Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Nine-year sentence for "drunken idiot" drug-driver who told passengers "cyclists should not be on the road" moments before overtaking group ride, hitting and killing cycling club chairman

The court heard Jack Bingley "had been on something of a bender the night before and had also taken cocaine" — the dangerous driver repeatedly ignoring his passengers' calls for him to go back to the scene of the fatal collision after he hit two riders...

The family of a cyclist killed by a dangerous driver who was over the drink-drive limit and also tested positive for cocaine or its metabolites have spoken of their "all-consuming sadness", the "drunken idiot" responsible for their loss now jailed for nine years.

Robert Noble was killed on the morning of Sunday 28 January this year, the chairman of the Trent Vikings Cycling Club enjoying a group ride with clubmates when he was hit and killed by Jack Bingley who was driving two passengers home after what the prosecutor described as "something of a bender" on Saturday night.

The group of nine cyclists were riding two abreast — as is suggested by the Highway Code, "particularly [when riding] in larger groups" — but moved to single file in preparation to make a right turn from Cottam Lane/Green Lane onto Rampton Road, in Nottinghamshire. Mr Noble, whose family described him as a "larger-than-life-figure, well-known in the local community" was at the front of the group and was one of two riders to be hit by Bingley as the driver impatiently attempted to overtake the group.

A reporter from the Nottingham Post was at Nottingham Crown Court to hear details of the incident, Judge Mark Watson telling the 26-year-old, who has a previous conviction from 2019 for drink-driving, that he killed Mr Noble "because you did not have the patience to wait until it was safe to overtake that group of experienced cyclists".

Nottinghamshire Police said it is believed Bingley was over twice the drink-drive limit at the time of the collision and he also tested positive for cocaine or its metabolites having returned to the scene two hours after the collision.

The prosecutor, Jeremy Janes, told the court Bingley ignored his passengers when they told him not to overtake "as the cyclists were likely to turn right", instead making "a comment about cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road" and "was then heard to say words to the effect of 'Oh f*** it' just before [...] he dropped a gear and, in her words [the account of one of the passengers], 'floored it'."

It was obvious that they were going to hit the lead cyclist and both passengers shouted 'Jack'," the prosecutor continued. "Mr Noble went up the bonnet of the van coming off the driver's side. He was thrown into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road just past the junction. The van also struck another one of the other cyclists, a glancing blow as it moved through the group. Mr Bingley didn't stop, if anything he accelerated as he drove away from the scene. One of his female passengers described herself as 'unable to speak' and had her hand over her mouth in shock.

> Drug-driving dad jailed for three years nine months was taking kids to football when he killed cyclist in "utterly avoidable" collision

"They were both shouting at the defendant that he needed to stop, turn around and go back. He said he couldn't. He made a comment about it being a works van and that a trace would come back to work not him. Eventually he did stop and let those two girls out. Having composed themselves, they went back and spoke with police officers at the scene and provided their details and an account of what had happened.

"Back at the scene Mr Noble was unresponsive. His fellow cyclists tried to assist as best they could. Emergency services were very soon on the scene, but Mr Noble did not respond to their best efforts and sadly was pronounced dead at 10.03am. A post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was multiple injuries."

The second cyclist who was hit suffered soft tissue injuries, the prosecutor describing the weather on the day of the incident as "fine" and road conditions as "good", stressing that "neither played any part in all this".

"He had two female passengers and they had spent the Saturday night with the defendant drinking in various establishments until they ended up at his home address," Mr Janes said.

"Shortly after 9am he offered to give them a lift home, foolish in the extreme, he had been on something of a bender the night before and had also taken cocaine. It is clear from the breath samples that he gave later that day that he was still significantly over the legal limit at this time. The prosecution say that seeking to overtake that number of cyclists was an inherently and obviously dangerous manoeuvre."

Having initially fled, Bingley returned to the scene at around 11.30am, roughly two hours after the fatal collision, and provided a roadside breath test of 57, a little over one-and-a-half times the legal limit. Nottinghamshire Police have stated that expert evidence confirmed he would have been more than two times over the drink drive limit at the time of the collision.

The prosecutor concluded: "In addition, within the blood samples taken the metabolites of cocaine. It is not possible to say that the levels of cocaine were above the legal limit at the time of the collision, but it is a further factor that affected the defendant's reactions when driving that morning."

> Distracted, phone-using, uninsured driver jailed for six years after killing cyclist in hit-and-run collision

Bingley provided the police a prepared statement at interview, claiming "without warning the lead cyclist had turned in front of him as he was in the process of overtaking" and he called the collision an "accident". He later pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was jailed for nine years. A five-year driving ban will begin on his release from prison.

Mr Noble's son told the court he is "sickened" that Bingley "could do such a callous thing and then drive off" and told him "I hope you rot".

"No prison sentence will compensate for the hurt you've caused me and my family. My dad loved life, there was nothing he could not do and I aspired to be like him. He was my role model, my mentor and my best friend, the head of the house and a massive part of Gainsborough," Joe Noble said in a victim impact statement.

Angela, Mr Noble's wife, added: "Sadly, on Sunday, January 28, my world, and that of my children, came crashing down. This pain will never leave us."

Detective Constable Andrew Fawcett, of Nottinghamshire Police, said: "Our thoughts are with Mr Noble's family and friends and his fellow cycle club members who are understandably devastated by this incident. This was a wholly unnecessary death caused by Bingley's foolish and senseless decision to drive whilst still highly intoxicated and under the influence of drink and drugs.

"This resulted in the selfish decision to overtake a group of cyclists when it was clearly unsafe to do so. This tragic case is a reminder that cyclists are among our most vulnerable road users and it's therefore vitally important that drivers take extra care and show consideration for them when sharing the county's roads.

"There is room for everyone on our roads and we all have a right to be there. We encourage all road users to show consideration and respect for the safety of each other as we all have a duty to make our roads a safer place. We'd urge drivers to please show patience and consideration when they're behind a cyclist, and when passing a cyclist make sure that you allow sufficient time and distance to do so without compromising their safety. 

"Always make sure there are no junctions, and you can see far enough ahead to know it is safe to complete the overtake. Clearly this case is exacerbated by Bingley's intoxication. I would implore everyone to think very carefully before getting behind the wheel the morning after a night out, you must only ever drive when you are fully fit to do so."

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

39 comments

Avatar
Paulmay6270 | 4 months ago
0 likes

Not to mention 9yrs being lenient for taking a life when he knew his actions meant that was a high probaility, but to be be only banned for 5yrs.

This individual has shown that he has no regard for the safety of others on multiple occasions and that driving is a privilege not a right. It is a no brainer that he should be banned from driving for life, and lifetime bans for people who committ significant driving crimes should be issued.

There will be those that argue that he would likely still drive anyway, and i believe he would also, but it would mean at least that if caught he would face immediate action on that basis instead of giving him chnace after chance.

A callous and vile example of a human being.

Avatar
HKR | 4 months ago
3 likes

9 years is not long enough for this selfish repeat offender.   Should be life.  No parole.   He will likely offend again.

Avatar
Wandering Wheels replied to HKR | 4 months ago
1 like

HKR wrote:

9 years is not long enough for this selfish repeat offender.   Should be life.  No parole.   He will likely offend again.

Particularly as he already had a conviction for drink driving.

Avatar
Spangly Shiny replied to Wandering Wheels | 4 months ago
2 likes

Viking sentence of outlawry? Person becomes free game to anyone with the ways and means to end it all.

Avatar
john_smith replied to Spangly Shiny | 4 months ago
0 likes

Might you, at last, have discovered a "benefit" of "brexit"?

Avatar
brooksby replied to john_smith | 4 months ago
1 like

john_smith wrote:

Might you, at last, have discovered a "benefit" of "brexit"?

"Leave Europe, bring in the Purge"? 

Avatar
Simon E replied to HKR | 4 months ago
5 likes

I'm not sure putting him in prison for even longer would help. It has been shown over and over again that very long sentences do not work as a deterrent.

I would prefer to see a very long ban and the offender tagged, with the threat of immediate custody if he's ever caught driving. And a lifelong 6-point limit on any new licence if he ever passes a test.

Avatar
EK Spinner replied to Simon E | 4 months ago
0 likes

I believe that a high likelyhood of getting caught and punished is a bigger detterent than a big punishment for something that most belive they will not be caught for.

This has worked with speeding over the last 20-30 years with speed cameras, yes there are still plenty speeders out there and a way to go, but the norm of 90+ on M/ways and near 50 in a 30 from the late 80s has definetly gone and these people now stand out rahter than being common place

Avatar
wtjs replied to EK Spinner | 4 months ago
1 like

I believe that a high likelihood of getting caught and punished is a bigger deterrent than a big punishment for something that most believe they will not be caught for

We would need a complete set of new UK police forces before this 'punished' notion could come into effect. In my now extensive experience, the main concern of the police is to think up dodges which render them 'unable to take action' over pretty much any driving offence you can think of

https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/ma08opb_crv_redlightpass/

You can see Essex's close-passing dodge below: think up a rubbish 'qualification' without which you become unable to judge whether a passing manoeuvre is too close, and then ensure that nobody in the entire force has it. Job done! I think we can all agree that without this qualification it would be impossible to decide if there was anything wrong with this

https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/

Edit: sorry, the new Essex Police dodge is not below, it's here

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-21-august-2024-309975#block-node-comment-block-node-comments

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to wtjs | 4 months ago
2 likes

I've just had a response from TVP regarding a submission I made in December of last year. They've just got round to reviewing it (8 months later!) due to high demand in the department and it is now past the time by which they could have prosecuted or offered a course, so the result is NFA.

To be fair, they apologised and I appreciate they have taken the time to provide an update. It's not very satisfactory though.

Avatar
wtjs replied to HoarseMann | 4 months ago
3 likes

That's simply just another dodge: We're just so, so busy... It's another way of binning all submissions, while pretending to be paying attention. But, you knew I was going to say that! Remember- they didn't do anything about it, and they knew before they (pretended to) looked at your video that they weren't going to do anything.

To be fair, they apologised

Another of the original dodges- the easy monumentally insincere apology with no consequences. It means: 'Sod that for a lark! Back to business as usual'. Just to show how wedded to inaction UK police officers are: this is YD19 KHF a posh car with no VED for over 2 years (this isn't remarkable in the county where WU59 UMH has been driving around for almost 7 years without VED)- reported 6 months ago, is having MOTs, isn't SORN-ed. Still no action.

Avatar
brooksby replied to wtjs | 4 months ago
0 likes

You'd think that if it is being MOTd, the garage would could check things like whether the VED has been paid:  "Sorry, mate, we can't let you have it back cos you're illegal".

Avatar
wtjs replied to brooksby | 4 months ago
2 likes

I think they would rightly say 'if the police and DVLA can't be bothered, and both organisations are really determined to ignore the offence, why should we offend our paying customers by turning them in to people who don't care!

Avatar
eburtthebike | 4 months ago
18 likes

Having composed themselves, they went back and spoke with police officers at the scene and provided their details and an account of what had happened.

Thank you ladies, it's good to know that there are some responsible people.

Avatar
oneillcp replied to eburtthebike | 4 months ago
2 likes

If they were being truly responsible they would have refused the lift and not let the guy drive

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to oneillcp | 4 months ago
8 likes

oneillcp wrote:

If they were being truly responsible they would have refused the lift and not let the guy drive

You're assuming that they knew what condition he was in.  He could have looked perfectly capable of driving and looked sober.

Avatar
stevemaiden | 4 months ago
10 likes

A 9 year sentence equates to spending 4 years in prison with the rest outside a free man on licence.

So if a drugged-up and drunk driver who is aggressivly driving and deliberately doing so dangerously kills someone only serves 4 years, you'd imagine a driver who kills someone by 'accident' (ie negligently not looking properly) would serve about a year. And shockingly that is often the case.

So how can cyclists be safe on the roads when there are no serious consequnces for drivers who happen to kill them due to negligence? Only a serious deterent will keep cyclists safe because a huge number of drivers do not care a jot about their lives and don't bother to look out for them. The introduction of mandatory lenghty prison sentences for killing a cyclist would stop the carnage overnight - as it did with the law coming down hard on the recent rioters. Drivers will change their behaviour. Deterents work, the problem we face is currently there is none.

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 4 months ago
9 likes

I'll just put this link up again in case anyone misssed it.

https://www.staffordshire.police.uk/news/staffordshire/news/2024/august/...

9 years jail and 8 year 5 month ban for stealing a car. Same jail time but a longer ban. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 4 months ago
17 likes

How he can be allowed to drive again escapes me.

Avatar
stonojnr replied to OldRidgeback | 4 months ago
2 likes

you think a lifetime driving ban would work ?

Avatar
kil0ran replied to stonojnr | 4 months ago
2 likes

Yeah, have it so it's like being out on licence. Caught driving, immediate recall to jail

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to kil0ran | 4 months ago
1 like

I think stonojnr is suggesting that the "caught driving" part is the main issue here...

(This is one of the rare instances where I think there might be a genuinely helpful "tech" solutions, people have mentioned several here in the past.  I suspect people will see these as dystopian state surveillance and control though even though they voluntarily sign up to the same every day without much thought and indeed pay for this e.g. their phones and other devices).

(Aside from the UK has full prisons and even with ones planned it's likely they'll be at least as full years down the road, without a fairly serious change in laws and sentencing).

Avatar
stonojnr replied to chrisonabike | 4 months ago
3 likes

given they low estimate theres always around at least 1million unlicensed drivers on the road, and roughly 10% of drivers taken to court for driving offences were already disqualified from driving, already.

really a life time ban ends up being largely meaningless for someone who is already prepared to break the law whilst driving. the only way they get caught is if they kill someone else on the road

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to stonojnr | 4 months ago
4 likes

It might not with this individual but it a) would increase the length of jail sentence he would get if he did this again and b) may deter others. Certainly worth a try I'd say.

Avatar
EK Spinner | 4 months ago
18 likes

I firmly believe that this should be a lifetime driving ban, with a preset condition of very long jail time if the driving ban is breached.

In fact I would say this should be the case for anyone getting  second disqualification for driving under the influene of anything

Avatar
Matthew Acton-Varian replied to EK Spinner | 4 months ago
4 likes

But it will put them under "extreme hardship". Ironic, I know.

Avatar
Clem Fandango | 4 months ago
12 likes

B*stard.  Shouldn't be allowed to legally operate a spoon in future let alone a car.

I look forward to the usual suspects in the "media" hosting phone ins and dedicating column inches asking whether drivers should be held to account more / whether "they" should be allowed on the public highways.    

Avatar
SimoninSpalding | 4 months ago
17 likes

Condolences to Mr Noble's family and friends.

To the judge - I believe the maximum sentence is 14 years, please explain what mitigating circumstances lead to it being reduced to 9?

I have nothing to say to the lowlife that did this.

Avatar
Tom_77 replied to SimoninSpalding | 4 months ago
6 likes

SimoninSpalding wrote:

To the judge - I believe the maximum sentence is 14 years, please explain what mitigating circumstances lead to it being reduced to 9?

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-d...

9 years will be a sentence of 13.5 years with a third off for pleading guilty, although the maximum sentence is now life. The starting point is 12 years for the most serious category.

Avatar
lonpfrb replied to Tom_77 | 4 months ago
0 likes
Tom_77 wrote:

SimoninSpalding wrote:

To the judge - I believe the maximum sentence is 14 years, please explain what mitigating circumstances lead to it being reduced to 9?

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-d...

9 years will be a sentence of 13.5 years with a third off for pleading guilty, although the maximum sentence is now life. The starting point is 12 years for the most serious category.

How does that sentence compare to manslaughter (because a man was slaughtered), please?

Pages

Latest Comments