- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgLand Rover driver jailed for 18 months after running over cyclist in road rage incident
A Land Rover Freelander driver has been jailed for 18 months after ramming a cyclist in a road rage incident, leaving the victim with six fractured ribs, his pelvis broken in six places, and a punctured liver.
Alan Moult, aged 74, pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving when he appeared at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester this week, reports the Guardian.
The court heard that Moult, a retired engineer, had become angry with cyclist Nick Cook when the rider hit his vehicle by accident after the driver of a bin lorry had braked suddenly in front of him at a set of traffic lights.
Dashcam footage of the incident in Stockport in July 2020 showed Moult’s wife pleading with him to stop as he drove after the cyclist, whom he blamed for damaging his wing mirror, saying, “It’s not worth it – don’t, love.”
Catching up with the cyclist, Moult got out of his car and began arguing with him, whereupon Mr Cook spat on the bonnet of the vehicle.
Moult got back in his Land Rover and drove over the victim, seriously injuring him, then called him a “prick.”
The incident left Mr Cook, who is still suffering the after-effects of his injuries, too frightened to ride his bike and he has also lost his job.
Rachel Stenton, defending Cook, claimed in mitigation that there had been “a certain amount of goading” on Mr Cook’s part before he was run over.
“Had his vehicle not been damaged this would never have happened,” she said. “It was a moment of madness.”
Referring to the moment the cyclist spat on the car, Recorder Dan Prowse told Moult: ‘‘It was plainly a provocative act but your response was grossly disproportionate.
“You deliberately drove into and over Mr Cook, accelerating hard as you did so having aimed your vehicle directly at him and he went under your vehicle.
“Your wife was shrieking and was plainly frightened but your response, knowing you had just run that man down, was to say the word: ‘prick’.”
He added: ‘‘You were consumed by anger and wanted a confrontation with Mr Cook. You deliberately ran that man down in anger in an action that could have been fatal.’’
The judge also banned Moult from driving for three years.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 7 min 42 sec ago
You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance...
- chrisonabike 20 min 44 sec ago
This is why I question the utility of shared-use paths; you're constantly dodging flamethrower-dogs and their operators. Mind you, they're...
- HoarseMann 1 hour 8 min ago
It does seem a bit ridiculous having an outright ban on cycles at all times, yet permit holders can drive down there whenever they like and...
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 36 min ago
Well, yes, that's kinda my point. I think stating that "Norway is socialist" is a questionable perspective. I'd say it was a Nordic social...
- Bezzard74 1 hour 53 min ago
The Be Calm section - 100% ...
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 56 min ago
Now, if we're talking gravel bikes, that's a whole different story. Gimme, gimme, gimme! Apologies for the Facebook link....
- wtjs 1 hour 59 min ago
The police are operationally independent, in fact the regional Police and Crime Commissioners have to swear in their oath of office that they will...
- brooksby 2 hours 4 min ago
"'Right", said Fred, "we'll 'ave to get a move on…"
- JohnnyEnglish 3 hours 47 min ago
Thanks for the review. I like that Orbea have included aero extras and wish more manufacturers would stick two fingers up at the UCI - at least in...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 24 min ago
Excellent - I think I'll replace my emergency tube that is a real squeeze to get into the little Topeak bottle cage bag thingy....
Add new comment
20 comments
His wife can be heard, understandably hysterical, in the car. She suffers from anxiety and depression
- wonder how that developed? -
"Rachel Stenton, defending Cook, claimed in mitigation that there had been “a certain amount of goading” on Mr Cook’s part before he was run over."
Does no one coach these lawyers beforehand on what is and isn't a good defence? It's staggering that they tried to excuse running someone over with that sentence.
Never mind the line of defence, she also seems to be confused which party she's defending.
well it is from the grauniad
Goo spot. Maybe that's a mistake in the article then.
74 years old and can't control his temper, shouldn't be allowed on the road again.
The thing that I cannot get is the defending solicitors comments. How is it that people that are allowed to practice law are able to come out with "Had his vehicle not been damaged" How the f#@k in anyones mind can they attempt to justify running over someone with a car by saying they damaged their wing mirror?
It's like a householder attempting to justify tw@tting someone with a baseball bat because they stood in their flower bed.
It's their job. Not the right windmill to tilt against. CPS' charging decision appears to be at fault here followed by the judge's leniency.
Exactly. Someone at the CPS looked at the case, looked at the evidence available and witnesses, and decided that they had a better chance of success with the driving offence and decided to charge on that basis.
Let's be honest: if they had gone with a 'violence' offence (GBH etc) then Mr Moult would almost certainly have walked from court a free man with no blemish on his driving licence...
I wonder if the psychological impact of the charge on the jury would be different if it had been a crime if violence rather than a motoring offence.
If you say to the average jurist "he tried to kill the victim" (ie attempted murder) rather than "there was an unfortunate happening on the road and sadly Mr Cook found his pelvis had been a bit damaged" (ie careless driving), is there actually a higher probability of conviction as the jury starts from the premise that Moult is a murderous nut-job rather than a pensioner who had a momentary loss of control?
As others have stated in the other thread, the was GBH with a Deadly Weapon with the intent to wound (kill?) which has a maximum sentence of life in Prison. So why charge him with something that has 5 years max and is used in unintentional collisions. CPS/ Police who decided this sentencing needs to take a seriously hard look at the Judges comments and think "yes it was a deadly weapon and he did intently use it to kill or at best for the victim, seriously injure them".
There is no doubt this is unduly lenient!
...but was it really a wing mirror?
And did it have a V5C document, VED and dampers instead of Log Book, Road Tax and Shock Absorbers?
WOT NO CAPITALS??
So out in 9 months? He's probably telling himself his wife was wrong after all!
When was this sentence passed down?
It seem unduly lenient - does anyone know if the offence of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving come under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme?
A reference has to be made within 28 days.
I believe it is referable, though I'm not a lawyer.
My read of annex A Schedule 1 point 1 is that it covers any indictable offence (anything covered in Crown Court) as this one was.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/unduly-lenient-sentences
If you want to request a sentencing review you need to contact the Attorney General's Office.
However, I'm not sure this one is on 'the list'
https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
The case number is T20217262