A driver has avoided being jailed after he deliberately crashed into a cyclist because the man ‘cycled over a bridge’.
Muir David Taylor, 65, ‘started going mental’ and swerved into the rider, knocking the man into a busy road.
He then drove off, leaving the victim lying injured on the floor.
Taylor appeared at Plymouth Crown Court, Devon, for sentence having pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.
Prosecuting the case, Emily Cook described how on November 6 last year the victim was cycling behind Taylor on the Tamar Bridge when Taylor took exception to him, Cornwall Live reports.
Taylor slowed down so the cyclist had to stop and the pair exchanged words.
After leaving the bridge Taylor should have turned right but instead, without indicating, swerved left across two lanes of traffic to get in front of the rider.
The cyclist pulled up and Taylor told him not to cycle on the bridge with witnesses describing him as ‘going mental’.
Taylor then deliberately drove into the cyclist, knocking him over and into a live lane of traffic.
He then accelerated away but witnesses were able to identify his vehicle to police and Taylor was traced and arrested.
The victim was lucky to only suffer minor injuries but has been left shaken by the ordeal.
Sentencing Taylor, Judge Robert Linford said: “You lost your temper and at some point your vehicle hit a cyclist. This was extremely dangerous driving because you lost your temper.
“That said this is the only time you’ve done anything wrong in your entire life and you have expressed an appropriate level of remorse.
“I note the problems that beset your life prior to this incident.”
Taylor was given a 12 month community order consisting of a mental health treatment requirement and a rehabilitation activity requirement. He was also banned from driving for 12 months.
77 thoughts on “Driver avoids prison sentence after mowing down cyclist for ‘riding over a bridge’”
OMFG. I despair of some of
OMFG. I despair of some of our judges. This moron assaults someone with a deadly weapon and pushes him into a main road with a high rate of traffic and he gets off without any kind of custodial sentence. If he had knocked a pedestrian into the road with a baseball bat would the judge have been as lenient?
I despair of some of our
I despair of some of our judges
Agreed. Judge Linford is highly unlikely to be a cyclist.
Using your vehicle as a
Using a heavy vehicle as a weapon should ALWAYS lead to prison sentences. And long ones at that.
Dangerous driving with intent
Dangerous driving with intent to cause injury, should carry mandatory prison sentence. Minimum 1 yr prison sentence, 5yr driving ban to start after prison release. Then an extended driving test.
Why should someone who has
Why should someone who has deliberately hit another road user with a vehicle because of their inability to control their temper ever be allowed to drive again?
If someone shoots a stranger with a shotgun they are never allowed to hold a shotgun license again – so why should we as a society accept a lower punishment just because the weapon of choice has four wheels.?
Should be a custodial
Should be a custodial sentence just for the hit and run aspect. That it was completely intentional should mean a lifetime driving ban – he does not have the emotional composure to not endanger others.
Speechless!
Speechless!
That he was going through
That he was going through problems in his life prior to the incident should be no reason whatsoever to giving him a slap on the wrists.
All this does is give every psychopath in a car an easy excuse to explain their utterly shite driving.
If the judges cannot give appropriate punishments they might be in the wrong job.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
Quite. There are two things that must be applied here.
The former is independent of sympathy and must be totally objective. The latter is where you can play to teh gallery to show what a kind-hearted judge you are.
Why did Taylor think someone
Why did Taylor think someone couldn’t cycle over the Tamar Bridge?
Should have been on the cycle
Should have been on the cycle lane?
Why does he get to cross for free whilst I have to pay a toll?
Another one of those lycra fiends with a war on the motorist, I think I will get my retaliatory attack in first?
what was the driver charged
what was the driver charged with? If it is not assault and ABH, then that is outrageous.
Sue him personally, should be
Sue him personally, should be an easy win. Take the money and give it to a local scrote to kneecap the fella.
Job done.
sparrowlegs wrote:
If he gets decent representation, like members of CUK get as part of their membership, the driver will have to remortgage his house to pay the compensation. Should be more than enough to hire a proper hit man rather than the local scrote, and still have change for a new bike.
eburtthebike wrote:
Given the man has had his name and address published in the newspaper, I think it’s deeply shocking you’re actively calling for him to be seriously injured or worse. I thought these forums are meant to be moderated?
Why is it shocking? When the
Why is it shocking? When the legal system is clearly a mess, other measures could be deemed appropriate. If it was my partner who had been injured by that tonsil, him and his family best be careful.
It’s shocking because
It’s shocking because encouraging crime is an offence under English law. I’d have thought people would want to avoid that.
Yes, i want to avoid
Yes, i want to avoid breaking the law but should a member of my family almost be killed and the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, i would take some action that will not be legal. What’s the worst that can happen, wet bus ticket?
What’s the worst that can
What’s the worst that can happen, wet bus ticket?
Those comedy penalties only apply if you hit/ injure/ kill a cyclist with a vehicle- you’re not likely to find these offenders cycling anywhere.
There is that to consider but
There is that to consider but I would still take my chances.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Is the judge encouraging crime with this sentence?
Obviously fucking not because
Obviously fucking not because simple-minded trolls like you are still here.
Why is this not attempted
Why is this not attempted murder, if he deliberately swerved across 2 lanes of traffic, then that clearly shows premeditation?
Or at the very least, assault with a deadly weapon!
I’ve done some searching, but
I’ve done some searching, but can’t actually find what the charge/verdict was on – if it wasn’t some form of offence against the person (the generic category for assault, GBH etc), then we have clear proof that the CPS treats cars in a different category to other objects, when they are used as weapons.
He pleaded guilty to
He pleaded guilty to Dangerous driving according to the linked newspaper article.
He basically came close to getting the absolute minimum even though by my read it started at a 12 week custodial sentence.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/
Seems like the beak believes in extenuating circumstances.
Depends on what CPS agreed to
Depends on what CPS agreed to go with and what was slid across the table to them. If it’s a “we’ll agree to this lower charge or fight you all the way”, then chances are CPS agreed to it as it’s one case off the books and sod the public.
Reading between the lines,
Reading between the lines, there’s likely to be more to this case than has been reported, because a judge wouldn’t hand out a sentence like this without mitigation.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You are an utter moron, seeking to find some way in which intentionally driving a car into a person may be justified by some prior interaction between the two. On that basis the cyclist would be justified in going home to fetch a knife so he could stab the driver.
People with no prior criminal
People with no prior criminal history don’t just randomly try to run people off the road, it doesn’t make any sense. Judges don’t hand out sentences like that given in the article without mitigation.
If it doesn’t make any sense it isn’t true.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
The wording of the Judge’s ruling implies that there was something serious going on in the guy’s life. This isn’t about not caring about cyclists. While this is an extremely light sentence, factors in mitigation play a significant part in sentences all of the time. No prior record and whatever else the judge mentions makes it seem likely that the driver went off because of something significant that was happening in his personal life and is unlikely to happen again.
So, if the driver was unable
So, if the driver was unable to control his actions due to his situation, it would make sense to permanently ban him from driving until he can pass a psychological evaluation after the one year ban. However, this does not appear to be the case, so I question just how is public safety being addressed?
What is particularly troublesome is that he was ‘triggered’ by a law-abiding cyclist following the rules whereas everyday driving can include dealing with speeding and reckless behaviour by other drivers, so what assurance does the public have that he can cope with the stress of driving?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Agreed on all counts. Just pointing out that this is generally how sentencing works. I am curious as well -do you have plea deals over there? The light sentence may we’ll be the fault of the prosecution, and not the judge.
The only deals (so to speak)
The only deals (so to speak) is 1/3rd of the sentence if you plead guilty as early as possible. However I suspect there might be some discussion on “we will plead on Death by Careless Driving, but not on Death by Dangerous Driving” from the defence or “we will offer careless if you plead guilty” from the prosecution. If it wasn’t it being public money, I would suspect high bonuses for saving money or having a high prosecution rate meaning more “lesser sentences” being pushed.
So he may have also had his
So he may have also had his sentence reduced by plea? I’m a prosecutor in the states, and this happens regularly here.
If you look at the bridge on
If you look at the bridge on Google maps it becomes clearer what has happened. The driver was probably someone like the character Michael Douglas played in Falling Down – a good guy generally with a series of unfortunate events, with a possibly impertinent cyclist being one of them that he’s unfortunately overreacted to. The judge may have taken that into account.
There are a couple of things that don’t make sense or aren’t pointed out in the story – the first is that the bridge is a dual carriageway-style toll bridge with a segregated walking and cycling lane, where cycles are prohibited 50 metres before the bridge starts, meaning a cyclist has deliberately ridden onto the dual carriageway ignoring the cycling and pedestrian lane. This may have led to the driver erroneously assuming the cyclist shouldn’t have been no that section of the bridge.
The second is that the cyclist was apparently riding behind the car – why would the driver care about someone riding behind him unless he was doing something malevolent? Then all of a sudden later in the story, despite it not being reported that the cyclist over (or under?) took the car, it’s reported that the driver cut across the road in front of the cyclist.
None of it makes sense, so unless we can see a full transcript of the case it’s hard to speculate further other than what’s already been written.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
That’s as far as I got Nige, before you lost all credibility (yes I know everyone)
And you clearly didn’t understand Falling Down…..
At the risk of being accused
At the risk of being accused of a segue, I find Falling Down and Wall Street (Michael Douglas’s most famous film) quite parallel, as I think the underlying message that the left-wing film directors (Joel Schumacher and Oliver Stone respectively) were trying to carry has the exact opposite effect on the audience of what they intended.
In Falling Down (surely a template for Walter White in Breaking Bad), Douglas comes across as an antihero, a man who rather than exemplifying white male privilege (was that the point of the film? you tell me) is a legitimate catalyst for the everyman who is crapped on by the system. His hen-pecked cop nemesis even comes round to his way of thinking by the end of the film.
In Wall Street, who actually watches that film and sides with Bud Fox? “What a tool that guy is, I wanna be Gordon Gekko!” was the moral of that story.
If you did get further you
If you did get further you would have realised he also can’t read English (even Road.cc’s version) being as he couldn’t see it reported that the driver initially slowed down in front of the cyclist causing them both to stop on the bridge. But even if that hadn’t have happened, filtering could easily have applied and is no reason for a car to swerve across several lanes of traffic to intimidate and ultimately injure a cyclist or anyone else.
As for the shared path, someone in the comments mentioned they were closed for work. Still trying to confirm that but in one story of recent closures on the bridge again it states:-
. The option mentioned is a bus service, but as this is in the time of Covid, people might not be as willing to use that when they legally can use the bridge to the left hand turn the cyclist was taking when assaulted.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Let’s suppose that the cyclist was acting like a wally, had held up the driver and maybe even hurled abuse at him. How does that in any way justify the driver using his car to knock the cyclist off into the stream of moving traffic where he could have easily been killed. Unless the cyclist had pulled a gun out and aimed it at the driver I cannot see any excuse for his actions. I appreciate that you’re a troll seeking attention so I probably shouldn’t even be replying to you. You need to seek help.
‘…unfortunate events’?
‘…unfortunate events’?
‘ a good guy generally’?
‘…possibly impertinent’?
‘…unfortunately overreacted’?
‘…doing something malevolent’?
He drove his car deliberately at an unprotected road user, with the very likely and entirely foreseeable consequence of death or serious injury (intended or unintended). Get real Nigel.
The road layout has sweet FA to do with it.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
impertinent
/ɪmˈpəːtɪnənt/
adjective
1. not showing proper respect
Does this reveal your prejudice, Nigel? Didn’t show proper respect to his superior in the 4 wheeled vehicle? Because drivers are in some way worthy of respect from mere cyclists?
Quite how you cope with the dent to your self-esteem when you ride a bike (you told us that you do, I’m sure it’s true) I do not know.
Impertinent can mean
Impertinent can mean disrespect, but it also means “rude”, i.e. being impolite (as indeed can disrespect). And frequent readers will recollect that’s the opposite of how I behave, both on and off the bike. I’m not saying the cyclist necessarily or probably did something impertinent, but riding behind a car I don’t understand how you can trigger the driver without doing something to upset them, that’s my point.
Perhaps the driver was a coiled spring waiting to explode, but that’s precisely why I avoid bad manners, confrontation and poor roadcraft when I ride – I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, don’t give yourself the chance to meet the real-life equivalent of Russell Crowe in Unhinged (there’s another film for Badger to claim I don’t understand!).
I also don’t know how you can insinuate I don’t ride a bike when I’ve posted a ride on here (and got accused of virtue signalling!) and a photo of my main bike. You’ll note I make the exact point about being polite in my post – if people just ratcheted down their ascerbic comments and engaged in civil discourse on both sides (which chiefly stems from people sore at losing in 2016), I sense it would help across all aspects of life including RTAs.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Theres a cycling/walking lane (closed when the street view car went through) but no prohbition for cyclists on the main carraigeway, if cycles were prohibited on the bridge there would be no need for further prohibition on entering the tunnel after then bridge when travelling west, as there could be no cyclists reaching that point.
Why indeed, just another driver keen to ‘educate cyclists’ on their own private interpretation of the highway code, like those that beep or flash you when riding two abreast when they are travelling in the opposite direction and there are no motor vehicles behind the cyclists.
People with no criminal history (note this may just mean never been caught before) do not randomly run people off the road, but they do obstruct cyclists frequently. The words were exchanged, I suspect it is the words that have led to the violent reaction.
People who attempt murder on the basis of words they recieve should recieve serious consequences in the court. People who use shotguns in this manner would not be allowed a shotgun licence at any point in the future, but in 12 months this angry man will be back behind the wheel putting the lives of others in danger for any percieved slight.
So what happens when he is
So what happens when he is faced by external pressures in the future?
Is the claim that he wont get stressed and do something reckless or is the claim he won’t face external pressures? Simply saying this particular external pressure won’t re-occur does not take account of all the other things which can occur in the future.
Whatever was ‘going on in
Whatever was ‘going on in this guy’s life’ only seemed to assert itself when he had a cyclist to bully/attack. He didn’t randomly drive into any of the other cars on the bridge because of a non-existent perceived slight. He must have passed plenty of pedestrians on his journey, yet they all escaped his ire. Notwithstanding any argument about cycle lanes, the fact that this cyclist (who the report states was behind him, not even impeding his progress) was such a trigger to his fragile psyche suggests that a permanent driving ban pending a psychiatric assessment would be the very minimum sanction.
If people decide that minor infractions or discourtesies warrant taking on the mantle of judge, jury and executioner (and I use the word ‘executioner’ advisedly) then they should have access to their chosen method of execution denied them, be it a machete, gun or motor vehicle.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Yes they do. Many murderers, and attempted murderers have had no prior criminal history. A serial killer is likely to have no criminal history all the way through their murdering rampage else it would probably have stopped after the first murder. Judges do give out poor sentences all the time, especially when the victim is a cyclist. Many judges and law enforcement seem to have bigotry towards victims that ride bikes. If a cyclist injures a pedestrian, there is a raging mob demanding justice against the furious and wanton cyclists plaguing the streets. If a cyclist is injured by a driver, it is often referred to as an accident between the weapon and the victim and that cyclists need to be more careful or adhere to ficticious rules to keep them from being involved in such accidents (hi-viz, helmets, single file, road tax, etc.)
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I dare say it is normal behaviour for them. They just never got caught before
Muddy Ford wrote:
Flattering Nige will get you nowhere.
Which lines are you referring
Which lines are you referring to?
Or is this just yet another trolling trip?
Simon E wrote:
Have you actually seen a proper picture of the road? Not the one in the article, the one that actually shows you what the road looks like. Look it up.
Are you suggesting that there
Are you suggesting that there is a clue to the lines we should read between in the road layout? Looking on google maps I see a shared path/cycle lane on one side(Cyclists dismount signs up when the googlemobile came through), a three lane carriageway wth prohibition signs for cyclists on the Western A38 approach (These probably only apply to the Saltash tunnel, as there are similar signs before the tunnel on the eastern end, but not before the bridge.), and a single lane carrageway going W – E from North Road. There is an advisory sign (blue) advising no cycles on the bridge, and directions to the cycle lane. I can’t see any mandatory ‘No Cycling’ signs. As for the western approach from the A38, the mish mash of bus lanes, cycle paths and bizarre give way markings around the Bridge office and roundabout exits must be totally confusing to any out of towners.
I can see how it might be easy to end up on the single lane carriageway going W-E, and equally easy to miss the cycle path if you’re approaching from the west on the A38.(Which, on reading the newspaper report may be what the victim did.)
I certainly can’t see any signs saying ‘Cyclists who inadvertently end up on the bridge will be subject to summary justice meted out by drivers, ranging from shouted insults and thrown McDonalds milkshakes, to death or grievious bodily harm.’
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Nige this is ridiculous even for you. There is no mitigation for this kind of premeditated action.
As for the idea no judge ever makes crass judgements – do you ever watch the news?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You mean like the driver and the judge both being members of the same lodge or golf club?
ReCycling Dave wrote:
Aye, and does anyone remember the 8 year old girl who was “no angel’……
Can this sentence be appealed
Can this sentence be appealed? The judge needs to be taken off duty.
“That said this is the only time you’ve done anything wrong in your entire life and you have expressed an appropriate level of remorse” Entire life, putting extra emphasis to make it seem that only the presence of a cyclist has made him become a criminal after 65yrs, so it’s ok? what’s an appropriate level of remorse?
“You lost your temper and at some point your vehicle hit a cyclist. This was extremely dangerous driving because you lost your temper” – The vehicle hit a cyclist, the driver merely aiding and abetting the vehicle’s intent to harm? It’s only dangerous because he lost his temper? So if he had kept calm whilst driving the car into the cyclist it would have been less dangerous?
Another gullible judge who
Another gullible judge who believes that up till this point the guys been a model citizen despite a life beset with obstacles. It’s called normal life not the cushy existence that judges experience from cradle to grave.
Ashley Neal’s latest video is
Ashley Neal’s latest video is a similar scenario…
https://youtu.be/fXeRKq-1WG8
Lack of police action stinks.
Lack of police action stinks.
Lack of police action stinks.
Her claim of actually being an ex-Police officer was probably true then.
Not sure if the cyclist is
Not sure if the cyclist is willing to take this farther, by appealing the sentence, or whether a third party, Cyclists’ Defence Fund perhaps, could take this on. If they did and started a crowdfunder, they can count on me for more than just few quid.
While the sentence itself is an insult to cyclists and all road users, the message it sends to drivers is abominable, and gives them licence to do pretty much anything, including assault with a deadly weapon, then drive off and receive a slap on the wrist. As others have pointed out, such an assault on a random member of the public with any other weapon would likely result in an immediate custodial sentence.
The old adage about if you want to kill someone, use a car, is still true apparently.
If this bastard had done this
If this bastard had done this to me, I would spend the rest of my life hunting him down and applying some ‘justice’ of my own.
The law is a joke, but I would have the last laugh and would happily do time to educate the little turd.
yupiteru wrote:
Gosh, you’re hard behind your anonymous username and keyboard! If you genuinely believe that extra-judicial violence in the name of vengeance is justifiable you’re a massive part of the problem with our society and also no better than the original offender.
By the way, I’ve worked with violent offenders who’ve been through the prison system; knowing them and hearing their terrifying stories you would very much not be happy to do time, and your apparent self-image as a hard man wouldn’t last five minutes. Grow up.
Well, if that Statham came up
Well, if that Statham came up to me, all tough-guy-look-at-me, and knocked over my latte, I’d say – “OI! Statham! NO! Do not come here with your cockerney accent and your shaved head trying to be like Diesel!”
brooksby wrote:
The Stath could take Diesel any time
Captain Badger wrote:
Could we make a compensation claim for his emissions over the past 13 years though?
mdavidford wrote:
if you are talking about his films it’d be about facking time. Perhaps we could get the govt to commit to phasing new F&F out by 2030
We should be able to respect
We should be able to respect the judiciary but this judgement from Judge Linford is a disgrace.
A random assault with a 2 tonne metal box is no different than taking a swing at a stranger with a 15kg sledge hammer and then running off afterwards.
Judge Linford’s sentencing is ludicrous and this case should be reviewed – if judges aren’t willing to sentence assaults properly (whether with a hammer or a car) they have no place serving in the judiciary.
Clearly with his summing up,
Clearly with his summing up, the Judge is of the same opinion of most that the car is sentient and takes alot of the blame.
“You lost your temper and at some point your vehicle hit a cyclist.”
Yes, while the defendent was
Yes, while the defendent was busy losing his temper, the vehicle went and hit a cyclist. It feels unfair that it even went to court.
The CPS as well takes alot of
The CPS as well takes alot of culpability. They decided to prosecute against dangerous driving and not assault (not saying the latter would have got a prison sentence either with this judge though). Dangerous Driving by itself doesn’t lead to alot unfortunately if you look at the sentencing guidelines.
One plus point is it wasn’t just under Careless which seems to be the norm charge from them.
Although the aggravating factors should have been enough to see him into the sentencing thresholds for a jail term, he didn’ty even get that (although I’m sure it would have been suspended).
I would have thought that
I would have thought that most people have never committed a crime until they do.
brooksby wrote:
Original sin…
Meanwhile, over in a
Meanwhile, over in a different country: https://abc13.com/driver-gets-shot-after-bumping-bicyclist-man-shoots-hitting-wife-with-truck-suspect-ran-over/10859767/
Scrolling through the rest
Scrolling through the rest of the news makes me glad it is in a different country.
Sounds like textbook Cyclist
Sounds like textbook Cyclist Derangement Syndrome. Some drivers are so incensed by seeing a cyclist that they absolutely must make things difficult for them or try and run them off the road. This is also occasionally experienced by passengers in vehicles and can occasionally result in them throwing things at or assaulting a nearby cyclist.
Jenova20 wrote:
riders?
Captain Badger wrote:
Oops. corrected to drivers. Bloody autocorrect.
pedant time;
pedant time;
‘Muir David Taylor, 65, ‘started going mental’ and swerved into the rider, knocking the man into a busy road.
He then drove off, leaving the victim lying injured on the floor. ‘
Buildings have floors; outside, it’s the ground or road or path or grass, etc.