A drink driver almost killed a teenage cyclist after hitting him off his bike while he drove on the wrong side of the road after being refused another drink at a local pub.
Ambrose Taylor was jailed for two years and six months after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, driving with no insurance, two counts of failing to stop after a collision and driving without due care and attention. He has also been disqualified from driving for four years and four months.
Taylor, aged 20, left The Hoops pub in Barton in late October of 2021 at 9:10pm. He then drove on the wrong side of the road at 63mph on a 30mph road, where five minutes later he hit the 13-year-old boy who was out riding his bike.
At that speed the impact left the boy with an open fracture to his right elbow as he was flung to the verge by Taylor’s silver Ford Fiesta.
A witness who was walking on the pavement close to the incident saw Taylor driving at speed and heard a loud bang before finding the boy and a wing mirror from Taylor’s car.
Taylor carried on driving, still on the wrong side of the road, and almost drove head first into another vehicle. He pulled the car into the correct lane just in time before stopping outside another pub, where the landlord saw him stumbling and slurring his words.
It was there where Taylor was arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink and drugs. He refused to provide a sample of breath at Huntingdon Police Station.
Upon further investigation, it was shown that Taylor had also been involved in another incident at 7pm that same evening where he damaged a parked Kia.
Detective Constable Fay Millen said: “Why Taylor thought it was a good idea to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk is beyond me.
“The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime, which could have easily been causing death by dangerous driving.”
53 thoughts on “Drink driver who hit and nearly killed 13-year-old cyclist minutes after being refused service at pub jailed for just over two years”
“The sentence today reflects
“The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime, which could have easily been causing death by dangerous driving.”
Does it because I’m fucked if I think it does??? Scumbag.
I was thinking the same,
I was thinking the same, until this came to me:
Detective Constable Fay Millen said: “Why Taylor thought it was a good idea to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk is beyond me.
…But then I realised he thought he wouldn’t get caught, which is fair enough as it’s pretty unlikely these days. I mean you’d have to be really intoxicated for anyone even to notice.
“The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime, which could have easily been causing death by dangerous driving.”
…But because no-one died getting a over a year inside without being able to drive is even on the stiff side for the UK. After all you can run over someone from behind while they must have been clearly visible in front of you and the police won’t even bother to pursue it. Or you can kill while earning you living driving trucks – having never passed any kind of test – while high on cocaine and only take a four year break from driving.
chrisonatrike wrote:
He was so drunk that he was refused service at a pub. As a person who has been drunk before, I can state that there’s sometimes no correlation between what passes for thinking, and good ideas, while in that state.
If you’re a problem drinker, you might need to arrange things ahead of time so that you won’t be able to drive drunk later.
If you’re a problem drinker I
If you’re a problem drinker I’d suggest getting someone else to supervise. (Even drinking at home alone is risky – various bad incidents are more likely). And friends don’t let friends walk drunk.
I shouldn’t recommend cycling while intoxicated either having personal experience of ending up underneath my bike as a teenager. It’s not a good idea folks. There may be a fair bit going on and it may be “harm minimisation” when compared to drink-driving. However I’ve no figures to hand either way.
Probably best just lay off the sauce if you’re travelling.
chrisonatrike wrote:
All good points, but I’d recommend using a bike to get to and from a pub if a taxi isn’t suitable. At least then you won’t be tempted to drive and a drunk cyclist is primarily a danger to themselves. (I’ve only had one incident whilst cycling and that was when riding a unicycle back from a pub crawl – I scraped my hand a bit on a wall by going too close)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Show off! ?
Quite, I have always thought
Quite, I have always thought that unicycles are the cycling equivalent of wearing a proper bowtie, it has no practical benefit other than saying “look at me! I have acquired a useless skill that you haven’t”
For the record, I never pass up the opportunity to wear a proper bowtie!
Meanwhile, on the serious subject at hand, sentence is weak, this man clearly has a drink problem and needs to be kept off the road untill that is sorted. I didn’t see any mention of an extended driving test, or any conditions on release from prison to ensure he doesn’t present a danger to other road users.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
In my defence, at the time I was unicycling around the place as a means of transport (quicker than walking and great fun too), but yes, there’s a certain amount of showing off although they’re really not that difficult to learn to ride once you get over the fear of falling off.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I would love to learn how to ride one. I looked online at a few years ago but really didn’t know what I was looking at. Any recommendations for a beginner please?
Gimpl wrote:
Ideally, get a cheap small wheel uni – 20inch wheel is probably a good size for an adult to learn on, though I learnt on a 24inch one. A good resource is https://www.unicycle.co.uk/faq/article/how-to-learn-to-ride-a-unicycle and YouTube will have plenty of videos as well.
My learning technique is as follows:
It’s best to not fall off backwards as that tends to get your feet caught in the pedals and can result in a bruised coccyx. Falling forwards should be a case of “stepping off” the uni and smoothly transitioning into walking – ideally catching the falling uni behind you so the saddle doesn’t get too scuffed up.
The crucial part is to not pedal before you have a sufficient forwards lean as that makes the uni shoot forwards and you get dumped off the back.
But did you jump any red
But did you jump any red lights? And were you wearing a helmet? *runs and hides*
chrisonatrike wrote:
Never wore a helmet when unicycling and probably didn’t RLJ much as I mainly rode it on pavements. I did make the mistake of fitting some cut-down toe clips onto the pedals and then managed to hit a lamp-post hiding behind some willow tree foilage – went down hard onto my hand and had a painful wrist for a month or two.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Caught!
I’ve always envied unicyclists – closest I’ve got was managing a forwards straight line (twice) after half a day’s circus skills course. It probably would be one of the few times I’d consider donning a helmet – outside of certain group events out of politeness – given that falls would be a given while learning and they’d probably be exactly what the helment was designed for. OTOH as you say the emergency procedure if you’re not on a giraffe one (mounting looks fun) is “get off” so maybe irrelevant?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Never had any need for a helmet. 99% of the time, you can easily step off and thus not even hit the ground. Might have some use if you get a very large wheel uni (or one with gears!) and go at a significant speed. Falling off a bike is very different as you can’t really land on your feet.
(That kid in the video has some skills! Never tried to ride a giraffe one though in theory the extra height gives you more time to correct your balance. The mounting is a lot trickier though – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUWIVsOiKqY)
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Thank goodness, you had me worried about your standards for a minute there! Though I disagree about it only having that benefit, there’s also the fact that nothing looks as chic as going into a cafe at daybreak in Paris with an untied bowtie draped around one’s neck (when wearing a dinner suit, obviously, not just a bowtie and nothing else, though in certain quartiers…); I used to know someone who never mastered the art of tying a bow tie and so used to wear a made up one but carry a real one in his pocket for that very purpose!
It bemuses me that we don’t have a widespread alcohol interlock programme in this country, they’re in common use in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and everywhere they are used they have been proven to reduce recidivism from drunken drivers considerably. In addition I believe that the first-time ban for drunk driving should be five years, and the second time banned for life.
Bow ties are cool!
Bow ties are cool!
.
.
How can punters tell (short of pulling it, to see if it pings back on release!) if it is a ‘properly tied bow tie’?
.
I dunno but if it’s spinning
I dunno but if it’s spinning they’re a nerd.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Unless you are Dr Who, clearly a proper bow tie should always be worn with a proper winged collar.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
I don’t wish to fall out with you JD, but these are very serious matters: I was brought up with the tradition that wing collars are solely for white tie and tailcoat (with white weskit, obviously) occasions; with ordinary black tie dinner dress, or daily formal wear, a turndown collar is correct.
Top Tips for Wearing a Wing
Top Tips for Wearing a Wing Collar Shirt:
From what snowflake woke
From what snowflake woke website did you cull that, sir? I refer you to the website of Budd, London, shirtmakers to the gentry, located in the Piccadilly Arcade since 1910:
I haven’t got any sized bow
I haven’t got any sized bow ties, so winged collars are out anyway.
I’ve got enthused about cravats recently.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Very fine things, often wear one to weddings when I get a chance to wear the old frock coat.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Unless they’re being played by Peter Cushing, they are called The Doctor and not Dr Who. As any fule kno
brooksby wrote:
Thanks for being the one to point this out, my fingers have been itching to do so, but I didn’t want to come across as being a bit “door mirror”
I think this one is my wife’s
I think this one is my wife’s favourite bit of pedantry.
mark1a wrote:
Yeah, but that’s just pedantry.
This is a very important distinction 🙂
Quite! “Of course, I confess
Quite! “Of course, I confess I did scrape a pedal descending the Stelvio after a few sherberts …”
hawkinspeter wrote:
I try to avoid drinking to excess, but I almost always cycle to the pub and I have walked my bike a couple of hours home before when I’ve overindulged (about six miles.)
One time recently I stopped by my usual pub after work to meet some friends, and I’d driven the car that day. At some point I must have stumbled over a word or something because one of my friends decided I was too drunk to drive. I’d had two beers, not strong ones, in three hours, with food. Ever try convincing someone you’re not drunk when they’ve decided you are? Everything you say is exactly what a drunk would say. I gave up and let him drive me home, then cycled back the next morning to collect my car.
Annoying at the time, but that’s really what friends should do.
andystow wrote:
That’s what I do (though my most regular pub is only a mile and a half away), cycle there and if I have more than two pints push it home.
Re your story, it would be a real public service if pubs kept breathalysers behind the bar and allowed you to test for a small fee. The majority of people, I’m sure, would not risk driving if they knew they were over the limit or even close to it, the problem comes when they make an assumption that they’re okay when they are not. It would also allow people like you to prove to their friends they were okay!
Rendel Harris wrote:
My usual (a “British Pub” in the US) is 1.8 miles, but I regularly visit ones about 4 and 8 miles away. A 20-30 minute bike ride, almost entirely on an off-road path, can be a very long walk!
One friend of mine used to carry his own, and it was the quality kind that cost hundreds of dollars, not the cheap ones that aren’t very accurate. I wonder though if a pub might be taking on more liability if they “cleared” people to drive with a device that they would have to keep in good nick and properly calibrated.
I recently saw a coin activated one near the toilets in a brewery or restaurant in Denver. I was tempted to use it, but didn’t. Not sure if it had disposable mouthpieces or not.
(photo found on ebay)
andystow wrote:
I was thinking maybe the single-use ones, such as it used to be compulsory to carry in your car when driving in France; like you I did think about the landlord’s liabilities but presumably if they were simply retailing the product the liability, if any, would lie with teh manufacturer. As you say, not hugely accurate but enough to give at least an idea.
I also think it would be helpful if the police sometimes visited busy pub carparks on a Saturday night and offered drivers free tests; as I said previously, I don’t believe most drink drivers deliberately drink drive, they just wrongly estimate their legality (I’ve had a meal/I’ve had a coffee/I’ve had some water etc, none of which affect BAC), if they could be given a wakeup call without penalty that would be a big step in driver education.
.
.
Today’s No. 1 Humble Brag.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Do I win a prize?
A front fork and bars! Oh,
A front fork and bars! Oh, you don’t need it…
causing serious injury by
causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, driving with no insurance, two counts of failing to stop after a collision and driving without due care and attention
Seems a bit low for that list.
Quote:
Surely publicans have some obligation to take steps to prevent obviously pissed customers from driving away? How about, “Give me your keys, Mr Taylor, whilst I pull your next pint”? Or is it good enough that they just make money whilst their customers inebriate themselves, before sending them on their way?
I’ve thought for while I
I’ve thought for while I wouldn’t want someone coming to or causing grief full of alcohol I had sold them – but this is the drinks industry, it doesn’t work that way.
Sriracha wrote:
To be fair to the publican there’s nothing to say that s/he knew the toerag was driving. I agree, if they did know and let them drive away that’s entirely reprehensible – and, I believe, a crime in many US states – but it says he was refused another drink in a “local pub” for being too pissed, maybe he’d walked there but then went and got his car to go looking further afield?
Should never be allowed to
Should never be allowed to drive again.
Ride a bike without front
Ride a bike without front brakes and collide with an unattentive pedestrian who steps out into the road, resulting in the death of pedestrian – 18mth jail. Drive a car on the wrong side of the road so drunk that a landlord refuses you another drink, almost kill a child cyclist and leave them in the gutter then continue to another pub and refuse to be breathalysed later – 24mths jail. And tell me the justice system is not biased against cyclists.
Why do they even consider allowing this person to ever have a driving licence again? If we are trying to push active or public transport more, then it should be a no-brainer that drivers like this lose their driving licence for good. They can ride a bike or sit on a bus and finally do something positive for society.
Well put…
Well put…
My impression is that yes,
My impression is that yes, there is a bias against cyclists – but there is a much bigger bias in favour of motorists.
Even setting aside criminal sanctions applied when you have fallen far, far below the standard expected (how drunk do you have to be to be refused service?), I don’t think there’s any other area of life where such a lax approach to health and safety is taken. Pass a test when you’re 17, keep driving forever without any further assessment of your competency. I work in a bog standard office but I have to redo the fire safety course every year.
I think youve hit the nail on
I think youve hit the nail on the head. The old adage “if you want to kill someone use a car” is as true now as it ever was and nothing seems to be changing. Use any other weapon and you’re stuffed. The solution for most has been to get the biggest, safest (for the driver and passengers) car you can afford, with catasrophic effects on pollution, congestion and climate change.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Since SUVs have poor stopping distance and can roll over easily, they are not inherently safer, while the perfrom better in a crash, they are more likely to crash so the net effect may not be positive.
Certainly not positive for
Certainly not positive for the people they crash into.
“The sentence today reflects
“The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime…”
The maximum sentence for causing injury by dangerous driving is 5 years. So this crime wasn’t very serious if it only deserved half the maximum?
Two years is the maximum for causing serious injury by careless driving.
This sentence suggests that the crime is at the lower end for a “dangerous” conviction – barely above the level of a “careless” conviction. Especially as there was also a string of other, associated offences.
The statement above makes no sense.
I hope the victim recovers
I hope the victim recovers fully from this appalling incident, mentally as well as physically. As for the driver, if ever someone has proven they should never be allowed back behind the wheel of a vehicle, this is it.
OldRidgeback wrote:
or banned from future consumption of alcohol.
Should be 10 years in jail +
Should be 10 years in jail + castration. That would also act as quite a deterrent.
joe9090 wrote:
too late. A scumbag like this has already 5 kids when they 20. They don’t know when to stop
We need to make scumbags pay
We need to make scumbags pay for these types of crimes. They are not taking it seriously enough.
Poor kid. I hope he comes through ok.
This cuntry.