think you’ve misinterpreted: Cycloid’s point (I believe) was that the existence of the video allows for an objective assessment in court of what happened and who is at fault whereas without it the case would come down to subjective testimony from those involved. Without the video the driver could claim that the cyclists were veering from another lane, that they were invisible from his approach etc etc.
I think it is worth pointing
I think it is worth pointing out that the grass on that island has been allowed to grow very long, obscuring the view of those cyclists for the driver. No argument the driver is guilty, but the contributory negligence of Highways England (presumably) in failing to keep the grass short in a hazardous location is surely an important factor here too.
Correction: the grass
Correction: the grass obscures the view of the bottom half of the cyclists, they are clearly visible from the saddle up all the way round as the driver approaches. In any case if the view of a junction is obscured it’s the driver’s duty to take extra care rather than just plough on.
Quite. The first half of your
Quite. The first half of your post is almost a bit redundant.
I didn’t see that behind the
I didn’t see that behind the class…
I drive a Caterham that is
I drive a Caterham that is lower than me when cycling, and it’s true; many drivers are too stupid to be allowed anywhere near machinery.
In this incident, I’m sure the A-pillar obscured the cyclists at some point but, like too many drivers, they continue to drive into a space that cannot be seen to be clear, and are then surprised when something is.
In the same approach to deciding if someone can have a shotgun licence, some drivers should never have a driving licence.
I will never understand these judgements that keeep putting the incompetent and arrogant back on the public highway in nearly two tonnes of machine.