Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“Reckless” taxi driver who left cyclist with life-changing brain injury avoids jail

Mohammed Israar was handed a suspended sentence and banned from driving for three years after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving

A taxi driver has been sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, following a collision which left a cyclist with a devastating and life-changing brain injury.

23-year-old Mohammed Israar pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court earlier this week, 16 months after cutting across and colliding with a cyclist on a roundabout on the Lightwood Road in Longton.

Israar, a taxi driver who was off duty at the time of the collision, was also banned from driving for three years and must complete a rehabilitation activity for 15 days along with 150 hours of unpaid work, Stoke-on-Trent Live reports.

On 16 July 2021 Israar entered the roundabout on the Lightwood Road in the right-hand lane, despite intending to turn left.

“The cyclist was in the correct left-hand lane and intended to go straight on,” prosecutor Jonathan Dickinson told the court.

“However, the defendant cut across him to turn left and the back of his car hit the cyclist and knocked him off. The defendant stopped after realising he had struck the cyclist.”

> Community sentence for van driver convicted of killing cyclist 

According to Dickinson, the cyclist suffered memory loss in the collision and can only remember waking up with a head injury four days later in hospital, where he remained for two weeks. A CT scan revealed that he had suffered a skull fracture and bleeding of the brain.

In two victim statements, the cyclist, a former addict, revealed that he had managed to steer his life back on track before the incident but that the effects of the crash had been “catastrophic”. He said that eating is now an inconvenience, he can so longer smell or taste food, he has problems with his eyesight, short-term memory, and processing information, and that he has experienced a range of cognitive issues.

He told the court that he has since relapsed and is currently struggling to fight his addiction due to the brain injury suffered in July last year. The cyclist added that the aftermath of the collision will affect him and his family for years to come.

Mitigating, Ekwall Tiwana argued that taxi driver Israar – who said he is “very sorry” for what had happened – had a clean driving record, no previous convictions, and that his driving on the day of the crash was “an impulsive, reckless decision”.

“The doctor who examined the injuries stated the injuries would have been significantly mitigated if the cyclist was wearing a helmet,” Tiwana added.

> Drink driver who ploughed into cyclist with friend riding on bonnet jailed for 14 months 

Reader Amy Jacobs concluded: “As you approached the roundabout you were in the right-hand lane. The cyclist was to your left. You cut across him, knocking the bike from underneath him causing his head to hit the road.

“This was committed in a few seconds. He sustained a brain injury. It was life-changing for him. He had a fracture to his skull and a bleed in the brain. He was kept in hospital for two weeks.

“You were in the wrong lane. Despite knowing he was in the inside lane you decided to turn across him. In my judgement, you thought he was turning left, and you were taken by surprise when he did not.

“It is aggravated by the fact it was a cyclist. They are vulnerable road users and you have a duty to take extra care in respect of them. He was not doing anything wrong. You were the one who cut across him.

“In my view no prison sentence is going to seem long enough to him and his family. It seems that this was a short lapse in an otherwise unblemished driving history. You are working to improve your life.”

Along with his suspended sentence and driving ban, Israar was ordered to pay £400 in costs.

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

115 comments

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
2 likes

We are at a 'never the twain shall meet' impasse over helmets here. I will continue to wear one approaching 100% of the time while cycling and climbing and when up a ladder by the house or a tree, but am highly opposed to attempts to make them compulsory when cycling, or their absence as 'contributory negligence'. I think that the utility of a helmet as a reliable and reproducibly accurate mount for a headcam has not been emphasised enough.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
0 likes

While we're having the helmet Vs cars debate has anyone put any consideration into wearing a motorcycle helmet?

Those are actually designed to protect the user in a motor vehicle collision, and there's even a helpful dft website (SHARP) that tests and rates individual helmets. Would probably be good to have that for bicycle helmets too actually.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
2 likes

There's a bloke I see riding his bike around Bristol with what looks like a motorbike helmet: no visor but he's retrofitted a V-for-Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask on the front 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
2 likes

Car Delenda Est wrote:

While we're having the helmet Vs cars debate has anyone put any consideration into wearing a motorcycle helmet? Those are actually designed to protect the user in a motor vehicle collision, and there's even a helpful dft website (SHARP) that tests and rates individual helmets. Would probably be good to have that for bicycle helmets too actually.

I'd guess that most motorbike helmets would quickly get too hot for cycling in as they enclose most of the head. Also possibly an issue with reducing hearing although that shouldn't be an issue if the cyclist just takes care to look around before turning etc.

The closest thing seems to be full face downhill MTB helmets - I don't know how good they are, but should be more protective than standard cycle helmets.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'd guess that most motorbike helmets would quickly get too hot for cycling in as they enclose most of the head.

They do, wore one once cycling to pick up my motorcycle from a garage (garage loaned me an old bicycle to get home on), very quickly overheated. Also the extra weight which you don't notice with a big solid motorbike suspension really gets to your neck quickly. Ended up taking it off and carrying (and I wear a bike helmet everywhere).

hawkinspeter wrote:

The closest thing seems to be full face downhill MTB helmets - I don't know how good they are, but should be more protective than standard cycle helmets.

The ones I've worn - hire ones at MTB centres - seemed to be pretty much like standard helmets only reaching a few inches lower down and obviously with the chin protection as well, so they protected more areas but I didn't feel the level of protection was any better - subjective impression though.

Avatar
robike | 1 year ago
1 like

I have tripped and fell while on foot with similar frequency to falling of cycles - the distance of my head to the ground is almost the same in both cases so impacts will be almost the same, the extra speed of cycling adds little as the speed of the car is what matters.

You could imagine similar situations where pedestrians gets hit.  There would be no mention of helmets, even though the risk of head injury when hit by a car is almost the same as when cycling. Why are blame transfer statements even allowed - the judges should order them to be struck out.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to robike | 1 year ago
5 likes

Fundamentally I believe the difference is not the height of fall but the ability to respond. If you trip as a pedestrian, you will perform various gymnastics to protect yourself - which is what wrinklies can't do so tend to hurt themselves more in a fall (as well as being more fragile).

On a bike, the frame constricts your movement so you tend to fall badly.

A little example, I managed to trip my wife while ballroom dancing, she fell backwards. As I was holding her I broke her fall and she didn't hit her head. I was pulled forwards of balance, was able to deliberately roll and fall so didn't hurt myself either. Compare that with the experience of your mate failing to unclip and falling on top of you.

You could certainly make an argument that cycling with cleats but no helmet is unnecessary risk taking while a fall from a Brompton with rubber pedals is several times easier to manage in a tumble.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
1 like

Yes, but it would seem a matter of degree.  I'd agree with you that foot retention could make things more dangerous.  Otherwise though...

You might be slightly higher on a bike - or not.  (Or like me on the recumbent definitely lower!).  Your legs might be tangled up in the bike - but then they might not be usefully in contact with the ground in a fall while walking.  You are likely to be moving forwards faster on a bike - but that's very likely not the speed between your head and the ground on impact.  (It might impact [!] your ability to control the landing in general though).

The clear differences between cycling and walking are in a direct forward impact between you and something when your head could experience greater accelleration than landing a sideways fall.  So headlong into a wall or some street furniture.  (Plus points for recumbents as you'll be feet first there, probably...) For evaluating safety when counting those make sure to discard the ones where this is above the protective abilities of a helmet!

We should probably do the numbers though.  I guess you'd to compare the rate at which cyclists come off AND then hit their heads (are they more likely to do either?) with the rate at which than a pedestrian is to fall and do same.  Call the latter a baseline if you will.

And that's why helmets are irrelevant and you should always ride a recumbent trike and not walk!  (Is this right?)

That was what e.g. Martin73 was missing from their plaint.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
6 likes

Quote:

Compare that with the experience of your mate failing to unclip and falling on top of you.

Stop ballroom dancing on your bikes then, or at least clipped in.
 

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
7 likes

"In my view no prison sentence is going to seem long enough to him and his family."

I always thought this meant that any sentance given would be insufficient. I did not realise that a zero custodial sentance would be deemed sufficient

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
12 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

"In my view no prison sentence is going to seem long enough to him and his family."

I always thought this meant that any sentance given would be insufficient. I did not realise that a zero custodial sentance would be deemed sufficient

This seems to have become a common trope with judges recently, "No prison term can bring back the deceased or assuage their family's grief...so I'm not going to bother." I'm certainly not one for prison sentences just for the hell of it, but "I can't give you a sentence long enough to satisfy the wishes of the victim so I'm giving you nothing" is palpably absurd.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
2 likes

I think the main thing is to get drivers off the road so they can't be a danger to other road users. In this case a 3 year ban was given which also means he loses his job. I'm coming round to the view that a ban is more important than a prison sentence especially if genuine remorse is evident. In this case he stopped at the scene and pleaded guilty to dangerous driving both of which show remorse in my opinion.

Cases where the driver doesn't stop and pleads not guilty may be a different matter.

There is also community service which should give some time to reflect on his actions.

In my opinion this driver will be a lot more careful around vulnerable road users when he gets back behind the wheel and at the end of the day that is what we all want, isn't it?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Bungle_52 | 1 year ago
6 likes

Bungle_52 wrote:

In my opinion this driver will be a lot more careful around vulnerable road users when he gets back behind the wheel and at the end of the day that is what we all want, isn't it?

When a driver has caused such a life-changing injury, then I don't see why they should have a second chance to cause such damage. When someone shows you that they can't be trusted in control of a vehicle, then you should believe them.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
3 likes

That's a fair point but surely that would be dealt with better by a lifetime ban rather then a short spell in prison. He does have to pass an extended test before he gets his license back.

I would have been calling for prison at one time but reading comments on this site my view is changing. The key to me is remorse and I get the impression this driver is genuinely sorry. There have been instances where the driver hasn't stopped and pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving where I may think differently. It seems to me that no remorse means less likelihood of a change of driving.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Bungle_52 | 1 year ago
3 likes

Bungle_52 wrote:

That's a fair point but surely that would be dealt with better by a lifetime ban rather then a short spell in prison. He does have to pass an extended test before he gets his license back.

I would have been calling for prison at one time but reading comments on this site my view is changing. The key to me is remorse and I get the impression this driver is genuinely sorry. There have been instances where the driver hasn't stopped and pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving where I may think differently. It seems to me that no remorse means less likelihood of a change of driving.

I tend to agree that prison may not be necessary in this instance as he seems to recognise what he did wrong. However, the courts should also consider the victim and their family and it's important to see justice in action. Considering that this was dangerous driving and not the lesser careless driving, it really should have resulted in a prison sentence of some kind.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
1 like

Good point with respect to the dangerous driving but I suspect he only got charged with that because he agreed to plead guilty. Any other motorist would have agreed to careless to avoid the dangerous driving charge and the CPS would have agreed to that as dangerous probably wouldn't have succeeded in court based on all the examples we've dicussed on here in the past*. I would argue that pleading not guilty to dangerous does not show remorse and should be treated accordingly.

*Assuming the cyclist had nothing to do with the police that is. Just playing devil's advocate there.

Avatar
LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
14 likes

I always wear a helmet when cycling either on the road or on rough off road trails. I have absolutely no illusions that it will do anything to worthwhile protect my brain from a serious impact but wearing it keeps my wife happy and protects my loved ones from tactics like this by lowlife defence barristers should I be wiped out by a driver and they need to sue for compensation in my absence.

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
6 likes
LeadenSkies wrote:

I always wear a helmet when cycling either on the road or on rough off road trails. I have absolutely no illusions that it will do anything to worthwhile protect my brain from a serious impact but wearing it keeps my wife happy and protects my loved ones from tactics like this by lowlife defence barristers should I be wiped out by a driver and they need to sue for compensation in my absence.

I usually wear a helmet for the same reasons. It is absolutely disgusting that behavior has to be modified for the failures of the legal system and the sheer fucking audacity of shit motorists.

I do cheer my self up with a frankly ridiculous look helmet (complete with wonky hi-viz cover) which adds a performative element when having a "nice little chat" with a motorist that "didn't see me"

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
4 likes

Me too. It's also a great place for a high rear light, camera and in heavy rain it holds my hood back from blocking my vision.

Avatar
LeadenSkies replied to NOtotheEU | 1 year ago
1 like

I have a small led cell on the rear that I use if visibility is really bad but I won't attach a camera or light to the helmet. I worry that stuff stuck on the side via nonstandard mounts might create unexpected forces should they be the point of contact between the helmet and the ground or any other object.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
2 likes

The mounts are plastic though. If you take the drift one which is mainly aimed at motorcyclists, the mount is stuck onto the helmet. It would not take much to shear off the plastic.

Plenty of poor quality road surfaces will create unexpected forces !

Avatar
LeadenSkies replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
2 likes

I know it's extremely unlikely, but I still can't get the thought out of my head. A handlebar mount is my preference.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
0 likes

hirsute wrote:

The mounts are plastic though. If you take the drift one which is mainly aimed at motorcyclists, the mount is stuck onto the helmet. It would not take much to shear off the plastic.

Plenty of poor quality road surfaces will create unexpected forces !

the thing about shearing is it doesn't work if the line of impact is through light/camera-helmet-head. I.e. from the top of the head if the mount is on the top. But the chance of landing square on the top of the head seems remote, and likely to cause catastropic neck injuries to me.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
2 likes

You have an object that can concentrate the force in one place - much as if you fall on a kerb edge or stone you have an increased chance of injury. A camera or light may or may not detach and may or may not become the point of contact rather than the hoped for diffuse contact of a flat surface. It is also a reason why hitting a car with a helmet isn't a good idea if you hit a nobbly bit.

Avatar
LeadenSkies replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
2 likes

I work on the idea that hitting a car or the ground with my head isn't a good idea, helmet or not, light / camera or not, and should probably be avoided if at all possible.  3

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
2 likes

I've thought about that too but I figure if I'm flying through the air at 15mph the possibility of my camera making it worse when I land is probably the least of my problems.

The light is built in to the helmet and I also have cameras on the bike but I'd rather take every opportunity to get a good shot of the driver who hits me and risk the chance of making my injuries worse.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to NOtotheEU | 1 year ago
3 likes

+1 - almost never wear one nowadays * but while I did I ended up mostly seeing it as a thing to fill the hood with, a place for extra lights (don't have a camera) or extra insulation in winter.

Now I can avoid the road some of the time it's a cap or a hood with earflaps in winter!

* I ended up mostly doing this for social conformity reasons - like not turning up to events with my paint-splattered DIY trousers on.  OTOH anyone who didn't know me who expressed opinion about what I should do - especially those who didn't cycle - was going to get bored!

Also because it just feels weird wearing it on the recumbent - oddly where it would likely be most effective.

Avatar
grOg replied to NOtotheEU | 1 year ago
2 likes

I attach a GoPro to the rear of my rack; I want the minimum weight on my helmet and the camera perched at the end of the bike really stands out to motorists behind and acts as a visual deterrent to poor driving.

Avatar
grOg replied to LeadenSkies | 1 year ago
2 likes

Same; I also choose high visibility helmet colours, yellow or white and I affix a high intensity flashing red led light to the rear of the helmet; same principle as the mandatory high mount braking lights for cars; anything to stand out in traffic.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to grOg | 1 year ago
0 likes

I thought you weren't allowed to attach things to your helmet or is that only certain states with that law ?

Pages

Latest Comments