A driver who deliberately rammed a cyclist following an argument about a close pass has been given a suspended sentence for dangerous driving and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the incident seeing the victim flung into the air and left with whiplash after complaining to the motorist about an earlier overtake, telling her he had it on camera and later striking her wing mirror after she again drove too close to him.
Sarah Torgerson was sentenced on Friday at Leicester Crown Court, Leicestershire Live reports, and was told by recorder Justin Wigoder that she had “effectively ruined” the cyclist’s life and the “very serious offence” would carry the “right sentence [… of] three to four years in prison”, but due to mitigating factors she instead received a two-year sentence suspended for two years.
The victim thought he had broken his spine, such was the collision force, and described the incident as “like a hate attack” against cyclists, explaining that his bike worth £8,000 is unusable due to the damage and he “almost had a panic attack” when he tried to ride again post-recovery.
The incident happened on 2 February 2022, the man cycling south on Loughborough Road in Birstall when he was overtaken by two vehicles, the second being driven by 40-year-old Torgerson who close passed him.
As the traffic stopped he caught up with the driver and objected to the close overtake, telling her that he had a camera running and had filmed the incident.
In response, the driver stuck a finger up at the cyclist and both parties continued on their way. Moments later, at the Red Hill Roundabout, the driver stopped her Ford Focus very close to the cyclist who “reached out and banged down on her wing mirror”.
Torgerson then rammed into the cyclist, launching him into the air and causing a heavy impact to his spine as he landed on the kerb and hit his head on the road. The driver, who it is reported has a previous conviction for dangerous driving from 2007, admitted ramming the cyclist when she phoned Leicestershire Police from the scene.
The man suffered whiplash and bruising, his bike written off and a watch worth more than £700 smashed. He also reported having to cancel a cycling trip to Mallorca.
In a statement heard in court, read out by prosecutor Eunice Gedzah, the cyclist said the incident had ruined his life and felt like a “hate attack” on him for being a cyclist.
“This incident felt like a hate attack on me. I feel hate towards cyclists is getting worse. We are people too,” he said. “Since this incident, when I last went out on my bike I almost had a panic attack. I’m even a lot more nervous in a car, even when my wife’s driving me. I’m not normally a nervous person. It’s the fact she deliberately drove into me.”
Torgerson’s legal representation, Michelle Harding, said the cyclist had hit the vehicle’s wing mirror “with some force because he felt she was too close to him” and argued the subsequent attack was partly explained by her client’s mental health struggles.
“She turned her wheel into him and knocked him off his bike,” Ms Harding admitted. “Her condition is not an excuse but goes some way to explaining why she may have behaved as she did.”
Having heard the evidence, Mr Wigoder concluded “it’s that serious” that under normal circumstances a motorist who acted as Torgerson did should expect to be sent to prison for three to four years as “cyclists are vulnerable and it’s the court’s first duty to protect them”.
However, he decided Torgerson should not be sent “straight to prison” due to mitigating factors, including her mental health history, the fact she has two young children, and a doctor’s opinion that she suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder that might cause “outbursts”.
“I’m not going to send you straight to prison,” Mr Wigoder said. “But what you did was to drive your car deliberately at a vulnerable cyclist. He thought he had a broken spine and, as you heard, you have effectively ruined his life. The one thing he really enjoyed was cycling, both to work and socially, and he can’t do that now.
“This was a very serious offence indeed. I think the right sentence is three to four years in prison — it’s that serious. Cyclists are vulnerable and it’s the court’s first duty to protect them.”
Torgerson’s two-year sentence is suspended for two years and she will be required to spend 30 days working with probation services. She was also banned from driving for two years and must take an extended retest in order to reclaim her licence.




















75 thoughts on “Motorist avoids jail for deliberately ramming cyclist who questioned close pass”
Nothing about this tells me
Nothing about this tells me this driver will be safe again in two years
what about a requirement for a doctor to sign off that she is no longer prone to outbursts caused by PTSD before being allowed to handle a lethal weapon again?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Exactly: more than the extended retest, can’t the court mandate some serious therapy (or drugs)? And until a professional can assure the public that this person isn’t going to “just lash out” again then they shouldn’t be allowed back behind the wheel of a car…
wycombewheeler wrote:
That’s exactly how the system should work. The DVLA should now know that she has a medical condition (PTSD) that is shown to effect her ability to drive safely. It’s the DVLAs job to seek a medical assesment BEFORE they issue a new license. It would also be interesting to know if she used the same mitigation in her previous conviction. If that was the case then the DVLA should be held to account.
(NB I have no reason to believe that this will happen or in fact ever happens)
Due to legislative changes
Due to legislative changes ubder a previous tory government, the onus is on the driver to report any health conditios that affect their ability to drive, Courts & GP’s are no longer required to report these. All DVLA will know is that she has been banned for 2 years due to dangerous driving.
Rediculous
Shes got prior offences
Shes got prior offences because of poor mental health, but that now somehow sits as mitigation?!? If historic evidence says you aren’t fit to drive, then YOU SHOULDNT BE DRIVING!
the justice system is
the justice system is institutionally anti-cyclist
Sure, she deliberately rammed another human with 1.5 tonnes of metal, but she should be allowed back in control of that lump of metal in 2 years…..
This is exactly the kind of
This is exactly the kind of person that should never be allowed in charge of a car on public roads. The reduced sentence is laughable seeing that it was a deliberate assault, but I want to see a lifetime driving ban.
It’s depressing
It’s depressing
Do not go to jail, pass Go
Do not go to jail, pass Go and collect your £200 and take a big shit on someone because they ride a bicycle. Utter fucking joke.
Quote:
There is no “felt” about it – if the cyclist was able to hit her wing mirror, then by definition she was too close.
The only mitigating circumstance that has any bearing as far as I am concerned is that she has young children. But as others have said, she should be banned from driving for life.
I’d argue against that. How
I’d argue against that. How does the ability to have sex without contraception grant anyone the right to ignore a lack of competency for operating a motor vehicle?
ROOTminus1 wrote:
It doesn’t – but imprisoning mothers punishes innocent children and should be a last resort.
In any case, I wasn’t saying she shouldn’t be jailed because of that – just that it was the only one of the mitigations given I have any sympathy for in this case and these circumstances.
I hope the same mitigation is
I hope the same mitigation is applied regardless of gender/sex.
levestane wrote:
If they are the main care giver, then yes – but the fact in the majority of cases that is the mother.
Women have had their share of
Women have had their share of rough justice down the decades. Society has a habit of being more angry with bad women than with men because more of a line is seen to have been crossed.
I agree with all that’s been said about lengthy or permanent driving bans – if you’re going to plead that you dunnit because of mental illness then you don’t get to have it both ways and carry on driving after a short ban.
It’s difficult, and often has consequences, to lock up a parent of small children for any length of time, but you cannot do what she’s done and just walk away when your victim hobbles away.
This is blatantly untrue.
This is blatantly untrue. Just look at the sentencing for like for like crimes. Women consistently get a better deal.
Throughout history working class people have had a raw deal, just differently dependant on gender.
“Her condition is not an
“Her condition is not an excuse but goes some way to explaining why she may have behaved as she did.”
So, an excuse then?
If the driver has a health
If the driver has a health condition that causes her to repeatedly drive dangerously, then I’m not sure she can be classed as safe behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Does sound like one doesn’t
Does sound like one doesn’t it. But its obviously not because he prefaced it with “not an excuse”. Its like saying “no offence” just before you insult someone.
Another insulting sentence
Another insulting sentence for using a car as a weapon.
Personally, I’m not too ‘bothered’ by her NOT going to prison, but a two years suspended sentance is too lenient, the thing that really bothers me about this is the two year driving ban.. FFS she’s even got prior form.. she’s proved TWICE that she should not be trusted to drive a motor vehicle. On what planet does someone think this ticking time bomb should ever be allowed to drive again?
This should have been a ‘minimum’ of a four year suspended sentance and a ten year ban.
Justice be damned.
Two years is the longest
Two years is the longest sentance that can be suspended. Currently the prisons are full and judges are under pressure not to jail criminals:
Criminals in England and Wales spared jail sentences because of overcrowding
England and Wales judges told not to jail criminals as prisons full – report
The prisons are full of 15
The prisons are full of 15,000 people on remand waiting for trial.
This has been known about for years, and not addressed by this Govt.
Put the blame where it belongs.
mattw wrote:
Labour.
Not just labour, Jeremy
Not just labour, Jeremy Corbin
eburtthebike wrote:
To be fair it was the Cons which first outsourced a prison, but Labour were the ones who ran with it.. Boiling it back to the ‘why’ we’re in this state you can go right back to the mid 70’s when things started getting out of control and judges were sending more and more people to prison and costs were spirialling.. the clear issue is that prison doesn’t reform anyone, e.g. it doesn’t work. So if you’ve got a revolving door of reoffenders then you end up with more and more people in prison. Add in lower sentencing (less deterrant = even less reform), spiralling costs from private firms demanding profits for their shareholders and we end up in a bit of a pickle. While we call for tougher punishments and others are calling for less custodial sentencing. Just another area of the UK which is fubarred.
Tom_77 wrote:
That’s why driving bans should be used more often and ideally, the law should be changed to allow permanent revocation of a driving license for incidents involving someone’s death or permanent disability.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Permanent driving bans should be standard practise for any driver who uses their car as a weapon regardless of their success in the attack, even if their victim escapes without injury any driver who uses their car as a weapon has proven beyond any doubt that they are not suitable to drive.
Permanent driving bans would
Permanent driving bans would never happen unfortunately. A ban followed by an extended re-test and a psychological evalutaion would be enough. I doubt any doctor would sign off on giving a license back to anybody unless there was really no risk.
Tom_77 wrote:
In what world does a ‘maximum suspended sentence’ make any sense? ‘Especially’ with overloaded prisons the norm in the UK.
Genuinley curious.. maybe there’s an obvious answer I’ve not thought of.
peted76 wrote:
AIUI, the thinking is that a prison sentence of more than 2 years reflects a crime so serious that a suspended sentence would not be appropriate.
peted76 wrote:
Personally, I’m not too ‘bothered’ by her NOT going to prison, but a two years suspended sentance is too lenient, the thing that really bothers me about this is the two year driving ban.. FFS she’s even got prior form.. she’s proved TWICE that she should not be trusted to drive a motor vehicle. On what planet does someone think this ticking time bomb should ever be allowed to drive again? — peted76
^ This. I think we live in a world where judges (and others) think that it is not possible to live a normal life without a car, and that to impose a driving ban would amount to unthinkable cruelty. I have four grown up children who have all left home and have independant lives in four different towns/cites in the UK. None of them hold a driving licence and they get around by bike, on foot and public transport. My wife and I got rid of our car four years ago and, to the amazment of many, have never looked back.
It’s not stated in this
It’s not stated in this article, but in the Leicester Mercury coverage it states “Torgerson admitted dangerous driving and assault occasioning actual bodily harm”.
I’m pissed at the CPS on the victims behalf, I understand the increased threshold to prove attempted murder, but the prejudice of the CPS to ignore psychological injuries has diminished the conviction to actual bodily harm, down from grevious harm.
Whatever a doctor will testify to her situation, she’s inflicted a textbook example of PTSD on him
ROOTminus1 wrote:
That should be a good argument for treating road violence more seriously as the victims will have to be dealing with roads and traffic for the rest of their life.
The real news is that this
The real news is that this matter was successfully prosecuted without the case going before a jury which suggests a prosecution that was skilfully put together leaving the defendant with no where to turn. But don’t let that get in the way of your prejudices. The sentence may well be lenient but of course can be appealed. If you want to make a difference rather than moan behind your keyboard you can take the matter up with the Attorney General’s Office as an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence.
The sentence cant be appealed
The sentence cant be appealed unless the Judge made an error of procedure which is rare and unlikey.
Check your facts. (Undue leniency scheme only applies to deaths)
A quick fact reveals that a
Judges make mistakes every day, the appeals courts are busy for that evey reason. For unduly lenient cases ‘anyone can ask for a sentence to be reviewed’. Sadly all the cases I dealt with involved death. Following this could help https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review. Road.cc has even covered a case albeit one involving a fatality https://road.cc/content/news/jail-term-doubled-driver-who-killed-cyclist-304753. Just don’t blame the Prosecutors for Judicial errors, prejudices or poor decisions. None of us are perfect, especially on the Internet.
jaymack wrote:
Looks like we all need to declare that cycling is a religion!
Backladder wrote:
Wait – it isn’t?
Not officially – yet.
Not officially – yet.
Backladder wrote:
Looks like we all need to declare that cycling is a religion!— jaymack
No need for religious BS. Following the murder of Sophie Lancaster, cyclists exhibit the criteria to fall under the definition of alternative subculture, and therefore to be a target of crime based solely on your existence as a cyclist can be treated as a hate crime.
Definition of Alternative Subculture
“Alternative Subculture means a discernible group that is characterized by a strong sense of collective identity and a set of group-specific values and tastes that typically centre on distinctive style/clothing, make- up, body art and music preferences.
Those involved usually stand out in the sense their distinctiveness is discernible both to fellow participants and to those outside the group. Groups that typically place themselves under the umbrella of “alternative” include Goths, emos, punks, metalllers and some variants of hippie and dance culture (although this list is not exhaustive).”
Sylvia Lancaster OBE
Professor Jon Garland
Dr Paul Hodkinson
March 2013
There’s no unifying genre of music or eyeliner, but you certainly can’t deny “a strong sense of collective identity and a set of group-specific values”
ROOTminus1 wrote:
Ha! Based on the variety of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours exhibited even in this tiny bit of “the cycling sub-culture” I’ll deny any such collective identity.
I feel the same about attempts to shove me into some “cyclist” category as I do about attempts to shove me into some singular national category. I’m British only by geography and passport, not by sharing beliefs and behaviours with millions of folk who seem as daft as brushes or mad as belfry bats high on fermented moth juice.
Of course, there is a large pressure from (as usual) the floggers of stuff to create a certain cyclist category, with the shared belief that they can only be a troo cyclist if they buy a £12,000 bicycle and dress like a TdeFer. These are a tiny minority of those who are ocassionally cyclists.
Oh, the wearing of lycra is
Oh, the wearing of lycra is completely ancillary to this, the core identity being “Have bike, will ride” and the specific group values are “I have the right to travel from A to B on my bike without fear or persecution”
I’m annoyed because the CPS,
I’m annoyed because the CPS, like all public services, is bound by onerous budget and resource constraints, so are forced to operate in a minimum representation of justice mentality.
I don’t know the details of the case, but it doesn’t take a wild imagination to suspect that CPS know the true level of offense is GBH, so rather than pushing for attempted murder and settling on GBH, they’ve threatened GBH for the defendant to settle with ABH.
Get 2/3rds the result with minimal effort. It’s an accountant’s wet dream, but actual justice is eroded.
I know this is just how the game is played, but the sentencing still reflects the idealised threshold for offenses that are only found in the most clear-cut cases, or by the most draconian justices now relegated to the history books.
Appeals work both ways, so judges are scared to apply too harsh a sentence in case it’s overturned
Quote:
Someone explain this to me. How can having mental health issues that render you fundamentally unsuitable for the responsibility of driving, knowing that, and yet continuing to drive regardless be used as a mitigating factor? She’s had a doctor suggest that her mental health issues mean that she can’t suffer the smallest conflict/disagreement without resorting to attempted murder, and she’s using that as a defence?
Surely the fact that she continued to drive while in that mental state should increase the severity of the offence? That’s like running someone over and trying to use “I was drunk” as a mitigating factor.
Because there is literally no
Because there is literally no other way for a person to get around. Barring her from driving a car would be an immense hardship.
adamrice wrote:
She deserves an immense hardship. But more importantly, the rest of us deserve to have her not driving.
adamrice wrote:
Indeed – but the poor judge was clearly in a complete muddle. He didn’t want to affect her children and wanted her to interact with the probation services. But he’s banned her from driving for two years. Surely it is literally impossible for her to keep her children alive for that long or get to her probation appointments without using her car?
adamrice wrote:
He says on a website literally dedicated to one of the many other ways of getting around.
No, an “immense hardship” would be having your father/husband/son killed by a petulant child who can’t even suffer a rebuke over a dangerous pass without flying off the handle and resorting to using their car as a weapon.
Driving is a privilege, not a right – a privilege that should absolutely be withdrawn if someone demonstrates they are not responsible enough to drive safely around other members of the public. Especially if it’s the second time they’re demonstrating that:
Wouldn’t it be nice if she
Wouldn’t it be nice if she could have been condemned to five years hard graft on a bicycle. Judges need this in their sentencing arsenal! ? Perhaps she’d think twice about ramming people.
Clearly there is no sarcasm
Clearly there is no sarcasm so obvious that some people won’t read it as being in ernest.
adamrice wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Touché.
Touché.
adamrice wrote:
I’m assuming this is sarcasm.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
You don’t live in the real
You don’t live in the real world if you think this.
I love cycling but 99% of my journeys could not be made in any way other than by car. And that is a fact for the vast majority of people.
Don’t demonise drivers. It is just what we all do to get on with our lives.
Muzza wrote:
“And that is a fact for the vast majority of people”.
It’s not a fact just because you baselessly assert something with zero evidence cited.
“Don’t demonise drivers.”
What, not even deranged psychopathic ones?
You are right. This is a
You are right. This is a logical and well reasoned argument. I think the Judge’s sentence should be reviewed if possible.
The Judge said, “I think the
The Judge said, “I think the right sentence is three to four years in prison — it’s that serious” but she didn’t get that sentence. Am I missing something?
i ride this route on my
i ride this route on my commute most days. there is a safer route along a canal path, but unfortunately when there has been a lot of rain the path becomes flooded leaving this road as the only option.
i’ve had quite a few close passes on this road as well.
sadly there was a cyclist fatality on the same roundabout last week also.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/cyclist-killed-fatal-collision-busy-8835792
I used to use a canal path on
I used to use a canal path on my commute. Too narrow for anything other than pootling and as you said, too much standing water after rain.
I am left to using the road due to the speed I cycle being unsuitable for shared use or canal paths. I do everything I can to keep myself safe which does nothing to prevent the dangerous passes from drivists who dgas about my life.
I often shout something in surprise at nobody in particular. The soft soul of some of the drivists can’t seem to take it though, almost as if they know what they did was wrong and assume I am shouting at them.
How about cycling a bit
How about cycling a bit slower?
I bet you are happy to see cars driving more slowly. How about the same for cyclists?
What the heck is wrong with
What the heck is wrong with people? I mean come on. She should be banned from driving for 5 years and then have to pay for at least 20 lessons and pay for and pass the driving tests again.
No, she should never be
No, she should never be allowed to drive again. This a second conviction for dangerous driving. I find this aspect of the sentencing worse than the lack of custodial sentence, which is bad enough.
Sarah Torgerson is CLASS
Sarah Torgerson is CLASS BITCH of huge proportions…so the way she acted basically means all drivers are mental cases and will avoid prison??
As a vulnerable road user,
As a vulnerable road user, generally it is best not to pick on something that can kill you quite easily…
He had the footage, and presumably the moral high ground until they stopped and he banged the car.
Of course that’s pragmatic,
Of course that’s pragmatic, especially as drivers in the UK aren’t trained, tested and licenced.
Ah – I forgot, it’s not a licence to operate dangerous machinery in a public space, it’s a one-off right of passage. And if you break the conditions you’ll rightly be told “do this again, and we’ll be forced to tell you not to do it again!”
As you were!
I agree to a large extent. I
I agree to a large extent. I don’t confront drivers any more and I’ve stopped hitting wing mirrors, I just submit the footage. In an ideal world this should be enough but the response from the police is so patchy and inconsistent that submitting footage is no guarantee of action and in many cases the driver “gets away with it” and may not even realise they have done anything wrong.
Under these circumstances it is at least understandable that some cyclists feel the need to make their feelings known to the driver. If only the police would be more proactive and consistent with submiited footage it would not be necessary.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
You are quite right, the appropriate repsonse to her two vehicular assualts would have been to drag her out of her car and then use it to launch her into the air and cause her very serious injuries.
If she has previous for Dangerous Driving why the hell has she not been sent to prison?? She’s proved she should not be allowed to drive so instead of a serious ban (and prison!) the judge has just given her a short ban and used the reason she should not be driving as an excuse. Lunacy.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
What a crazy response. They were stopped, then she turned into him – it couldn’t have been at much speed. Not that it’s appropriate but still quite different to ramming someone at 30mph
And I’m not saying she shouldn’t go to prison. But then could he have been done for criminal damage for hitting the wing mirror.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Witchcraft to boot!
I hope the cyclist takes a
I hope the cyclist takes a civil case against the driver and gets a very large payout. Sadly, it will be her insurance – and hence most of society indirectly – who pays it rather than her. Though, at least her own insurance premiums should rise a good bit more, following a /second/ conviction for motoring offences. One would hope to a level that it takes her off the road for good, but who knows.
Perhaps we can look at this
Perhaps we can look at this from the driver’s perspective. Yes she passed too close to a cyclist, but that is an easy mistake to make. Then the cyclist aggressively chased and approached her and struck her car’s mirror. Any driver would feel intimidated and probably angry.
Aggressive tactics by cyclists hurt the rest of us cyclists. Antagonising other road users will not make them behave better: just the opposite! The cyclist in question is wondering why drivers increasingly hate cyclists. His behaviour is the answer.
I am writing this as a cyclist who is also a driver. I have seen a rapid deterioration in cyclist behaviour in recent years. Please let’s behave better and keep the moral high ground. Please – no more threats of video footage being sent to police. It just fosters hate and makes it dangerous for the rest of us cyclists.
Each paragraph is bullshit.
Each paragraph is bullshit.
Nope; the cyclist engaged in
Nope; the cyclist engaged in road rage, which provoked the reaction from the driver; the last thing I do when cycle commuting is antagonise someone driving a vehicle that could turn me into mush..
Muzza wrote:
Unfortunately the video seems to be unavailable but by simply reading the text you can see that what you have said here is untrue. The cyclist did not “aggressively chase” the driver, he carried on his ride and when he caught up with her told her that he had her on film. He then cycled on, she chose to follow after him and stop her car very close to him, which is when he hit her mirror (note no damage of any sort claimed). She then drove her car into him. She made a physical attack on the rider for which, as the judge admitted, she should have been sent to prison for three or four years, and you’re trying to defend her because the cyclist tapped her wing mirror when she actively sought out confrontation? Unbelievable.
The rest of your post, effectively saying don’t antagonise the bullies because they will then bully you, is beneath contempt.
hey Ashley Neal, why have you
hey Ashley Neal, why have you chosen Muzza as your cowardly troll account name?