A drink-driving local mayor, who police found to be more than twice the legal limit, knocked a cyclist of their bike as he drove home seven miles from a party where he had “drank about four or five pints of Stella”.
The mayor of the Shropshire village of Clun, Ryan Davies, was sentenced over his drink-driving and received a 20-month driving ban and was ordered to pay £3,017 in a fine and costs, the Mail Online reports.
Llandrindod Wells Magistrates’ Court heard how the cyclist, Cain Western, was riding home from work and was wearing a high-visibility vest, and had lights and reflectors on his bike. He was hit from behind by the drink-driver and knocked off his bike.
Davies slowed but did not stop immediately. Having initially continued driving he then did return to the scene, another person explaining that the local mayor had hit a cyclist.
According to the prosecutor, while Mr Western was unable to identify the registration or the driver, another person at the scene “identified the driver as the defendant, who then got back in his car and left the scene”. When the police arrived they found a wing mirror and went to Davies’s address where it was noted the mayor’s Mercedes was missing a mirror.
Davies said he had last drunk three hours before, police subsequently arresting him after he failed a breathalyser. The court heard he was two times over the legal limit with 183 milligrams of alcohol in his system, the legal limit in the UK 80mg/100ml of blood.
Matthew Davies, defending, said his client “works as an agricultural legislator and is the mayor of Clun”.
“He is very reliant on his licence for work and his duties as mayor. He does a lot of work in the community. He now admits he would not have driven, having been drinking. He has confirmed with the barman that he had four pints of Stella.”
The drink-driving mayor was ordered to pay £3,017 of fines and costs and was banned from driving for 20 months.
Davies appears to still be the village’s mayor and chairman of Clun Town Council. Social media images show him attending Buckingham Palace “to represent Clun” earlier this year.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
37 thoughts on “Drunk mayor knocked cyclist off bike after “four or five pints of Stella” at party”
He left the scene of a crime,
He left the scene of a crime, knew he was drunk. He was an “upstanding ” member of the community, surely he should have had at the very least sone 100+hrs of community service. He should also be sacked from mayoralty for his poor conduct.
And he originally plead not
And he originally plead not-guilty, only changing his plea later on.
It takes a certain kind of arrogance and stupidity (probably both) to think that you’d chance getting off at trial when there was so much evidence against you. Not someone who should be in any kind of authority.
It’s ok it’s only a cyclist
It’s ok it’s only a cyclist no harm done. Good to see that the justice system is still failing to look after vulnerable road users. Same shit different day.
Why should reliance on a
Why should reliance on a driving license be considered as plea for leniency, people who are and still drink drive, surely need to be treated more harshly.
See this one too -Had 6
See this one too -Had 6 points already but needs to take his 5 kids to school.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/25645911.andy-carroll-filmed-epping-protests-driving-court-papers-show/
One comment says “His net worth is estimated at between £10m and £25m”
but he can’t afford a taxi.
Hardship pleas are a joke.
Its maybe a tad unfair of me,
Its maybe a tad unfair of me, but thats the sort of person IMO who should be banned at a minimum (perhaps even harsher punishment) to make an example. Not banning him creates the wrong example, that such a flimsy sob story continues to be accepted :-/
Indeed! The victim might need
Indeed! The victim might need his legs, but a speeding vehicle shows no leniency there.
Knowing that his actions would impact the community (who now pay for his taxis because he’s still mayor!!!), is all the more reason to act responsibly.
Should be a harsher sentence, not lenient
“He has confirmed with the
“He has confirmed with the barman that he had four pints of Stella.”
The barman who knows his place when asked leading questions by an authority figure like a mayor? That one? Did the police check?
“…..he was two times over the legal limit with 183 milligrams of alcohol in his system…..”
He said himself that he hadn’t drank anything for three hours before, so if he was that intoxicated three hours later, it seems likely that he had more than four pints of Stella. I know it’s strongish, 4.6% ABV, but it would take more than four pints to produce that result.
Still, it’s good to see the elite living up to their responsibilities: I can’t believe he hasn’t resigned.
Is the cyclist ok? Having been knocked off by a drunk driver myself, I can empathise.
eburtthebike wrote:
Just put those figures into a blood alcohol calculator, four pints of Stella three hours previously should give a reading of about 90 mg for someone of his size (guessed his weight at about 14 stone). To test at 183 mg after three hours he would’ve needed six or seven pints. Weak of the prosecutor and the sentencing magistrate not to have picked up on this obvious lie.
Quote:
Twice no.
Actually 3 times no, because that’s only the limit in some of the UK – in Scotland it’s lower.
This is quite in contrast
This is quite in contrast with the boss of London Marathon Events (https://road.cc/content/news/ridelondon-organiser-resigns-after-injuring-cyclist-316985). Shouldn’t be
Mayor of Clun? More like
Mayor of Clun? More like clunt if you ask me.
We all drive, and in here we also all ride. But being hit by cars is no fun at all, and being pished at the wheel and hitting anything/injuring anyone should be a ban. 5 years minimum would be a good deterrent.
I believe incidents like this
I believe incidents like this should be sentenced more in line with attempted murder.
He choose to drive while intoxicated, he choose to leave the scene, he didn’t call for an ambulance immediatly.
At the very least there should be custody invovled
The court heard he was two
The court heard he was two times over the legal limit with 183 milligrams of alcohol in his system, the legal limit in the UK 80mg/100ml of blood
Although this is not important, given the gravity of his offences, I suspect this is faulty writing/ reporting somewhere along the line, and should read ‘over 2 times the legal limit’ (twice would be better). I think ‘leaving the scene of a serious collision’ has been seriously under-punished, which is why it has become almost routine, along with ‘I had a few drinks to calm my nerves’. Doing some community service in Clun should indeed have been added to the punishment!
Surprised that:
Surprised that:
SVXY hasn’t popped in to say “yes, but he was not on his phone,
drunkor speeding”, and thatsldwxr (sp? long time no see) hasn’t dropped by to say “DOOR mirror”.
In a SVXY accent, 40 years
In a SVXY accent, 40 years ago they wouldn’t have even got points or a fine they were treated harshly! 😉
quiff wrote:
SWLDXR!
Saying he depends on his
Saying he depends on his licence is a reason for him to be more responsible in the first place. He’s had 4 pints (well evidence is it was much more), he needs his licence, SO TAKE A TAXI HOME !! Get the car tomorrow, like any responsible person.
Did the cyclist not need his bike? His legs? His life? Obviously not as much as the mayor needed to save the taxi fare.
Where is the punishment for leaving the scene?
He drove to a party, I’m
He drove to a party, I’m guessing intending on drinking heavily, and determined to drive home drunk. Probably not the first time he’d done it either. Very unlucky for the cyclist.
I thought that drink driving
I thought that drink driving typically results in a prison sentence. I guess we’ve got the best legal system that money can buy.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It would be great if it did, drink-driving alone virtually never incurs a prison sentence (even when someone is injured as a result it’s not that common). The standard penalty is the tap on the wrist short ban (sometimes not even that when “mitigation” is accepted) and a fine usually amounting to a week’s wages.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m just thinking of all drink-driving PSA adverts that used to be on the telly. They definitely pushed the idea of prison time for drink driving.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes, I remember those. If I recall correctly they did seem to be mainly based around hitting people while driving drunk and going to prison for that?
I don’t watch TV these days apart from for sport but I can’t remember the last time I saw an anti drink-driving ad, do they just not bother anymore?
Clearly “problem has now been
Clearly “problem has now been solved”? Or is it they got distracted by chasing after drug driving?
(I suspect you’re correct – or is this now all done via the social medias and they’re doing something there?)
No cyclists were hurt – or
No cyclists were hurt – or even involved – according to this report by the BBC. Surely such an omission amounts to disinformation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy47gwkyk8jo
If you would like to join me
If you would like to join me in complaining, go to…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints
Thanks, complaint made:
Thanks, complaint made:
“This is the most misleading, inaccurate report I have ever seen. It completely ignores the fact that the driver hit and injured a cyclist. It is impossible that this was just a mistake, that someone forgot to mention that the mayor hit and injured a cyclist while driving whilst drunk. This is intentionally misleading, and the fact that the mayor hit and injured a cyclist was therefore deliberately excluded from this report. It is stated that “This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations.” Whoever gathered this should be fired for bias and misleading the public.”
eburtthebike wrote:
Not sure about that – it doesn’t look like much intention went into that ‘report’ at all. I mean, look at the image used – was this meant to be illustrative of Mr Davies, or of Clun? Or is it just in case we’re weren’t sure what a road looks like?
Have done, it seems the Trump
Have done, it seems the Trump issue wasn’t a one off mistake, but routinely pushing their own agenda.
Chris-Brompton wrote:
Yes…you wouldn’t happen to have a little agenda of your own going on with that comment, would you Chris?
The bbc certainly have an
The bbc certainly have an agenda with regard to reporting cycling and describing incidents involved motorised vehicles. Even on radio 4 news Wed/Thurs, they went with ‘car drives into crowd’ at Liverpool victory parade.
And don’t get me started on “ebikes”.
Is it really an agenda or
Is it really an agenda or just laziness and ingrained habits? I must admit I even find myself saying “They were hit by a car” or similar quite often so I can imagine people rushing under pressure to put out a news programme can quite easily get it wrong. Not excusing it, just wondering if it’s really the deliberate insult some people view it as.
Reporting guidelines on RTC
Reporting guidelines on RTC have been out for over 4 years. Not meeting them is indifference or part of an agenda.
Hirsute wrote:
Agreed, I’d go for indifference with a side order of incompetence rather than an agenda though.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I tend towards thinking that it’s a motornormative agenda. It’s one thing to informally say things, but reporters should be expected to follow guidelines if only to avoid legal threats to the publication. If they can be expected to not libel people, then it’s not much of a stretch to ask them to not use specifically biased language. Whenever the BBC mentions cycling, they usually just focus on helmet usage rather than the benefits and instead they tend to promote EV cars as being a solution to pollution concerns, but almost never mention bike shaped EVs. Certainly, they only ever mention e-scooters as being a scourge on society (which to be fair is a common opinion) and don’t mention how they can be part of a traffic management strategy (e.g. reducing the number of short journeys driven).
I also remember one BBC report of a clash between a group of cyclists and an aggressive driver where the BBC edited the video footage (removed about 30 seconds IIRC) which made it seem as though the cyclist was acting aggressively for no reason. (I registered a complaint for that one too).
No, just trying to point out
No, just trying to point out different news sections seem to be trying to misinform, so more likely an institutional problem rather than an individual.
Complained and got a reply
Complained and got a reply today saying they didn’t know a cyclist was involved, but have updated the story now, only took a month!
There reply seems a bit strange: We contacted the writer and local editor about your concerns. The article was written by the Local Democracy Reporting Service who file copy for media outlets to use. Their copy was written using the documents provided by the court about this case. In these documents the elements about the case you are referring to were not mentioned.