Cyclist flung over car by driver on pavement (credit, Kent Police)
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”
Clive Williams was also banned from driving for two years, but was not charged with any drugs offence, despite doctors telling the cyclist he was “lucky the impact had not killed me”
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.
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
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?
the legal difference between "careless driving" and "dangerous driving" isn't the potential for injury.
That literally is the difference between the two offences, see for example the police.uk website:
police.uk wrote:
The offence of 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.
or indeed look at the RTA 1988 Section 2(A):
Road Traffic Act 1988 wrote:
"dangerous" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property
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.
“He was facing an impossible choice – to hit the car in front or swerve"
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.
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?
Add new comment
71 comments
Some harsh actions taken under the cover of darkness spring to mind.
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.
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?
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-ba...
(Whether the offenses are well named, and whether the CPS are too reluctant to use the more severe charges, are valid but different questions.)
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):
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.
Er, no - he had the choice to leave sufficient room in front of him, and to look where he was going.
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.
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?
"just below the threshold for dangerous driving": that impossibly high bar again. Something needs to change.
Possibly, but sorting out a dangerous cycling law is clearly more important.
Pages