Helmet camera footage of a driver twice brake-checking a cyclist in Glasgow has resulted in the motorist, who turned out to be serving a driving ban, being convicted on four separate charges – dangerous driving, breach of the peace, driving without insurance and driving without a licence.
On Wednesday, the driver, who pleaded guilty in the face of the video evidence, was fined £375, banned from driving for 48 weeks and ordered to perform 150 hours of community payback.
The incident took place on Springburn Glasgow, on 28 April 2013. It was filmed by Dave Brennan, whose helmet camera videos, posted to YouTube under the name Magnatom, have been used on BBC programmes.
Brennan, who co-founded and helps organise the Pedal on Parliament [POP] ride in Edinburgh – the third edition takes place next month – was cycling back from the Scottish Cycle Show, where he had been distributing leaflets for the second Pedal on Parliament ride.
He has kept the video private until now while legal proceedings were ongoing, with the case concluding at Glasgow Sheriff Court this week.
He told road.cc: “Whilst I wish our roads were safe enough that helmet cameras weren't needed, I think this case demonstrates their power.
“Without the footage the case would never have been brought to court.
“I am though disappointed with the sentencing. Had the driver threatened me with any other potential weapon I suspect the punishment would have been a lot harsher.”
The video shows the driver passing Brennan at speed with very little room to spare, as he apparently sought to undertake other traffic.
The close pass – bear in mind, the wide angle used on some helmet cameras such as this one can exaggerate gaps – prompted Brennan to exclaim loudly, his right arm outstretched in protest.
Initially, that seems to be the end of it. But shortly afterwards, the car slows down, Brennan wondering out loud to himself, “What’s the problem?”
As the cyclist gets closer, suddenly the driver applies the brakes. Fortunately, Brennan reacts in time. Then the driver does it again, this time stopping.
“You mate are on camera!” Brennan told the motorist as he got out of his vehicle. “I don’t care,” came the reply.
The pair continued to exchange words until the sound of a siren prompts the motorist to get back into his car and drive off, although it’s clear from the video that Brennan was still nervous that the motorist might attempt to confront him again.
66 thoughts on “Video: Helmet camera footage leads to aggressive driver pleading guilty to four charges”
themartincox wrote:excellent,
yes it seems the courts are oblivous to the definition of madness as ‘doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result’
excellent, they gave a
excellent, they gave a driving ban to a driver who was driving whilst already banned!
=D>
excellent, they gave a
Yeah I’m always astounded by these types of case. The justice system doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that the driver shouldn’t have been there in the first place and so the sentence should be harsher.
Why as part of the sentence can’t the car be seized and crushed? Hit these people where it has most effect.
usedtobefaster wrote:Why as
Agree, any other weapon used against a person will be confiscated and destroyed. Cars are no different when used in road rage incidents.
Though selling them for the benefit of road traffic charities would be more appropriate…
usedtobefaster wrote:
Why as
Because that would probably be a breach of his/her ‘Human Rights’…
Well done Scotland for
Well done Scotland for allowing the video footage as evidence. It has been disallowed in some English courts recently.
laterrehaute wrote:Well done
I think the police should seek out more footage like this. Actually go looking for it. Encourage people to send in helmet cam and dash cam footage.
But to be fair they do have to reject some footage as evidence because some of it for some offences, close pass etc would get disputed due to angle and the type of lens format used which can distort.
This one is pretty clear cut. It’s straight in front. The fact is though that this driver didn’t get done for the dangerous driving thing in isolation. He got done because the police wanted to do him for other things as well.
Surrey police took up my complaint (no camera_ just a statement from me) and ran with it and got a conviction 6 points (which led to a ban) and £300 fine. It was nice to think they did that for me but it was clear to me that the wheels started moving fast and furiously as soon as the vehicle’s driver was identified. It looked to me like they used my statement (they sent an officer round for an extended detailed statement taking session for over an hour), to nail someone they already wanted to nail.
The fact is though that this
The fact is though that this driver didn’t get done for the dangerous driving thing in isolation. He got done because the police wanted to do him for other things as well.
Surrey police took up my complaint (no camera_ just a statement from me) and ran with it and got a conviction 6 points (which led to a ban) and £300 fine. It was nice to think they did that for me but it was clear to me that the wheels started moving fast and furiously as soon as the vehicle’s driver was identified. It looked to me like they used my statement (they sent an officer round for an extended detailed statement taking session for over an hour), to nail someone they already wanted to nail.[/quote]
I suspect you have a point there.
On the sentencing, a ban seems ridiculous. Is community payback what was called “community service”?
Our high speed legal process
Our high speed legal process in action again? It takes nearly a year to appear and the Aussies can get it done in a week :/ Still at least they charged him with something.
Driving while banned and
Driving while banned and still getting less than a year’s ban?
Ban for life in these cases…
Driving is seen as a right
Driving is seen as a right rather than a privilege and something you need to be qualified to do. Until that’s changed, dangerous driving and while banned will never be punished in a way that will stop them.
As someone who lives in Glasgow though, I’m thrilled to see someone be punished for treating a cyclist like this. Well done Dave Brennan.
bollandinho wrote:… and
There, fixed it for you…
I believe this is one of the
I believe this is one of the scenarios which the current sentencing review for driving offences was intended for. I seem to remember some of the news coverage late last year making particular mention of dangerous & careless driving whilst disqualified.
It sounds as though the court has done its job in this case within the guidelines it has today, but it does demonstrate that the penalties for such dangerous individuals do need to be stronger.
At the moment, the law can’t even disqualify a driver in an effective way as the consequences of ignoring a ban aren’t deterring those receiving them.
The £375 fine, 48 week
The £375 fine, 48 week driving ban and 150 hours of community payback, does seem rather a feeble response. I would have expected there to have been a far longer driving ban, as this is clearly an individual who is not safe on the roads. This is just an other example of the culture of the Sacred Driving Licence at work, it really is time we put a stop to it.
Driving without a licence.
Driving without a licence. Take him out of the gene pool please.
Business opportunity there –
Business opportunity there – camera company making a camera and marketing it for providing admissible, evidential footage after home office / plod / CPS approval
Or a company already making plod – spec cameras branching out into commercially available head cams.
Thus removing questions or possible legal defences regarding lens angle etc
i was pondering upon the
i was pondering upon the whole self defence thing this morning, especially in relation to the muppet and his abusive language that was highlighted yesterday.
if, as a cyclist, I am carrying an lump of steel in my pocket – say a chain-whip for example, and I am about to be attacked I have a ready-made self-defence item to hand (which would validly be on my person as a tool) could I then use that to thrash a potential attacker should they stop their car?
its not premeditated as its a usable tool that just happens to be at hand very quickly – i think Im on to a winner 🙂
Many years ago I got knocked
Many years ago I got knocked off my bike from behind while in a right-only lane by a driver who wanted to skip the traffic queues and go straight. It wasn’t an accident. he was hooting at me for several seconds beforehand but I ignored him.
I yelled at him, which prompted him to get out of his car and start shouting at me in a typical anti-cyclist pay road tax tirade of abuse. I picked up my D-lock when he got close, at which point Plod, who had been at a roadside stall getting food throughout the episode (top of Putney Hill anyone?) and said they were going to arrest me for threatening assault with a deadly weapon.
I did, at the time, tell them to bring it on given that the people in the pub opposite had watched the whole episode and would be on my side as witnesses. Much heated argument ensured, I was told that “they would drop it”, I told them they were abusing their power and took their badge numbers and wrote a letter to the Met. I got a stock response saying the officers would be investigated. Nothing else happened.
Muppets,
well i am unbalanced (on
well i am unbalanced (on cleats) and fearful and just happen to have an item I can use on my person with which to defend myself against an unprovoked attack m’lud
I’m simply responding to the, premeditated – as the driver had stopped and waited, aggression in front of me
@themartincox. Your response
@themartincox. Your response has to be ‘reasonable’ so if the attacker had say a tire iron then maybe. If not it’s a bit like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
Dapper Giles
Since he already brought a two ton weapon, I’m not sure a gun would be inappropriate.
oldstrath wrote:Dapper Giles
I wonder how it works in the US? I read a story not long ago of a case where a disagreement about tailgating between motorists led to the pair of them pulling off the road and starting a shoot-out in the parking lot, ending with one wounded and one dead.
I would have thought that ‘stand your ground’ laws would, if interpreted logically, allow cyclists or pedestrians to shoot drivers who appeared about to drive into them stone-cold dead, rather than having to get out of their way.
Sadly, given that country is even more in love with cars than it is with guns I suspect car-privilege would trump gun-rights in that case!
You also kinda wrote it on
You also kinda wrote it on the internet. 8|
haha I’m 5’7″, there’s no way
haha I’m 5’7″, there’s no way i’d stop 😉
Minimum £500 for careless
Minimum £500 for careless driving. Not too much to ask considering the cost of running a car for a year.
In self defense training the
In self defense training the first principal is usually to avoid an actual physical confrontation.
As being on cleated shoes, and sometimes a bit breathless from cycling, puts you at a significant disadvantage then avoiding the physical onfrontation is even more important. A bike often offers a way to avoid the confrontation by not stopping and if necessary cycling in a place the driver cannot follow – an option I resorted to last summer to avoid a particularly irate 4×4 driver who wanted to fight because I shrugged when he passed me too close and too fast more than once.
The rider in this case had a camera running and was able to use the footage against the driver – much better than using a chain whip or fists.
The real issue in this story is the lenient treatment of an individual who uses a vehicle as a weapon, threatens assault and is driving whilst disqualified – is it any wonder it gets people worked up?
Driving sentences should
Driving sentences should involve attending compulsory chain gangs fixing pot holes. Ignore the humans rights crap, do it, do it, DO IT.
Why did even they have to try
Why did even they have to try him? He has ignored a judge or magistrate who removed his driving licence, why is this not contempt and automatic jail time?
Just a quick comment for
Just a quick comment for Martin Cox on “tooling up”. Courts will wonder why you were carrying such an implement ? Was it for a genuine mechanical need or was it a weapon ? Was it something cyclists normally carry ? Why had you chosen to carry it. If the answers are that it was for anything other than normal mechanical usage then you are in the brown stuff. Also, you have just put your premeditated thinking on the internet…..
As others have said, avoidance is your best bet. Ian Botham famously said that he didn’t fight because it was a choice between prison and hospital food, neither of which appealed.
So those officers think
So those officers think endangering and physically assaulting a cyclist is perfectly fine but him opting to defend himself is a punishable offence? What the actual heck … you really should have followed this up again and again until something was done about it.
excellent result – about time
excellent result – about time fines were given out, doesn’t happen enough
In self defense training the
The second is to ensure you can remain in control of any weapon until the confrontation finishes, being thumped with your own chain whip would be embarrassing/terminal
It surprises me, that the
It surprises me, that the aggressor, doesn’t destroy the video camera. If I was being threatened. My weapon of choice would be my bicycle, and my means of restraint would be nice long zip ties. Very useful for emergency bike repairs, and if of sufficient length capable of cutting off the blood supply to the brain. 👿
velocibob wrote:It surprises
Do you have these fantasies a lot?
Do you realise that you are posting them online?
oozaveared wrote:velocibob
Been watching the Die Hard films too much maybe? Those are just films.
velocibob wrote:It surprises
Is this the plot of the next Saw film?
It surprises me, that the
It surprises me, that the aggressor, doesn’t destroy the video camera. If I was being threatened. My weapon of choice would be my bicycle, and my means of restraint would be nice long zip ties. Very useful for emergency bike repairs, and if of sufficient length capable of cutting off the blood supply to the brain. 👿
It’s of note that the driver
It’s of note that the driver has an existing record for bad driving and a string of offences to his name. This shows his lack of concern for other road users, not just the cyclist in this incident. It does beg questions as to how many more offences he’ll go on to commit, and how he can be prevented from driving during these bans.
I’ve said this before, and
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again here as it seems apt.
We all understand that there are certain ‘privileges’ enjoyed by those behind the wheel of a car. As commented previously, if you went around threatening people with a base ball bat or knife in the same way as you see people doing with cars, you’d be behind bars before you knew it.
Now, to be fair, should things go wrong for any of ‘us’ when driving our own cars, we’ll be pretty pleased those privileges exist, as no one wants to spend 5 years in jail for a careless mistake…. so, I can kind of tolerate the current status quo.
However, I am not sure why those privileges are also given to those already deemed unsafe to be on our road… IMO anyone driving whilst banned, should be tried on the basis that they were not driving a car, but instead illegally in control of a potentially lethal weapon.
I.E the same as running around Tescos waving a machete about.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:I’ve
At first thought I find this argument quite compelling. If you aren’t legally on the road in the first place then you are just a guy with a lethal weapon and should be judged accordingly. A driving licence is, in a sense, a licence to impose a certain level of risk on others. If you don’t have that licence…
FluffyKittenofTindalos
At first thought I find this argument quite compelling. If you aren’t legally on the road in the first place then you are just a guy with a lethal weapon and should be judged accordingly. A driving licence is, in a sense, a licence to impose a certain level of risk on others. If you don’t have that licence…— Jimmy Ray Will
You can make the direct comparison to a Fire Arm Certificate. Makes perfect sense in my opinion.
Exactly the same thing
Exactly the same thing happened to me recently…..but I don’t have a Headcam. Managed to bang on the back window pretty loudly though. Forced me into considering a change to my route which takes the same amount of time and there’s less traffic, so some good came out of it.
Well that certainly proves
Well that certainly proves driving bans work…
Is there a legal (or policy)
Is there a legal (or policy) reason why the name of the convicted driver isn’t mentioned?
Just wondering because am not clear on the details of this and was looking for other reports. If he was already driving while banned, how does the new ban work? Is that going to be added to the end of the existing ban (which he clearly is ignoring anyway)? And which part of the penalty is for which offense?
What punishment would the guy have received for just the driving while banned part, or the driving without insurance part, if he hadn’t also committed the dangerous driving offense?
I’m curious as to whether driving bans are in fact enforced in any meaningful way.
If you felt the need for a
If you felt the need for a self defence assist, old fashioned steel bike pump may be what you need…
What really should be done
What really should be done with these type of drivers is ban them for life, yes i did say life and ban them from owning a motor vehicle as it appears some “people” never learn.
On the subject of persistent
On the subject of persistent driving while banned, obviously another ban isn’t going to have any effect, maybe it would be better to just crush the car, or sell it in a police auction. Already done for non payment of VED.
qwerky wrote:On the subject
Trouble is he’ll just go out and buy or steal another one. There probably are technological ways to stop banned drivers driving, otherwise there’s the sharp sword, hand, block of wood approach. Certainly nothing else works.
On banning for life, I think
On banning for life, I think that is too much in most cases, 10-15 year ban perhaps but not life. Unless it can be shown that they deliberately used their vehicle to try to injure somebody, but that would be very hard to prove without footage of someone following and aiming their vehicle at someone else.
I have to preface this post
I have to preface this post that I am a 60 miles/week cyclist because having read it back before posting there is a danger that people may assume I am a bike-hating car-owner.
I have no sympathy for the driver’s behaviour, and he should have had a heavier punishment but…
Magnatom is an utterly terrible cyclist. Watch his other videos of supposedly bad driving behaviour. He regularly jumps red lights, cuts lanes, rides in the wrong lane, cuts in between traffic, lane hogs, moves into faster lanes and then slows his speed, cuts right hand corners, passes MUCH closer to vehicles than they pass to him …… and so on.
And when any driver reacts to his bad cycling behaviour he stops and behaves aggressively towards them.
And that is just the footage he posts, how badly does he ride in the bits that he cuts?
kevinmorice wrote:I have to
Prefacing something with a disclaimer does not mean that what you say is any less misinformed I’m afraid.
I don’t know Magnatom but I’ve got to disagree with this:
>regularly jumps red lights – link to proof please?
>cuts lanes – what does this actually mean?
>rides in the wrong lane – what is a “wrong” lane? Depends where you are going. Use whatever lane you need and feel safe in.
>cuts in between traffic – you mean filtering, perfectly legal.
>lane hogs – you mean primary position then.
>passes MUCH closer to vehicles than they pass to him – I’d suggest you aquaint yourself with the laws of physics as they relate to bikes and cars, discussed on this excellent blog at http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/newtons-laws/
He cycles assertively which itself is unusual, but not wrong. Most cyclists (me included) usually just shake the head and let it go- but it is not his cycling that is at fault.
I’d suggest you look up “pedal on parliament” and see what the guy is trying to achieve – to make cycling safer. Surely you don’t dislike that too?
kevinmorice wrote:I have to
jumps red lights: links with times please.
rides in the wrong lane: when? show.
lane hogs: You mean takes primary? And with good reason, read cyclecraft.
cuts in between traffic,.. Yeah mean filters.. And?
when any driver reacts to his bad cycling behaviour: link+ time please.
It seems to me that you don’t know how to cycle correctly on Britains roads and are a car worshipping cyclist hating cyclist.
kevinmorice wrote:
Magnatom
Yes, some of this is true, I’ve posted this before myself, he also posts on here BTW.
My issue is that I ride on the same roads at this guy and his utter indignation at even slight driving errors, most of which aren’t dangerous, just less than ideal. This in my opinion, means none of us get any slack as he becomes the norm in many drivers eyes.
Its rare that I agree with him, but in this case, he is more than justified, I know that road, it’s busy, fast, requires a lot of lane changing and is dangerous enough on a bike with arseholes like that ‘driver’
I would say the result here
I would say the result here is to do with him driving while disqualified, I’m not sure the sheriff has taken the brake tests and punishment pass into account at at all.
Why the hell doesn’t driving like an arsehole, whilst banned and uninsured result in a 5 year ban? – minimum.
Yeh, same things happened to
Yeh, same things happened to me on a few occasions – next time they’re (car drivers) DEAD
Again the same pattern.
Again the same pattern. Cyclist initiates confrontation with a gesture then aggro ensues. Don’t forget what cyclists perceive as too close, drivers don’t. In fact cyclists often pass cars at speed too close hence dooring collisions. This driver deserved all he got but cyclists don’t react like this. This could’ve been far worse.
Sedgepeat wrote:Again the
Maybe a highly trained fast jet pilot or an F1 driver can make a high speed pass off a cyclist on the off-side of a vehicle and judge the distance so accurately as to be able to get past safely. But 99.99% of car drivers are not that highly trained or skilled and cannot make that judgement call. In any case, a motor vehicle generates wind draft as it passes at speed that sucks in a cyclist towards the vehicle and is dangerous.
By comparison, a cyclist (or motorcyclist has hands on the handlebars, the furthest point in most instances of the two wheeler. It is very easy to judge the distance between the ends of the bars and any vehicle being passed. And when a cyclist overtakes a motor vehicle, there is no draft of air sucking the bicycle towards the motor vehicle.
This is simple science. it is not complex.
Sedgepeat wrote:Again the
So the cyclist started all of this, funny because I thought the car driver started it by doing a punishment pass.
Give a guy driving whilst
Give a guy driving whilst banned a driving ban – yeah, that’ll learn ‘im.
Hi to all of you two wheeled
Hi to all of you two wheeled potential victims.
Irrespective of the alleged behaviour of Magnatom this footage should be taken for what it really is.
It shows very clearly the aggressive reaction/ actions of a serial banned driver.
What is the point of banning the guy any-more than has already been done,he was driving dangerously and without insurance or a driving license and also causing a breach of the peace.
He clearly has little or no regard for the law and clearly wants taking off of the road by jailing him.
The car should be confiscated and impounded.
If people like this are allowed continued liberty they are going to continue offending and wagging two fingers at society and the law.
One day they will kill whilst doing just what this individual was doing,wagging two fingers and with total contempt.
“£375, banned from driving
“£375, banned from driving for 48 weeks and ordered to perform 150 hours of community payback.”
laughable.
£375 – the car has an 03 plate and is worth up to 3 times that amount maybe. Why not crush the car as a starting point ?
banned for 48 weeks? He’s already banned and that didn’t stop him!!
150 hours of community service? Pouring cups of tea for old ladies in care homes? Woopy Doo. Harsh bro innit?
Children seem to have been
Maybe things are changing a little bit. 4 years ago when I first started taking my son out cycling on the roads, people would look at you like they were going to phone childline or report you to the authorities. Now I see quite a lot of younger kids out on road bikes.
We still get a lot of kids around me playing out in the streets. Admittedly I sometime wish they hadn’t resurfaced my road as that has made it worse. Previously exceeding 10mph on it would’ve destroyed any car.
To possess a licence to drive
To possess a licence to drive a car is a privilege, not a right.
All drivers should sign up to a charter that says they will obey the rules of the roads, and respect the law. It is not a playground to show who is boss….
If a driver ends up getting a ban, and then drives having been banned; this should fall under a criminal act (not a motoring one).
If banned and a judge deems it, then such people should have a psychological evaluation to ensure they are trustworthy enough to possess a driving licence.
Road safety of vulnerable road users needs to be on the political agenda, or traffic related injuries and death (read financial loss and economic burden) must be taken seriously by Parliament.
It’s good to see some
It’s good to see some consequences to bad driving however giving a driving ban to someone who is known to ignore driving bans is ridiculous. I have long held the view that drivers found to be driving whilst banned should have the remainer of their ban converted into a custodial sentance automatically.
Another option would be to restrict them to travelling at a maximum speed of 20mph. A GPS tracking unit could be used to enforce this.
but if you catch the wrong
but if you catch the wrong person then you might find that using a head cam is suddenly an intrusion of privacy
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/cyclists-use-of-helmet-cameras-requires-restraint-20140320-355h1.html
wealthy guy doors cyclist and walks away
press suck up
did later apologise
as to the UK already banned issue here in Victoria, Aus’ just starting with ARP and finding a lot of banned drivers / drivers never had a license – no surprise
Could I plead with fellow
Could I plead with fellow cyclists not to swear at car drivers, or any other road users. The chances are that the situation is more likely then to escalate rather than deescalate, and it doesn’t make us any friends.
Swearing is an understandable reaction, and in this case the driver’s actions were deliberate. However, drivers, like the rest of us, do make mistakes, and are more likely to learn from the mistake if we are gracious towards them.
Just the other day I suggested this to another cyclist in Edinburgh, who said the swearing was what came into his head. Maybe we could each rehearse something more positive to say when the occasion arises.
And we can show our thanks to drivers who are courteous towards us, as suggested here http://www.cyclelifestyle.co.uk/blog/why-cyclists-should-thank-courteous-drivers