A mechanic has avoided a driving ban after cutting a corner and hitting a cyclist “head on”, in what his lawyer has described as a “minor and momentary error of judgement”.
Clive Anstey, who owns a garage in Chippenham, Wiltshire, was driving to work on the morning of 28 February 2021 when he cut a corner while making a right turn. As we can see in the below video, the 49-year-old crossed into the other lane while turning and drove straight into a cyclist, who had positioned himself on the right-hand side of his lane at the junction, waiting to turn.
Anstey’s advocate claimed that the mechanic “just very narrowly clipped the corner of the T-junction” and didn’t see the cyclist – who was wearing hi-vis clothing and had lights attached to his bike – “because of the low sun”.
According to the Swindon Advertiser, the cyclist, who suffered rib and leg injuries in the collision, was taken to a hospital in Bath for treatment and was left “distressed” and “very shaken” following the incident.
Speaking at Swindon Magistrates’ Court last week, prosecutor Asha Seenauth argued that the incident should be placed in the ‘greater harm’ sentencing category, which meant Anstey would have faced five points on his licence. As the mechanic had already received seven points for two previous speeding offences, this would have resulted in a disqualification from driving.
> Near Miss of the Day 668: Cyclist almost taken out by corner-cutting driver
Defending the motorist, Oliver Small claimed that Anstey had made “a minor and momentary error of judgement”.
He continued: “The defendant intended to turn right onto Cricketts Lane, and just cut the corner, and didn’t see the victim because of the low sun.”
Small noted that “Mr Anstey accepts that he made an error in judgement for a second or two,” and claimed that he “showed immediate concern for the cyclist and offered to call an ambulance”, which was declined.
The defending counsel argued that the mechanic’s garage would lose contracts if he lost his licence, as he was the only staff member with the correct licence to drive some of the larger vehicles, such as private ambulances, currently under contract.
After pleading guilty to driving without due care and attention, Anstey’s case was placed in the ‘lower harm’ category. He received four points, which allows him to continue driving.
He was instead fined £186 by the court and ordered to pay £1,000 in compensation, as well as almost £300 in costs.
78 thoughts on “Mechanic escapes driving ban after cutting corner straight into cyclist”
Why is cutting the corner at
Why is cutting the corner at junctions become so ubiquitous?
Seems incredibly lazy, and as this and many others, some involving death, dangerous, though I suppose not for those inside the metal cages.
I wonder if the two cases of speeding were “minor and momentary errors of judgement” too.
Odd how, needing a full driving licence to operate your business and keep your employees in work, whilst already having been caught breaking the law on several other occasions, doesn’t encourage driving to some easily manageable driving standards.
The grand in compensation doesn’t often happen, maybe for the “very narrowly clipped the corner” comment by the brief.
ktache wrote:
Either everyone watches too much F1 racing and thinks that is how you take a corner or (more likely) it is simply because you don’t have to slow down as much to take the straighter line, therefore you might save a whole second and half on your journey time.
Again – it’s both “culture”
Again – it’s both “culture” and “environment”. It’s a cycle. People don’t slow enough, so we build wide sweeping corner radii even in places where there should be slow traffic (and often no through traffic). Because there are sweeping turns this signals to people they shouldn’t slow and permits them to go faster. So they don’t slow.
Because we’re not slowing down we’re not prompted to thoroughly check. We lack time to thoroughly check. If we suddenly realise there’s a problem we lack time to react AND have extra momentum / energy in a collision.
Breaking the cycle is tricky because it reinforces itself. If we do what we should and make many of these tighter turns there will be more collisions while people learn. This will create immediate pressure to stop / undo the changes “because they’re causing accidents”. Concern about drivers crashing into each other / houses / walls / poles etc. will almost certainly outweight those on the “safety” side unless: a) we change and recognise the source of the problem. b) we simultaneously get lots more people cycling AND they start getting hit at junctions like this (worse before it gets better).
Hence the “separate cycling infra where needed” as a way of avoiding some of the issue while we increase the “population of regular cyclists”.
I’ve recently been shouted at
I’ve recently been shouted at and literally had a fist shaken at me by drivers who wanted to cut the corner but were prevented by my positioning, similar to in the video. Like I’m somehow inconveniencing them. I also had a driver start to cut the corner, then notice me, and redirect to pass behind me entirely on the wrong side of the road. BMW of course.
Momentary my arse. This is
Momentary my arse. This is habitual bad driving. Number of times I’ve had stop well short of the stop line – driving or cycling – to avoid some numpty doing this is not a joke. Indeed, it’s routine around here for drivers about to turn right into a side road to flash people out so they can cut the corner rather than go round properly.
It’s not like you need to be Geoff Capes to turn a steering wheel properly.
Exactly. All cars now have
Exactly. All cars now have power steering so there is absolutely no excuse for this but it standard practice for so many drivers. I refuse to move when being flashed or waved at to turn right at a T junction by someone who is too lazy to drive forward and correctly make their turn. Apart from anyting else should a colision occur if I were to procede I would be held responsable.
I’ve noticed this too, and
I’ve noticed this too, and once nearly got hit turning LEFT out of my iwn road. But had a really bizarre one the other day. Driver in long wheelbase van positioned himself to left of junction as I waited to turn right. Was assuming he would flash me out when traffic cleared but he didn’t, just started turning straight at me, clearly intending to fully occupy the wrong lane. When I objected strongly, he said what was he supposed to do given length of van? He then moved forward a bit and tried again before realising the middle of the van would catch me. It took him a third try to navigate the turn successfully – evidently not the most competent driver! It was only later that it occurred to me to wander what he was expecting me to do when he started turning . . .
It seems to go against reason
It seems to go against reason that people who depend upon their licence professionally should thereby be held to a [i]lower[/i] standard.
Incredibly, one of the
Incredibly, one of the contracts he stood to lose from not being able to drive, was driving children in a school bus!! I really hope the school he drives for decides to find another operator who hasn’t got 11 points on their licence.
Unbelieveable. To accrue 7
Unbelieveable. To accrue 7 points is quite some feat in itself. This should have been a driving ban. That was no momentary lapse, it was appallingly bad driving. Got nothing to do with the low sun, had he not cut the corner no collision would have occurred.
I’m sorry – the court made an
I’m sorry – the court made an assessment of whether this warranted sentencing on the basis of greater or lower harm based on the impact it would have on the defendant!?!
That’s a bit of a mockery of the whole distinction! The guy was hospitalised, defendant was clearly driving wholly on the wrong side of the road, but it’s “lower harm” …
You can bet if he’d hit a car head on there and hospitalised the occupant of the passenger seat, it would have been classed as “greater harm” ..
Ahem, the sun was BEHIND the
Ahem, the sun was BEHIND the driver at the point of impact! Didn’t see the victim because of the low sun my harris. I strongly suspect that this collision was the result of the habitual failure of the driver to follow the correct rules regarding turning into side roads. No mercy, crucifixion!
The sun wasn’t behind the
The sun wasn’t behind the driver when the light is on that side and the shadows are where he was turning in. However the Sun doesn’t matter as he was on totally the wrong side of the road when he turned in.
Correct.
@AlsoSomniloquism Correct.
Yes it’s true otherwise law
Yes it’s true otherwise law abiding motorists do three things, speed, use the phone and cut corners. I bet that Anstey drives this route every work day and cuts this particular corner nearly every day. If I were a betting person I’d bet he still does.
VIPcyclist wrote:
I would happily sponsor a camera at that corner to see if he does.
I know defenders have to try
I know defenders have to try to defend their client, however I thought actually lying was actually against their practice. You don’t “slightly cut the corner” when the passenger side of the car is the one which hits the cyclist.
Your right , that was totally
Your right , that was totally in the wrong side
These small fines are
These small fines are insulting. £186 wouldn’t even cover the cost of the resulting NHS treatment. As for £300 in court costs. How on earth do you get that many professionals, to do that much much work with associated building and other fixed costs for £300. Not only are these people putting my life at risk, when it actually does go wrong my taxes appear to be needed to pay for it. Before you know they’ll be asking me to pay road tax for cycling.
He pled guilty, so that’s
He pled guilty, so that’s actually more than the standard costs.
If his vision was impeded,
If his vision was impeded, then even more reason for ensuring that they took the correct course around the corner.
If this was me, I would be complaining to the judiciary about the competence of the magistrates assessing this case. I would also be writing to my MP asking for a proper review of driving law and sentencing standards – another one for the momentary lapse file, it seems, where motorists driving a machine capable of death and serious injury are given a free pass when they are demonstrably incompetent.
Since when was hitting a
Since when was hitting a vulnerable user head on minor?
Drivers cut the corner all the time. I missed a collision yesterday by 2 seconds as the driver refused to reduce speed to take the corner and motored through pretty much on the wrong side.
The idea that you should slow is lost on far too many drivers.
“Minor” ? He was literally on
“Minor” ? He was literally on the wrong side of the road. Licence should be revoked and car crushed, and Oliver Smalldick should have same punishment for even trying to defend that.
Wasn’t “minor” for the human
Wasn’t “minor” for the human being on the bike was it.
Exactly. Needs banging up for
Exactly. Needs banging up for driving like a twat.
Jimwill wrote:
He should be crushed? Seems a little disproportionate.
mdavidford wrote:
He should be crushed? Seems a little disproportionate.— Jimwill
Seems pretty proportionate to the claim of “just very narrowly clipped the corner of the T-junction” , and using the fact that the drivers work would suffer… yeh he should be crushed also
I wonder what would have been
I wonder what would have been the outcome of the rider didn’t have a camera.
With 11 points on his licence his insurance permium must be through the roof!
Are the courts always this
Are the courts always this lenient in the UK, or does this only happen with cyclists? Would the sentence have been the same if he’d cut the corner and mowed down somebody’s grandma crossing the street?
No reference for that but if
No reference for that but if the question is “are the courts always this lenient with driving offenses” then the answer is “yes” – we’ve had examples on a recent thread of people driving over children, forwards, on the pavement in one case I think, and no punishment.
Yes. Because drivers might
Yes. Because drivers might lose their jobs and suffer hardship so we can’t have their licences taken from them. And people don’t like sending them to prison…not sure why
Judges are told not to, in
Judges are told not to, in essence. Decades of underfunding means that we don’t have space.
Yes, it’s normal for the
Yes, it’s normal for the courts in the UK to give very lenient sentences for offences committed in a car
https://twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211?utm_source=pocket_mylist
WTF the guy is obviously
WTF the guy is obviously incapable of driving. He probably has to eat all his meals with a spoon so he doesn’t poke his eyes out!
Cannot believe the “blinded
Cannot believe the “blinded by the sun” defence is even allowed . The guy is in his late 40s , he’s driven more than enough years to realise that big thing in the sky can occasionally blind drivers .
Aberdeencyclist wrote:
100%. It’s about as valid as claiming that it was unlucky to skid on ice when the temperature was -10. Admitting you drove into a junction (in this case dangerously and illegally anyway) when the environment meant you couldn’t see if there were any other road users there is admitting that you are incapable of driving appropriately for the conditions, ergo you are not fit to hold a licence to drive.
It should actually be used as
It should actually be used as proof of guilt – admitting not driving to the conditions.
Indeed, stating that is
Indeed, stating that is essentially proving guilt. A lot of people make statements they think will be a mitigation but they really aggravate the situation.
We had a club member killed
We had a club member killed at a junction in which the driver successfully used the blinded by the sun argument. It is pretty devastating for the family to discover that the courts consider not being able to see where you are going an acceptable excuse for killing someone.
There’s a link between the
There’s a link between the pathetic outcomes in these court cases and the numerous utterly appalling examples of driving I saw on my ride today. One of them nearly killed me – waiting at traffic lights at a junction a Mercedes driver ignored the red light and went straight through at about 40-50mph, missing me by inches and a driver turning right on the green light by not a lot more.
Cutting the corner you say ?
Cutting the corner you say ?
https://youtu.be/hzA–x0sqk4?t=30
Driver was just filming for clicks (and shits and giggles)
Sun was defo in the lorry driver’s eyes.
I’ve just posted the one from
I’ve just posted the one from further along which was barely a cut.
“Anstey’s advocate claimed
“Anstey’s advocate claimed that the mechanic “just very narrowly clipped the corner of the T-junction”
And Boris is honest.
Can an advocate who clearly lies be held to account?
It isn’t a clear lie, however
It isn’t a clear lie, however. It’s carefully worded to be judgmental, not a statement of objective fact. Opinion is hard to deal with
nosferatu1001 wrote:
So how was that claim evaluated, by what evidence was it proven, or are learned counsel not subject to critical thinking?
I know that a magistrate is not a trained advocate but they should be a sceptic and doubt the nonsense put in front of them…
Magistrates? A quick dip
Magistrates? A quick dip into “the secret barrister” (plus notes from an acquaintance) suggests the truth is somewhere between “tireless and canny local volunteer doing their best with the tangles of the law and a lot of cases” and “have-a-go hero with an agenda or five”.
They have a legal advisor who
They have a legal advisor who they can consult to direct them in matters of law.
My ex-wife was a Birmingham magistrate, and she used to despair that some of the prosecutions were so inadequate that they had to declare innocent obviously guilty people where it was clear what the circumstances were but the prosecution didn’t manage to put the evidence into the case.
In this case, if the prosecution did not challenge the momentary lapse and sun in their eyes, the magistrates have a certain obligation to accept it, though in this case I assume that they viewed the video evidence which should have been sufficient. There is plenty of anti-cycling bias and one could imagine the magistrates agreeing that it was the cyclist who put themselves on the right hand side of their lane that made the accident serious – it seems that often we are expected to go the extra mile to defend ourselves from incompetence in a way that motorists are not.
Alas yes. I see the lawyers
Alas yes. I see the lawyers were out protesting – normally that’d not be a cause for worry. However this is public service work they’re complaining about. I’m aware that – just like junior doctors – the newbies are expected to put in monster shifts, taking work which is sometimes all over the place and at little notice. The practical hourly rate for that can be well below minimum wage. Good luck if you got the legal aid lawyer who was handed the voluminous paperwork of your case in the evening and expected to turn up on your behalf the next day. A contact of mine said when he started it was common just to ask any police who’d been involved and were about in court the score and start from there. Not the high standards of British justice you might be expecting.
Predictably in the UK you’re about as likely to have people involved in these cases knowledgeable in the important details of sailing or horse-ing as riding on the road.
Probably nobody has noticed
Probably nobody has noticed expect me, but the guy was driving a Nissan Skyline GTR – a seriously high powered, seriously fast car (pretty good going for a mechanic).
Not suggesting his poor driving has anything to do with him owning a car that’s too fast for the road, but, you know…
It’s about time that
It’s about time that “momentary error of judgement” was no longer used as an excuse for bad driving, but as an example to others, illustrating how important it is to stay alert, when in charge of a lethal piece of machinery.
If the driver was blinded by the sun, then that is more reason to slow down, make extra observations, and be very careful to take the correct line when negotiating a junction.
As for the “Minor” part – heaven knows what constitutes “Major” in the sad, addled, corrupted mind of the advocate (or magistrate, for that matter)
If your job depends on having a driving licence, then you should be even more careful than other folk – and that’s before you’ve accrued 7 points.
What on earth is wrong with the judicial system?
belugabob wrote:
Two things at least:
The laws
Social norms.
The government did announce a comprehensive review of road law so many years ago that I’ve actually forgotten exactly when, and it is socially acceptable and condoned to drive fast and carelessly.
So what this tells me is that
So what this tells me is that I can ride into a ped and knock them down and it will be treated as minor. Righto
It is utterly ridiculous to
It is utterly ridiculous to claim “a minor and momentary error of judgement” for an incident like this. By definition, almost every time a driver collides with a cyclist it’s the result of “a minor and momentary error of judgement” but the reality was that the driver clearly had no problem with maneuvering to the wrong side of the road and proceeding in an unsafe manner while he couldn’t see because the sun was in his eyes.
Thats clearly ‘greater harm’ as he proceeding to the wrong side of the road, knew that he could not see, but proceeded anyway. Therein lies culpability rather than misfortune.
My reading at this point is that the degree of harm is what makes the difference, not the act, which sends the message that drivers are really immune from serious punishment, given that when most actually kill somebody the consequence is little more (and as reported here, often less) than this.
No wonder we feel like second-class citizens.
espressodan wrote:
Exactly, “minor and momentary errors of judgement” that kill someone if one were running a restaurant or a building site or a clay pigeon shooting range would lead to the severest sanctions, both financial and criminal, but when driving a car, something which should demand at least as much skill and training as any of the aforementioned, they are forgiven, seemingly on the basis that as driving a car, even though it has even greater potential to be lethal, is a mass participation activity it’s unreasonable to expect the training, safety standards and skills of all operators to be consonant with that lethal potential.
This junction is the turning
This junction is the turning into his works premises. He must have driven into it thousands of times. To think that he only cut the corner this once is beyond the realms of belief.
I bet if a property had CCTV covering that area and we could see how he turned into that road every morning for a week, his defense would collapse.
Swindon Adver is my local
Swindon Adver is my local paper and this story didn’t even make the main news page on the website, first I’ve seen of it is via the link in this article. Just goes to show how low news-worthy this is given the seriousness of the crime.
If you actually open the SA article, they’ve included a picture of him on a sit-down lawn mower with a beer can in hand. Can’t make this stuff up.
matt_cycles wrote:
You could write to the editor of the SA but he won’t accept any responsibility for fostering dislike for cycling. He prefers to mention a crime in terms of A Cyclist did .., rather than A Criminal did … So conflates cycling with bad action despite no causal relationship of any kind.
Irresponsible media fosters irrational hate crimes!
1:27 into this weeks Dashcam
1:27 into this weeks Dashcam video. I heard Oliver Small thinks the corner was narrowly cut.
This man has proven himself
This man has proven himself to be a serial offender who has failed to change his behaviour. He should lose his licence, pure and simple. It affects his work? Too bad. If his work involves driving then clearly he needs to be doing a different job. After all what employer would employ someone as a driver with his record? No one and for good reason. I am so sick of this “get out of jail free” card being played.
What I find strange is the
What I find strange is the claim that:
‘Mr Small said that the married father-of-two’s garage would lose two contracts if he lost his driving licence. He said that CAMS services private ambulances, with the defendant the only employee with the correct licence to drive the vehicles.
He also said that the garage look after minibuses for a school with children with behavioural issues, with Anstey picking them up and dropping them off at school.’
What happens when he goes on holiday? What happens if he gets ill?
Seems once he’d got to 7 points, then he should have taken action to ensure there was no single point of failure.
Let’s hope he doesn’t get hospitalised by a driver making “a minor and momentary error of judgement”.
If I could identify the
If I could identify the school, I’d be asking why they were prepared to employ such a driver and whether they had been asked whether they were consulted on being the reason why a driver who should have been banned under normal circumstances was claiming exceptional hardship for others.
How many employers would consider this driving record a reason to dismiss an employee, yet because of behaviour entirely within his own control… Bah! I could go on, and probably will, mutter, mutter.
They are not employing a
They are not employing a driver, they are employing a mechanic but he goes and picks up the Vans rather then having them dropping them off. The question is was the contract awarded on needing the vans being picked up from the school or was that an option he added in.
Swindon Advertiser seems to indicate he is a “popular” mechanic. I wonder if will now lose work over this case, especially using the school as a reason to escape the ban.
Ah, misunderstood it. Rather
Ah, misunderstood it. Rather odd that someone being unable to fulfill a role at a company should be the reason to keep their licence when the company should be able to employ another suitably qualified person. It does not imply that the person should be sacked, though being unable to drive on a public road might limit their ability to fulfill the full duties of a mechanic.
I appreciate that I’m late to
I appreciate that I’m late to this party, but how on earth was that “narrowly clipping” the junction?
If any car had been waiting at that junction that he would have ploughed into the front of it, at speed, and I suspect that no judge would have accepted an “oh dear, slight miscalculation” type defence then…
As iandusud has just written,
Quote:
Highway Code Rule 237.
“If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop.”
Benthic wrote:
How did the court evaluate the claim of ‘low sun’?
Was the route taken across the junction towards the sun at the time of the offence?
That can’t be a blanket get out of jail card without any evidence…
The shadows on the ground
The shadows on the ground indicate the driver was driving into the sun. The length of the shadows however doesn’t suggest to me that it was particularly low.
Benthic wrote:
I you sure it says that? I think you’ll find it says “If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, drive on the wrong side of the road, taking care to carry as much speed through the junction as possible.”
At some point we have to
At some point we have to start pushing back on these willfully ignorant sentences that are handed down.
If he had 8 points he would have been given 3 points no doubt. Wouldn’t want a dangerous driver not to be able to get behind the wheel of a multi tonne weapon would we.
Perhaps, just perhaps we should be putting the blame and consequences of dangerous driving on the dangerous drivers. The reason you can’t work and feed your family and pay your mortgage is because you cared so little about the safety of other road users that you repeatedly broke the law. Its your fault. Its no one elses fault. Suck it up.
This bollocks about low sun, SMIDSY etc should be thrown out as well. Do you know what I do when there is ice on the roads or its really wet? I drive slowly. If I can’t see properly I wait until I can or I double and triple check. I don’t overtake on blind corners. I don’t play the game of “I wonder how long before my shit driving will cause a collision”.
Cyclists do this every single time they go out. They make damn sure that what they are doing is going to give the smallest chance of a collision. I don’t swing across the road if the suns in my eyes. I don’t turn without indicating and checking that there isn’t traffic about to overtake me. Why? Because I am the one that will be punished if I make a mistake. Drivers don’t give a **** because the punishments for negligent driving are so pathetic. You can quite literally kill someone with your car and get a slap on the wrist. Something has to give at some point.
Many cyclists don’t ride in
Many cyclists don’t ride in potentially icy conditions because they know the consequences, yet how many of us insist on driving when the conditions are equally more difficult in a car?
WARNING DRIVERS! Take care on
WARNING DRIVERS! Take care on cloudy days, you are not covered by the sun-in-my-eyes defence.
Why would that make a jot of
Why would that make a jot of difference? This example has video evidence that the sun was behind the car, and yet somehow the sun defence remains valid.
The sun is coming from right
The sun is coming from right to left as you look.
If you can do a frame by frame, you can see the shadow of the pedestrian matches this.
Whether the sun encroaches on the windscreen is hard to answer.
Is that the grim reaper with
Is that the grim reaper with a scythe there?
We have a backup! The
We have a backup! The cyclist was not wearing “bright clothing” therefore was inconspicuous on an overcast day.
Just remember to pair the weather conditions to the people you run down. Sunny? Hit them driving into the sun / take ones in full hi-vis. Cloudy? Hit the grey hoodies. Dark? That widens your options. Rainy / foggy? Open season.
Bans are optional?
Bans are optional?
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/20239115.bradford-court-hears-police-officers-120mph-speeding/
If getting caught speeding at 120mph doesn’t ‘harm his career’, what will?
“needs his licence for work
“needs his licence for work as he’s a police officer – working in road traffic patrol”
I think we can do without drivers like him keeping us ‘safe’.
This is standard police and,
This is standard police and, in this case, court behaviour in trying their hardest to get the driver off. This is exactly how I was hit by a corner cutting driver, and the excuse dreamed up by the police for doing nothing at all was that it was dark and raining- pretty much the same as in this case: drivers can’t be expected to know that it’s dark, sunny or raining and can just carry on with illegal manoevres even though they can’t see ahead- apparently. The statement by the police was that it was only a “momentary lapse of concentration”. With that dodge you can get any driver off anything.