A driver who told a cyclist “I’m going to kill you” before ramming him with his car has been jailed for 10 months after being found guilty of dangerous driving.
Bradley Harris of Northop, Flintshire, was also banned from driving for 20 months and will have to pass an extended retest to regain his licence, reports the Daily Post.
Mold Crown Court heard that Harris, aged 27, was driving his Audi A3 on Northop High Street at around 8am on 21 April last year, with cyclist Michael Edge riding in the opposite direction.
Phil Clemo, prosecuting, said that Mr Edge thought that Harris, who was driving an Audi A3, would slow down so they could get past each other, but when he didn’t, the cyclist moved into a layby to enable the driver to pass him.
According to Mr Clemo, Harris “felt deeply affronted” at the cyclist moving to one side.
CCTV images showed the driver reversing down the High Street “at speed” then making a three-point turn and driving after Mr Edge.
Harris then shouted at the cyclist: “I’m going to knock you off. I’m going to kill you,” then deliberately swerved at him, with the cyclist sustaining injured ankles among other injuries.
When interviewed by police, however, Harris tried to claim that it was the cyclist who had instigated the confrontation, and denied that he had caused his injuries, insisting the exchange had been purely verbal.
In mitigation, Robin Boag said that Harris had experienced “a few moments’ loss of control” due to stress and that he took that out on the cyclist.
He added that his client was well aware of the potential effects of dangerous driving, having lost his father in a road traffic collision when he was a child.
Judge Niclas Parry, however, described what Harris had done as an “appalling piece of deliberate dangerous driving” in which he used his vehicle “as a weapon,” adding that the only appropriate punishment was imprisonment.
37 thoughts on “Driver who told cyclist “I’m going to kill you” before ramming him with car jailed”
Having read this and the
Having read this and the accompanying article, I feel like I’m missing something. He felt so affronted by a cyclist getting out of his way that he felt attempted murder was the only option? What?!
Either this has been written
Either this has been written up incorrectly…or the driver really is a pyscho…
Whichever way it has been
Whichever way it has been written up, the driver really is a pyscho.
I didn’t understand that
I didn’t understand that reasoning either – maybe he somehow felt reduced because the cyclist chose to stop?
i don’t understand why only a 20month driving ban.
I can only assume the cyclist
I can only assume the cyclist gestured/said something (which is not unreasonable when confronded with bad driving) and it set the guy off. I’ve had a guy jump out of his car before now, fists swinging, when I had the audacity to shake my head after he cut me up on a roundabout. There are some utter knobs out there.
It’s just that the article says that it was the cyclist moving over that caused the offence. I’m sure there’s more to this.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
See I read the article on the Daily Post the opposite way. This sentence “Mr Edge “didn’t think a lot” about moving into a layby to make space before carrying on with his journey, with the prosecution saying that he “experienced this a lot” as a regular cyclist.” in particular
The way I read that sentence was that there was a layby for the cyclist to use but because they were an experienced rider they felt comfortable continuing on the road without diving out of the way of the motorist. Which IMHO is a more likely situation which would trigger the driver.
Having looked at google maps it sounds like the rider would likely be passing a row of parked cars on their side of the road, with the Audi driver not waiting until the rider finished passing the parked cars…. then the Audi driver taking objection to the cyclist not using a gap in the parked cars to let him past. (p.s. that’s all speculation on my part and is no way suggesting that the cyclist did anything wrong)
I am partial to a bit of
I am partial to a bit of speculation and I suspect that the ‘it happens a lot’ is a reference to cars failing to give way at parked cars on their side of the road and driving straight at an oncoming cyclist.
I would think this is the likely view the cyclist had and they pulled into the layby outside the shop because the car didn’t wait behind the parked cars on their side.
If it had been me, I may have over-exaggerated a swerve into the layby to make a point. That might rile a certain type of motorist, as they could think I had not appreciated the tiny gap they had planned to give me.
Me yellin oi at a nob parked
Me yellin oi at a nob parked in the bus stop / cycle lane (yeah, shitty infra) was eniugh to get chased down, forced off the road, punched kicked by the pair of them then a cricket bat to the bike wheel for good measure.
definite nobs.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I have noticed in recent years a tendency in a very small minority of motorists to be affronted if a cyclist offers them courtesy, e.g. waving them out of a junction or stopping to allow them to come down a single lane between parked cars first, most people say thank you but from the odd one you get a frown or even occasionally the finger. I think it must be something to do with their thinking that in ceding to them you are somehow claiming an equality on the road, that you have a right to make decisions about being courteous or insisting on your priority, and that doesn’t fit in with their belief that the motor is king of the road and all others are there as a favour or shouldn’t be there at all.
Never seen anyone take their resentment to such beserk lengths, obviously.
Hadn’t really thought about
Hadn’t really thought about it this way before but that is an interesting theory.
Truly bizarre, yet entirely
Truly bizarre, yet entirely plausible given my experience on the roads of Britain.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Maybe the cyclist didn’t bow down and doff his helmet?
Am I reading this right? The
Am I reading this right? The driver (Harris) was enraged because the cyclist (Edge) “moved into a layby to enable the driver to pass him”?
And he also lost his father
And he also lost his father to a RTC as a child, yet still found it acceptable to behave this way!
matt_cycles wrote:
I just don’t see how that can be construed as a mitigation by the court. To me it sounds like he knows how deadly drivers can be and so he must surely have intended to kill the cyclist.
Why do we need to let these people back onto the roads at all? A re-test is insufficient as it’s not about his driving skill, but his emotional temperament. How can the public be sure that he won’t have another ‘few moments loss of control’ whilst in charge of 2 tonnes of speeding metal?
so once again we have
so once again we have deliberate use of a vehicle as a weapon in an attempt to kill and in less than 2 years he will be given a licence for the the same weapon
beggars belief
What kind of car was it?
What kind of car was it?
Was the cyclist wearing a
Was the cyclist wearing a helmet though?
Was the cyclist wearing dark
Was the cyclist wearing dark clothes?
This case has so many
This case has so many puzzling features that I’m baffled. How could someone who has lost a parent to an RTC behave like that? How can someone who not only threatened to run over and kill someone and then attempted to do so not be charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon or whatever the law defines it as?
And finally having threatened to kill someone and then attempted it, why did he only get ten months? Surely ten years would be more appropriate?
eburtthebike wrote:
This stood out to me as well.
Surely, if someone shouting “I’m going to kill you” at another person, before attacking that person with a deadly weapon somehow isn’t a slam-dunk attempted murder conviction, then something is desperately wrong with our legal system.
When someone deliberately
When someone deliberately drives a vehicle at crowds of people, with an avowed intention to kill, are they charged with motoring offences? How is it different if the target is an individual?
Inspector Kevin Smith SYP
If Inspector Kevin says it, then that’s good enough for me.
Quote:
You mean the perpetrator would have had to have declared, “I’m going to kill you” immediately before making a credible attempt?
I suggest you direct that to
I suggest you direct that to inspector Kevin, although since it is such a facile statement not really worth it.
hirsute wrote:
You’ve lost me with the facile bit.
This utter cnut should’ve
This utter cnut should’ve been tested on the psychopathy spectrum.
When he gets out (in his late twenties!), someone is “going to learn about loss”.
Let’s hope he gets assessed (and processed) in soap rope alley.
So lets see if I understand
So lets see if I understand this.
As a motorist I could make threats to kill a person, then actively drive with intent to injure/kill them. And you get 10 months in jail because you’ve had a stressful time of late?
Threaten to kill someone – and smash up their car – you get 6 months in jail.
https://www.northantslive.news/news/northamptonshire-news/car-smashed-up-baseball-bat-5942089
aahh BUT, the criminal used a
aahh BUT, the criminal used a (push) bike to get there, so it was all part of a planned conspiracy by the anto car cycling lobby.
Joking aside these 2 cases show just how farcical the legal system is in the UK
EK Spinner wrote:
I think you’ll find that the legal system is working as designed – protect and serve those with money and/or power.
No cyclist involved, just a
No cyclist involved, just a pedestrian who the perpetrator took a dislike to for “walking on the wrong side of the road”.
Other highlights include ‘Noting that one of Gill’s fingers was cut off to “enforce” a drug debt nine months before Robinson’s death, the judge added: “Even that did not stop you from drinking and taking drugs.”’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/22/drunk-driver-jailed-killing-man-75-nottingham-road-rage-act
But cyclists, they are the menace.
10 years 9 months……
10 years 9 months……
To me that suggests that even when drunk drivers are charged with Manslaughter its not taken seriously…..
“Gill admitted manslaughter, four counts of assaulting an emergency worker, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, drink-driving, criminal damage, two shoplifting offences and making off without payment.”
Secret_squirrel wrote:
To be fair, 10y9m is consistent with manslaughter considering the maximum sentence is 14 years. I believe, without checking that the starting point is something like 7 or 10 years anyway. Pleading guilty gets you mitigation and reduces the sentence and aggravating factors increase it. I would say that the sentence has been reduced for the guilty plea and increased for the aggravated offence, hence the higher than base sentence. I’m actually quite pleased to see a charge of Manslaughter here rather than simply Death by Dangerous Driving. You can almost guarantee his sentence would have been at least half what it is had it been DbDD despite that attracting the same maximum sentence as Manslaughter.
Motorist threatens to kill
Motorist threatens to kill cyclist, then deliberately drives into him. How is this not attempted murder? Either way a 20 month ban is a sick joke. Ought to be a life ban but in the real world at least 10 years to give the psycho enough time to get some help and hopefully get better.
I doubt its much consolation
<edit IanM beat me to it>
All in all, I don’t see how
All in all, I don’t see how the driver can be construed as having the temprament to be a driver at all. Maybe a permanent ban would be more appropriate.
Weirdly that never seems to
Weirdly that never seems to be a consideration on the sentencing guidelines. It should START with – you don’t get your licence back – and work back from there.