A motorist has been spared jail after leaving a cyclist with horrendous, life-changing injuries in a sickening head-on collision on the pavement, despite being twice the legal limit for cannabis, after his defence barrister claimed the driver was left with “an impossible choice” – to hit the car in front or swerve onto the pavement and into the path of the oncoming cyclist.
Clive Williams was handed a six-month suspended prison sentence and disqualified from driving for two years after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving following the shocking crash, which saw cyclist Les Norris fly into the car windscreen and over its roof, while his bike was flung through the air.
The 64-year-old suffered a serious injury to his pelvis, as a well as broken ribs and a fractured wrist, in the collision, and was forced to spend six weeks in hospital, where doctors told him he was lucky to be alive.
The incident took place on 30 April 2023 in Hawkinge, near Folkestone, Kent, as Norris cycled home from work on a longer route than usual, which he says he took due to it being sunny. According to the cyclist, as he rode on the pavement, he noticed that the line of traffic next to him had slowed, when a silver car suddenly veered into his path.
Folkestone Magistrates’ Court heard this week that Williams was following another motorist in front as he emerged from a roundabout onto the Canterbury Road, who then braked sharply, which prompted the 41-year-old to swerve onto the footpath, immediately hitting Norris head-on.
The force of the collision saw the cyclist slam into his handlebars, shattering his pelvis, before hitting the car’s windscreen and being thrown over the vehicle and onto the ground.
Footage of the incident, captured on a nearby property’s CCTV, shows Norris riding on the pavement before his bike can be spotted flying through the air. Dashcam footage from a motorist approaching the roundabout was also played in court (and also appears in the above clip), showing the moment Norris was struck as Williams swerved onto the pavement.
In a statement later given to the police and read in court, Norris said he could remember hitting the windscreen of the vehicle, going over the top, and then lying with blood dripping from his head.
“I remember the air ambulance paramedics putting me on a stretcher and I was in pain and total shock. I was wheeled to the ambulance and had ketamine to sedate me because of my injuries,” the statement said.
The cyclist was forced to undergo emergency surgery and remained in hospital for six weeks after the crash, which has left him with metal plates in his pelvis and wrist which will never be removed.
In a victim impact statement, Norris said he felt cheated by the crash, as he had always been fit and healthy and that had now been ripped away from him.
“When I saw the CT scan of my pelvis there were bits of bone everywhere and it was like it had exploded, I couldn’t believe the mess,” he said.
“The doctors said it was life-threatening and I was lucky the impact had not killed me.”
Detailing how he has been forced to give up his hobbies, such as skiing and paddleboarding, the 64-year-old continued: “This is the hardest most traumatic time of my life. I was in the Navy on submarines for three months [at a time] and that seems like a walk in the park [compared to this].
“My surgeon said it was the most complex operation he’d ever done before, and I now have a titanium cage [in my pelvis] for the rest of my life which I can feel and even turning over in bed causes me pain.”
The court heard that Mr Norris is now forced to sleep in an adjustable bed without his wife and still suffers from a frozen shoulder and pain in his wrist, while suffering from mild PTSD, which has seen him undertake cognitive therapy. He also said it will be “some time” before he cycles again and that he is still reliant on painkillers.
In another statement, Mr Norris’ wife said her “world had been turned upside down” by the crash, and that she also often feels low and depressed.
“Seeing him on a ventilator in the hospital broke me,” she said. “Les was the main victim, but I feel like a victim too.”
The court also heard this week that Williams had smoked a cannabis joint the night before the crash, and that a test for drugs found the 41-year-old to be twice the legal limit.
However, despite being charged with causing serious injury by careless driving, to which he pleaded guilty in August, he was never charged with any drug-related offences.
Nevertheless, Terry Knox, prosecuting, told the Magistrates that Williams’ test result this was still an “aggravating factor” that should be taken into account when it comes to sentencing.
In court, Williams denied driving dangerously or speeding, and said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes, arguing that he carried out an emergency manoeuvre to avoid a collision.
Mr Knox said the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving and sentencing guidelines said the starting point for punishment was a year’s custody.
Defending, Olivia Rawlings said Williams had admitted his guilt at the outset, and that there had been no malice in his actions.
“He was facing an impossible choice – to hit the car in front or swerve – and [with] the timescale he faced, he swerved away from the car and even Mr Norris said he must have been trying to avoid the car,” she said.
“There was no evidence of speeding. He was too close to the car in front. He was not charged over the cannabis, but that should be taken into consideration he smoked a small amount the night before.
“He’s of previous good character and has genuine remorse. He’s not driven since the incident and has some health problems.”
While taking into account the “distressing” impact the crash has had on Mr Norris and his wife, the chairman of the bench said they accepted there was a low risk of Williams reoffending and, as a result, he would be sentenced to 24 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months.
The motorist was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 24 months. Williams was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £154 and £85 court costs.
71 thoughts on “Drug driver who smashed into cyclist on pavement while twice the legal limit for cannabis, flinging rider through the air and leaving him with life-changing injuries, handed six-month suspended sentence after motorist claimed he “faced impossible choice””
“just below the threshold for
“just below the threshold for dangerous driving”: that impossibly high bar again. Something needs to change.
HoarseMann wrote:
Possibly, but sorting out a dangerous cycling law is clearly more important.
What can one even say when a
What can one even say when a court reinforces the idea that almost killing a cyclist is better than rear ending the car in front of you because you are driving too close?
Quote:
I’m not sure the definition of the word “impossible” includes a choice between a repair bill for a couple of dented car bumpers, or crippling someone for life. Seems like “selfish” would be the more appropriate adjective. Although, it could be argued that he is a slave to an addiction – to his car more than to marijuana.
Quote:
Er, no – he had the choice to leave sufficient room in front of him, and to look where he was going.
The “Impossible Choice” is a
The “Impossible Choice” is a standard scenario.
Very often when I get overtaken on a blind bend, the driver has an impossible choice. Go for the head on collision or swerve over to the left and take me out.
It’s never the former. perhaps this degree of anticipation should be part of the driving test.
Mr Knox said the standard of
Mr Knox said the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving…..
If it was just below the threshold for dangerous driving, how come someone was seriously injured and almost killed?
Answer: it wasn’t just below, it was way, way over the threshold. Anyone closely following another car at speed on the exit of a roundabout is driving dangerously, so quite how our legal system says it isn’t dangerous, is beyond me. If someone is seriously injured because of the way someone drove, then ipso facto, the driving was dangerous, a statement so bleedin’ obvious that it really doesn’t need saying.
Never mind, soon be time for the comprehensive review of road offences to report. I wonder if the new government will do anything?
EDIT: Has anyone asked the odious IDS what he thinks?
eburtthebike wrote:
Causing death by careless driving is an offense that exists, the legal difference between “careless driving” and “dangerous driving” isn’t the potential for injury.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-fatal-offences-and-bad-driving
(Whether the offenses are well named, and whether the CPS are too reluctant to use the more severe charges, are valid but different questions.)
armb wrote:
That literally is the difference between the two offences, see for example the police.uk website:
or indeed look at the RTA 1988 Section 2(A):
So much wrong with this:
So much wrong with this:
– last ‘impossible choice’ – hit a safety cage with associated repair bill and probabl;y a whiplash claim, or smite a vulnerable road user.
– Preceding bad choices:
Since when was electing to drive on the pavement anything other than dangerous, especially when over the limit.
Courts and CPS drawing their salaries under false pretences again.
Lost for words. What will it
Lost for words. What will it take to deal with dangerous road users? Justice has not been done. #motonormativity rules in the UK. Vehicles through dangerous road users kill and maim day in day out and it is accepted by society.
Some harsh actions taken
Some harsh actions taken under the cover of darkness spring to mind.
Let’s for arguments sake say
Let’s for arguments sake say the driver didn’t just seriously hurt the cyclist but left them as a vegetable or even killed them. Would that of brought a different sentence?
While we are at it, let’s not forget this was on the pavement so remove cyclist insert mother pushing young child in pram or pushchair. Is it still the same punishment? Would that be an impossible choice to make over an oncoming steel box?
I really do not understand the courts leniency in this case. Remove all mention of the word cyclist , he hit a person on the pavement while high on drugs. How the fuck is that not dangerous driving?
Smoggysteve wrote:
I strongly suspect that if it had been a pedestrian rather than someone on a bike they would have been killed, as they would likely have gone under the car rather than over it.
Steve K wrote:
Probably also be dead if it were a car with a higher bonnet.
100%
100%
All this case does, along with the many other examples of lenient sentences given to drivers when the victim is a cyclist, is tell the public that people who ride bikes are fair game.
If the victim was not on a bike we can all be certain that the punishment would have been at least slightly more severe.
Smoggysteve wrote:
Contributary negligence. The cyclist shouldn’t be on the pavement.
There’s no mention of it being a shared path or anything like that and no mention of the defence using it in mitigation but it could well be a justification in some people’s mind.
Don’t be so stupid. I don’t
Don’t be so stupid. I don’t have to say anymore . That’s just plain dumb
The no-option option:
The no-option option:
Every car has at least two of these pedals … one to make it go faster, one to make it go slower.
There is *always* an option … and it should always be the middle pedal.
Jesus. F*cking. Wept.
Jesus. F*cking. Wept.
And there’s a “war on motorists” you say?
Clem Fandango wrote:
Yes, using feather dusters as weapons.
Another degenerate drug user
Another degenerate drug user walks from court having left a cyclist with life changing injuries and who knows what damage to his mental health.
Today I read that a man was fined a total of £9,000 (including costs) for silently praying in a restricted area, Adam Smith-Connor. I also read that a bigot has been sentenced to 31 months imprisonment for inciting people on Twitter, Lucy Connolly.
Surely Clive William’s offence must fall somewhere between these two? Instead he’s been fined barely £250 and two years (24 months) suspended. No justice in this country if you offend in a car.
What a nasty collission.
What a nasty collission.
Does anyone know if the same 40mph speed limit applies for the oncoming traffic? Around this corner, with very poor visibility, 40mph seem far too much – in particular if irresponsible, drugged drivers add another 10mph on top.
Mr Knox said the standard of
Mr Knox said the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving and sentencing guidelines said the starting point for punishment was a year’s custody.
That is correct, I’ve checked it out on the “Sentancing guidlines uk” website.
I cannot see any extenuating circumstances. I don’t think having a good defence lawyer counts.
So What went wrong, why is this guy not behind bars?
It starts with that, then
It starts with that, then factors such as previous character, timeliness of a guilty plea, different aspects of what arose, intent – all impact the amendments to that starting point.
“previous character” is a legal fiction. It is really previous record. “He’s of previous good character” just means he’s not been before the court before, but then most people aren’t, until they are.
The intent… well, he didn’t intend to hurt the cyclist (you’d have to prove that was the purpose of his actions), and he was reacting to circumstances arising in front of him. Now, we know, because cyclists are, on average, better drivers, that he shoudln’t have been so close and, having been caught out, he shouldn’t have swerved (because that almost never results in a more positive outcome than simply braking). So actually his intent was the intent to drive carelessly with the possible ramifications for other road users caught up in the ensuing consequences. Short of parasomnia, all driving is intentional, so let’s reduce the consequences of that in judicial consideration.
However, and I realise this may not be popular, I don’t think custodial sentences are the answer, though nor are current alternatives. That’s because they don’t really address the behaviour or the mindset.
I think we need a much more constructive package of penalties and remediation. They need to be financial; they need to affect your licence to drive; and they need to occupy your time so that you constructively focus on the mindset of sharing the road.
Focused community service – not painting community rooms; but attending training, assisting in a hospital morgue, being required to cycle lots of places. they could even enjoy it – I don’t care… I want them to come out realising that they are not the centre of their own little universe.
It is not the lack of prison
It is not the lack of prison per se that bugs me. It is if this driver injured anybody to this degree with anything other than a car a custodial sentence would be almost certain to follow.
I think that litter picking next to busy roads would be good community service for driving offences.
Cycloid wrote:
6 months is the maximum sentance a Magistrate can give. Causing Serious Injury By Careless Driving is an “either way” offence, so this could (and should) have gone to a Crown Court, where a longer sentance could be given.
Well he didn’t face an
Well he didn’t face an impossible choice did he.
1. To take cannabis and be high as a kite. A dumb choice that most likely led to the accident.
2. To drive inappropriately so when the car in front slowed down he couldn’t stop, another choice that was not a clever one.
3. When faced with crashing into the car in front went on the pavement, irrespective of what was there. Or did not form the plan that if something was there to go further off the road to avoid hitting a cyclist or pedestrian that happened to be there. Overall no impossible decisions just a series of bloody awful ones.
This is one where the book should be thrown at someone, drunk or drugged and cause an injury then you should be made an example of.
All true, but it is the legal
All true, but it is the legal system at fault, not just the driver.
Hit a car with multiple
Hit a car with multiple safety features or plough along a footpath. Not really an impossible choice. I hope the insurance claim hurts him like the victim of his drug driving
“Folkestone Magistrates’
“Folkestone Magistrates’ Court heard this week that Williams was following another motorist in front as he emerged from a roundabout onto the Canterbury Road, who then braked sharply, ….” to turn right into a presumably signed road junction….no, absolutely no way Williams could possibly have predicted that with on-coming traffic the car in front of him might come to a halt. Give me strength!
I’m sure no-one in the UK needs me to say this, but on my occasional visits back there since moving to South Australia in 2005 I would have to say that driving standards have fallen depressingly. I’m sure there are many reasons, but courts giving offenders like Willaims what is effectively a free pass don’t send anything like the right signal.
Stay safe all (to the best of your limited ability to influence that).
CyclingInGawler wrote:
It’s not particularly clear, but from what I can make out it’s worse than that. It’s the car in front of the car in front of the miscreant that stops to turn, and does so well before they get there, giving plenty of opportunity to see the obstruction. But they didn’t see it because they were driving up the arse of the second car (which then stops behind the turning car) and not looking where they were going. They then pass both cars on the pavement, illustrating just how insufficient the space they’d given themselves was (assuming they were actually making some attempt to stop, which I’m not convinced is certain).
mdavidford wrote:
Far too many cars drive far too close to the car in front. I see it every day. Even on fairly quiet motorways and dual carriageways there are people who drive far too close behind you for ages or who pull in right in front of you after overtaking.
Where overtaking isn’t an option it can appear as if the offending driver is bullying the one in front to go faster or pull over, but there are a lot of times when there really is no potential benefit. I’m overtaking a row of traffic, pull in as soon as humanly possible due to the car behind being frighteningly close behind, then they pull in behind me and continue to drive too close to me, and forcing the car behind to slow down to maintain a safe distance.
I don’t think most of the offending drivers realise they are dangerously close, or that even when they get away with no crashes they are simply wasting fuel and energy to maintain to do so. I think all aspects of road safety would benefit from a campaign to encourage drivers to leave a decent stopping distance.
There are thousands of such
There are thousands of such incidents on youtube, dangerous tailgating, brake checks and even threats of violence. Drivers don’t just hate cyclists, lots of them hate other drivers.
eburtthebike wrote:
I reckon a lot of them also hate themselves, which brings about a special kind of rage.
This is what it looks like to
This is what it looks like to me as well. It also looks like they don’t even brake.
The sentencing for “driving
The sentencing for “driving offences” (let’s just call them crimes) like this are an absolute joke – a totally unfunny one.
So basically, here you have a drugged driver who almost kills an innocent person, and effectively ruins his life. The sentence is suspended and a short driving ban. How is this justice?
We cyclists need to campaign for proportionate sentences for driving crimes in which people are hurt. How on earth can sentences like this abomination be acceptable in our society?
This doesn’t look like an
This doesn’t look like an emergency braking from the car in front, maybe the video is not clear enough, but I can see the cars stopping very progressively?
Cannabis is well known for slow reaction times, and to create confusion in the mind when fast decisions are required, both major problems when driving, I’m surprised there is a “legal limit” (I didn’t know it was legal in the UK).
My guess is that this driver has very good relationships, although the power of the cannabis lobby might be enough to influence some judges…
the existance of a legal
the existance of a legal limit bugs me to, its not a subkject I know anything about but this case almost seems to have accepted that the drug was low concentration and not a significant factor – absolutly baffling
S.E. wrote:
It isn’t legal although not heavily policed in terms of individual users. We don’t really have a “cannabis lobby”, that’s something you may have in the USA (I’m guessing you’re there or in some other country where it’s legal?) but as it’s not legal to grow or sell over here we have a few small groups pressing for legalisation but nothing that you would call a lobby.
I think the point of the legal limit is to differentiate between people who have recently smoked and someone who might have had a joint a week ago and who still has traces in their system but obviously whose driving is not affected, although if, as here, the court appears to have pretty much ignored the fact that the driver was over the legal limit then there doesn’t seem much point in having one. In my opinion roadside sobriety tests of reaction times and coordination, as used in the USA, would be much more useful as evidence of reduced capacity or otherwise.
It’s not set to zero as
It’s not set to zero as walking and breathing down a London street, especially the one those driving whilst black athletes live on, could mean everyone gave a positive result.
Same with cocaine and touching folding money.
How can there be a legal
How can there be a legal limit for something that is illegal?
looking at the (admittadly
looking at the (admittadly poor) footage there doesn’t look to be much slowing down going on, prior to the impact, i feel he was more likely attempting to pass on the footpath rather than avoid a collision.
“In court, Williams denied driving dangerously or speeding, and said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes, arguing that he carried out an emergency manoeuvre to avoid a collision.” – this defence is an admittance of incompetent driving, the driver should always be able to stop in the distance they can see is clear in front of them
Saying you don’t deserve
Saying you don’t deserve punishment because your dangerous driving was due to incompetence is almost a recognised defense in the UK.
Here’s a good (but sad) article on the Incompetence Paradox.
that was an intersting
that was an intersting article to read, thanks
I would not particularly want
I would not particularly want to crash into a car and rely on my airbag, seat belt and crumple zone to protect me but I would absolutely choose to if the alternative is to mow down an innocent person on a pavement. Nothing “impossible” about that choice. Should be inside for several years. I do wonder whether the overcrowding in prisons is having an effect on sentencing. If yes then alternatives such as curfews, lifetime driving bans and financially punitive fines should be used. If drivers know that they could lose 50% of their wealth as a fine for such incidents then they would take more care.
You might not, but most of
You might not, but most of those overtaking me on blind bends and hill crests take the option of the squishy sideswipe rather than the head on.
Exactly. The number of
Exactly. The number of drivers that do that is mind-bongling.
Or there’s the other choice –
Or there’s the other choice – leave enough room to brake safely…
Also, isn’t…
Also, isn’t…
“He was facing an impossible choice – to hit the car in front or swerve – and [with] the timescale he faced, he swerved away from the car and even Mr Norris said he must have been trying to avoid the car,”
… exactly the kind of argument that opponents of self-driving vehicles use against them (with little consideration that self-driving vehicles will be actively avoiding that kind of situation to start with)
belugabob wrote:
IOW: Don’t drive like a c**t?
Far too many drivers refuse to behave responsibly (and it is refusal, not ignorance or some other excuse). They simply shouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel.
Mr Norris was minding his own business, behaving responsibly, but he has had trauma and life-changing injuries because this skinhead prick didn’t want to scratch his car. And the justice system doesn’t really want to do anything about it. In that case it’s high time someone else did.
jamesha100 wrote:
I had the same initial reaction to the headline choice, but I think that at the time he swerved, he didn’t realise there was a person there. He wasn’t paying proper attention to the road and car ahead, I’m sure he wasn’t paying attention to the pavement/cycle path.
Obviously “don’t drive so close to the car in front that you can’t brake in time” is a better choice. (If he did deliberately choose to undertake on the verge without looking what was there when he could have stopped, and lied about it, that’s worse.)
(I did once find myself thinking I wouldn’t stop in time in very heavy rain on a motorway when the car ahead stopped. It was when trying to steer into the hard shoulder to avoid them while still braking didn’t turn the car that I realised my front wheels were locked and hydroplaning. Pumping the brakes did then stop without running into them. These days ABS would have done it for me.)
Don’t worry Iain Duncan-Smith
Don’t worry Iain Duncan-Smith will be along to sort this out any moment now.
…any moment. Any moment now.
From what I see, the kerb in
From what I see, the kerb in the location where the druggie went up the kerb is very low. I think there’s a high probability he deliberately went up the kerb at speed to avoid slowing down and didn’t see the cyclist due to his impatience and drugged up state. My sympathy 100% with Mr Norris the cyclist.
This is 2009.
This is 2009 at the end of the path.
It tells us all we need to know about the last Govt’s attitude to the public realm, and investment.
Is that really the same spot?
This is a link to 2023:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1212186,1.1623972,3a,19.3y,293.99h,79.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s53hLzMz558-dgAp858GSkg!2e0!5s20230401T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
2023:
2023:
That’s how I read the video..
That’s how I read the video…deliberate undertake of right turning car using the low kerbed path….so should have gone to a higher court and charged with Dangerous Driving …instead pleaded guilty to lesser offense…as to suspended sentences …trend would seem to predate prison crisis. Seems routine for “nice people”…message gives is you will only go to prison if you repeat your appalling driving or I guess in this case if you are caught driving while banned. My sympathy with the cyclist…same age as me and feel for the pain and loss of activities enjoyed.
A guilty plea to careless is
A guilty plea to careless is a normal informal plea bargaining process imo – an abuse.
mattw wrote:
I’m not sure there’s anything informal or abusive about it. It is a standard part of our legal system that a guilty plea leads to a reduced sentence.
I also saw it as a comment on
I also saw it as a comment on going with a lower charge in exchange for a guilty plea.
As hp has argued many times, we need a driving examiner to give expert witness that the standard of driving meets the dangerous driving threshold.
Steve K wrote:
I think what mattw was getting at was that sometimes the CPS will charge with a lesser offence in exchange for a guilty plea. For example, many years ago (1987 age 18) I was glassed in a club, broken nose requiring surgery, stitches in left eye. The police wanted to go with GBH, the newly formed CPS were told by the defence that they’d plead guilty to ABH with a fine and compensation to keep it at magistrate court, but contest it in a crown court to try and avoid a custodial sentence. The CPS went with ABH…
This is a terrible case. A
This is a terrible case. A drugged up driver who lied to the Court, and perhaps himself, and the Magistrates swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Even at a physical level, the traffic island prebisouly had a grass verge, but had had a bank of trees planted on that corner in 2008-9 which now restricts the sightline on the approach for that driver. In 2008 he could have seen the either car.
Yet the Traffic Island still has a 40mph limit throught it, nor was redesigned to make drivers slow down, and that exit was widened (hatchings made narrower) in between 2009 and 2021. Notice how the signboard the other way is longer visible.
Drivers eye view 2009
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1209469,1.1620605,3a,75y,6.62h,95.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLoFOle7u-CjU8X7vjZI5Kw!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Drivers eye view 2021
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.120932,1.1620791,3a,75y,6.62h,95.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHbTA0gUf6g8CH2033nqnHQ!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Location
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1213504,1.1616737,194m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
PS. How do we do Streetview
PS. How do we do Streetview links on roadcc that work?
It seems a fairly core need.
mattw wrote:
Click on the 3 dots, then on Share or Embed image, then Copy Link. Paste the link into your comment e.g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/gNKLVD3DLiAfFhuG8
So for 2023:
So for 2023:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RGUXMkttJn4nDbe99
Thanks.
“Smoked a joint the night
“Smoked a joint the night before”. Is it plausible to do this and still have the level that showed up in the drugs test? Or is it just a lie, and possible that he smoked nearer to the time of the collision? The camera footage says it was around 1:50 pm.
I don’t know anything about how long cannabis impairs you. A quick Google says the effects of one joint might be gone just 5 hours later.
bikes wrote:
Certainly not in the business of defending this lowlife or his driving but yes, that is definitely plausible, it can show up on a saliva test as used by the police for up to 48 hours after use, and depending on the amount he smoked the night before it could show up at twice the legal limit 12 hours later. Of course he might well have smoked a smaller amount an hour before, the test can’t tell.
“after his defence barrister
“after his defence barrister claimed the driver was left with “an impossible choice” – to hit the car in front or swerve onto the pavement and into the path of the oncoming cyclist.”
Firstly, if the driver was driving at an appropriate speed ( i.e. safely) for the road , there would have been a safe stop and no “impossible choice” would have arisen. How is it I never have these issues when I am driving ? Because i bloody drive safely and at an appropriate speed , without phone use, and with proper attention to my surroundings and always considering the safety of vulnerable road users. It really isn’t that hard. But of course, it is very hard to dial in some empathy if you don’t have it to begin with …
And finally, to Les Norris , i know this has been a horrendous time for you and your partner, my thoughts are with you , it is a horrendous thing to happen
The speed looks ok to me. He
The speed looks ok to me. He just needed to brake. It looks like he didn’t even steer then brake, only steered. It’s a bizarre choice, perhaps it was an attempted undertake. He’s still going at some speed at the end of the video.
“said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes.” The video clearly shows this was not the case.
He just wasn’t paying
He just wasn’t paying attention to the road and swerved + didn’t want to admit that – weve all seen it happen, most brake now tho, anyone with any degree of intelligence wouldn’t swerve onto a pavement and also the initial argument stands of not paying attention cause he didn’t see the cyclist, also
That seems a very lenient
That seems a very lenient sentence for very poor driving while under the influence. It looks like the driver was trying to overtake on the pavement.