A cyclist has recalled how he narrowly avoided a collision with a driver who lost control on a bend, the motorist almost smashing into the rider and another vehicle having rounded the corner on the verge of the wrong side of a Somerset road. The images of the incident have also prompted questions about how it was dealt with by Avon & Somerset Police, the driver accepting a fine, penalty points and costs for driving “without due care”, some arguing that the motorist should have faced the more severe offence of dangerous driving.
The roads policing unit reported that the incident happened in October, in Ilminster, the driver pleading guilty in court last month to driving without due care, and subsequently being given six penalty points on his driving licence, a £480 fine and ordered to pay costs and victim surcharge totalling £277.
Without Due Care (10/2023) Ilminster. Driver lost control just before bend narrowly missing oncoming cyclist who veered out of the way & then stopped just before hitting the informant. In court (04/2024) where driver pleaded guilty by post:
6 Points
£480 Fine
£85 Costs
£192 VS pic.twitter.com/k5RHy4fwXK— ASPolice Roads Policing (RPU) (@ASPRoadSafety) May 8, 2024
Recalling the incident to road.cc, the cyclist Steve Western said despite the dramatic images “funnily enough it felt as though I had all the time in the world to decide when to swerve”.
“I heard the tyre noise before I actually saw it, so had some warning that something was wrong, the guy didn’t even get out of the car, he manoeuvred around the car and drove off. I hadn’t realised the lady driving had reported it.”
Steve had earlier replied to Avon & Somerset Police’s social media post about the incident and court result: “Dear @ASPRoadSafety. Not sure [driving without] due care was appropriate for that incident which could have ended so differently. Love from the cyclist in the pictures.”
Others joined him in questioning why a more serious dangerous driving offence was not applied here, Robin Pickering saying: “Surely, due care is failing to look properly at a junction causing someone else to have to brake, or maybe close passing a cyclist at a moderate 1-1.5m distance. That looks like clear S2 RTA: driving which falls ‘far below the expected standard’ and which could easily have had fatal consequences. Why the downgrade?”
Another called it a “pathetically weak sentence” and “hilarious that the social media manager thought this was worth boasting about”.
Others suggested that part of the concern for the police might have been the driver avoiding punishment completely had they been unable to prove the more serious “dangerous driving” offence.
As mentioned in an earlier quote, dangerous driving “is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers”, and may involve speeding, racing, or driving aggressively, ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers, overtaking dangerously, or driving while under the influence.
The lesser offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) refers to when “driving falls below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes driving without reasonable consideration for other road users”.
It may involve “overtaking on the inside, driving too close to another vehicle, driving through a red light by mistake, turning into the path of another vehicle, the driver being avoidably distracted by tuning the radio, lighting a cigarette etc., flashing lights to force other drivers to give way, misusing lanes to gain advantage over other drivers, unnecessarily staying in an overtaking lane, unnecessarily slow driving or braking, dazzling other drivers with un-dipped headlights”.
It was far from the first time Steve has been on the receiving end of driving that put his safety in danger, and he suggested that Avon & Somerset Police “seem unwilling to do anything” in two other stand-out cases from the past 12 months, both times when his flat bars were clipped by a passing motorist.
“Once by the door mirror and once by the front wing,” he explained. “Both occasions by elderly drivers who seemed to think that I shouldn’t be riding on the road adjacent to a shared path. Avon and Somerset police seem unwilling to do anything about those though. The joys of cycling…”
In May 2022, we reported that the county’s police force had shared a similar social media post featuring a court result, that time after a bus driver hit a cyclist, pushing them into a hedge as they overtook.

Again, the driver pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention and was fined £256 and given five penalty points.

In 2020, the force was accused of incompetence by a cyclist after they failed to track down a driver he said was responsible for a hit and run – even though he had provided them with footage of the incident.
A police spokesperson said: “Footage the victim provided to us showed he was not struck by the vehicle but does show the poor manner of driving and failing to stop. However, we were unable to track down the driver of the vehicle, despite making exhaustive searches using the Police National Computer and other intelligence databases available to us, which meant that we were unable to prosecute the suspect.
“Regrettably, because of the time taken to make appropriate and necessary checks, the time period we legally have available to us to make those enquires – six months – had elapsed.”

42 thoughts on “Cyclist who swerved to avoid out-of-control driver questions if £500 fine for “driving without due care” an “appropriate” punishment”
Begs the question of which
Begs the question of which police the driver knows.
Sadly I wouldn’t even think
Sadly I wouldn’t even think that. Just any old road criminal gets away with it, not just the well connected ones.
“Cyclist isn’t very visible
“Cyclist isn’t very visible is he”
“Not relevant in view of the crap driving”
“It may have helped tho”
“Not sure it would have helped the driver not losing control of his 2.5 tonne car. I suppose he might have seen the cyclist just before he ran him over”
Hirsute wrote:
“I will find literally any excuse to blame the victim.”
I suspect this is a simple
I suspect this is a simple case of ‘the driver will plead guilty to the lesser charge’ so go with that, it’ll save court time and money and man power hours for the Force. Simple case of money before lives.
Because the experience won’t
Because the experience won’t change that driver’s behaviour on the roads. And I very much doubt it is just cyclists on the receiving end.
I’m sure you are right, but
I’m sure you are right, but it’s still not appropriate.
Sorry, should have made it
Sorry, should have made it clear. It is appaling driving and should have been prosecuted as dangerous. Just putting forward a cynics view as to why it wasn’t. The application of the law in this country generally and especially on the roads has fallen way below the standards we should expect as a population.
If the police try to
If the police try to prosecute for ‘dangerous’, do the jury (or magistrate) have the option of finding them guilty for ‘careless’ at the same trial or would that be a completely seperate prosecution (do we have double jeopardy here?)?
IAAL, but not that sort. I
IAAL, but not that sort. I think in some cases the jury is able to reach an alternative verdict, where the more serious charge is not made out but it amounts to a lesser charge (see e.g. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/24 ). But in practice, I expect the CPS expressly charge both offences in the alternative.
Can the jury do that of their
Can the jury do that of their own initiative? I always understood that they could only do that if the judge offered them the option to do so.
IANAL but as I understand, if
IANAL but as I understand, if the CPS decides to prosecute as dangerous, but the jury or judges don’t find it meets the minimum criteria to be guilty of that, it can’t be revised down to careless. They’re either guilty or not-guilty of the charges that were brought.
Which is why the CPS often opts for the lesser charge of careless driving, which has a lower burden of proof and is more likely to be successful.
aussiecyclist wrote:
Well, that’s a bit rubbish!
Dangerous requires proof of
Dangerous requires proof of motive; careless does not.
Plus a defendant may offer to plead guilty to careless, and that saves everyone lots of time.
Personally I think the definitions need rewriting, but that Reckless Driving should be used more.
There’s also an extensive nest of caselaw around the actual definition of Dangerous Driving, so outcomes can be unpredictable. Lawyers such as Mr Poophole exist to create and exploit such ambiguity.
Where do you get proof of
Where do you get proof of motive from? The legislation refers to the standard of driving
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Don’t see how the why comes into demontrating the standard they were driving at.
Agree – I thought the whole
Agree – I thought the whole point of careless / dangerous was to drain the drama and try to make it all more “objective” rather than “did they intend to…”
Unfortunately it does seem in practice that “intent” still creeps in (“but it was an accident! But they had an unblemished record and Mrs. Miggins says they always drive very carefully!”)
And the definitions are hopelessly subjective especially where we have a measure (the driving test). Essentially “how long is a piece of string” vs. “how long is a long piece of string”.
I know the legal system wants to be free to adjust for human circumstances and interrogate evidence – but I can’t see why (apart from cost / logistics) why you couldn’t just call a driving test examiner as an expert witness – you can always cross-examine them if you’re a defence barrister?
Quote:
not to be confused with Ronnie Pickering
“Who…?”
“Who…?”
“RONNIE PICKERING!!!!”
Legendary
Legendary
essexian wrote:
Don’t you mean WONNIE PICKEWING!!!
We need to rebrand Rhonda
We need to rebrand Rhonda Pickering as Wander Pickering, as that is what she did.
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-842-298401
There should be a simple test
There should be a simple test for these things, it could be performed by non police to lighten the workload as any driving examiner would be able to check the footage:
“Would this action have resulted in failing a driving test?”
If the answer is yes, the driver should have their license revoked until they take a retest. Whether there is additional criminal proscecution could then be handled by the police for situations like this where it should fall into the territory of dangerous driving.
Pay examiners something like £5 per clip reviewed (regardless of outcome so they are not incentivised to find one way or the other) and have the retests taken by the literally thousands of people who would lose their licenses be a little more expensive than a standard driving test to pay for that cost.
It takes bad drivers off the road quickly and effectively.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Absolutely!
The driving test should be considered the minimum skill level for drivers, not the pinnacle of their abilities.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a driving test at the moment?
In that case, people who have
In that case, people who have lost their licence should go to the back of the queue.
Should bear that in mind when
Should bear that in mind when driving then, eh?
Probably a good reason not to
Probably a good reason not to drive like a knobhead then?
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Yes, but what about the people learning to drive for the first time who can’t book a test because of all the knobheads?
Maybe sentance them to 2 years of driving a car with no more tha 1l engine / 65hp. Since they have shown themselves to be incapable of handling something more powerful.
Same way new motorbike riders are limited to smaller machines.
wycombewheeler wrote:
This is an excellent idea.
I can’t recall the details now but a week or so back the beeb were looking at the “young people killing themselves in cars” story and they had someone on with the numbers. Might be the “bleedin’ obvious” but IIRC there were stats showing that the period shortly after taking your test and having other young people in the car (apparently this applied to both sexes) was a significant risk factor. They were suggesting something like this but especially that for a period after you’ve taken your test there are restrictions on carrying other (young?) people.
Of course, the above is one of the reasons people want to drive! So they can take their mates / prospective dates around.
Perhaps something like “golf buggies only, 17 – 19, then you can have ‘safer cars’ until (some arbitary age)”?
Also – regular traffic garden visits for all schools, and ideally cycling instruction as part of the curriculum. Once we actually make it safe for kids to cycle, of course…
wycombewheeler wrote:
It’s almost like that’s part of the deterent of non-driving responsibly.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I liked the idea already, no need to ice the cake!
wycombewheeler wrote:
It’s about a 6 month wait at the moment, which is perfect, as it’s essentially a driving ban.
It is? I know people who were
It is? I know people who were trying to arrange a test and were repeatedly being told there were no dates available at all. That was a few months ago though, so maybe things have improved. I believe part of the problem was that “touts” were using automated systems to book tests as soon as they became available and were then selling them on at vastly inflated prices.
According to GOV.UK the
According to GOV.UK the average wait nationally is now down to 15 weeks, from a peak of 20 in August 2023 caused by a backlog from Covid and test centre strikes. Worst waiting times 21 weeks in the southeast, best 9 weeks in the northeast and Scotland.
john_smith wrote:
That should not be possible, the person booking the test should be the person whose name is on the licence when they turn up for the test. The instructors should be verifying identify anyway to prevent test fraud.
It was 15 weeks as an avergae
It was 15 weeks as an average (I assume median or mean, though it’s a clustered dataset) in Jan 2024, down from 20 weeks in August 2023. So not bad and improving rapidly.
I’m more concerned about a pass rate of under 50%, which suggests that they are being taken too soon.
More detail:
https://despatch.blog.gov.uk/2024/02/07/how-driving-test-waiting-times-are-looking-at-the-end-of-january-2024/
I know two people who were
I know two people who were trying to get a driving test for so long that their theory tests, which they passed, are no longer valid, so they will have to retake them.
Since a theory test pass is
Since a theory test pass is valid for 2 years, that’s quite a lot of missed oppostunities.
Totally agree with this. It
Totally agree with this. It’s the bleedin obvious. So therefore it won’t happen.
Its a nice idea but failing
Its a nice idea but failing your driving test is very easy. Which is fantastically ironic considering how bloody hard it is to lose it afterwards. You will fail your test for 3 of the same minor infractions such as passing parked cars too closely for the examiners liking.
I would wager that 95% of people would be failed if a driving instructor was shown an hour of their driving and it wouldn’t be for dangerous driving in most cases.
I do completely agree though that when someone is caught doing something this fucking stupid their licence should be immediately revoked until they can do a retest. I also don’t care if you lose your job as a result. Your job isn’t worth more than someones life and if you cared so deeply for your family then you wouldn’t put them at risk for the sake of driving badly.
Like most things to do with
Like most things to do with motor vehicles the logic seems backwards here.
“But it’s easy to fail a driving test…”- ergo tests are unfairly hard / like a hazing ritual you have to endure before you’re admitted to the club. We all know people don’t drive like that “in real life”.
But the other way of seeing this is the test is a reasonable *minimum* standard. However because of our system of driver licencing is a members club, or a marker of independent adult status there’s a tacit understanding we will allow many drivers to drive incompetently. Which may or may not be dangerously depending on circumstance and chance. The hypocritical part is arresting a tiny minority in the hope of “encourager les autres”.
The unthinkable – perhaps mass motoring as we practice now is not the way forward? Perhaps more people just shouldn’t drive? And we should fix it for everyone so life can work without needing to?
Still “careful what you wish for etc.” And we know the current system very well (even though actually many people are actually completely wrong in their intuitions about it.)
It works well enough for most. Certainly for the motor trade and the politicians who back them (almost all of them, motornormativity). The “hard-pressed motorist” doesn’t know or believe it could be different. The unlucky few who lose relatives and friends or body functions aren’t numerous or salient enough for change. The status quo doesn’t change for vulnerable road users and those excluded – children, the elderly, those with disabilities or those who just don’t have access to a car.
The police were patting
The police were patting themselves on the back because to the vast majority of drivers, thats a really big punishment for the simple crime of nearly killing someone and lets be real here, if that massive wank panzer had hit the cyclist they would almost certainly be dead right now.
The second reason it was such a light punishment is for the very simple reason that they didn’t hurt anyone. You can drive as much like an utter twat as you like but unless you actually hurt someone, its treated like a mild crime. We completely ignore the fact that these scumbags only haven’t killed someone through pure luck.
Almost every time I go out on my bike I will have people overtake me on country roads with a 60 limit over blind hills and bends and the only reason there isn’t a crash is luck. Pure luck.
For some reason, people doing things that are very likely to result in a crash are treated very differently to lets say a business which employs poor health and safety and then someone gets hurt.