Indefinite cycling ban for jobless builder who rode behind women and sexually assaulted them

madcarew wrote:

The point prohibiting the behaviour is not to actually stop the behaviour (obviously, it's pretty difficult to enforce without round the clock surveillance) but this guy (with almost certain mental health issues) is now known to the local rozzers and it gives them a lever to enable them to put him away if he's seen riding his bike again if it seems the behaviour is likely to be repeated. It gives the cops a mechanism by which they can get someone off the streets pretty quickly if they are exhibiting behaviour that suggests they are about to re-offend. Think of it in the conetxt of someone whose got a restraining order to not be within 300m of a certain person / property because of previous violence against someone. The police can't continually monitor either individual, but if they are found in that area it gives the cops a mechanism by which they can very quickly  (have prior permission) remove the apparent threat without having to go through a court process. 

But why does the same logic not apply to driving a car? If this had been someone leaning out of the window of a van or car to grope people, or using a motorised vehicle while committing some other offence, would they have received an indefinite driving ban on the basis of the same logic you describe here? (Do kerb-crawlers get indefinite driving bans?)

I suspect not, for the reason that driving a car is seen to be a 'normal' thing to do and hence would not be connected to the guy's behaviour, any more than 'walking' would be, whereas cycling is seen as a distinctive and non-everyday activity, so it gets noticed and specifically linked to the bad behaviour.

I'm guessing this is is rather a one-off case so not that big a deal, but it does seem to illustrate the general double-standard involved.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But why does the same logic not apply to driving a car? If this had been someone leaning out of the window of a van or car to grope people, or using a motorised vehicle while committing some other offence, would they have received an indefinite driving ban on the basis of the same logic you describe here? (Do kerb-crawlers get indefinite driving bans?) I suspect not, for the reason that driving a car is seen to be a 'normal' thing to do and hence would not be connected to the guy's behaviour, any more than 'walking' would be, whereas cycling is seen as a distinctive and non-everyday activity, so it gets noticed and specifically linked to the bad behaviour. I'm guessing this is is rather a one-off case so not that big a deal, but it does seem to illustrate the general double-standard involved.

Of course there would be no indefinite driving ban! Everyone knows that people driving around in cars are doing important things and going to important places. People use cars to get to work! If you stopped them driving they'd die of starvation! People on bicycles? Well, they're just weirdos pootling around looking for trouble. Right?  

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Can't see how that can possibly be enforced. 

However, I find it intriguing how the law perceives certain things... for instance, slapping the mother of a young child is somehow worse than slapping someone that is not the mother of a young child.

I am not adverse to this twonk being punished at all. But I have to say that I do doubt the value of locking him up. He sounds like a sad case that will be back before the courts, possibly escalating his crimes.

Also re having had arse slapped by a woman... it has happened to me and to friends while riding. TBH I didn't mind, but I can see that the role/power-differential was reversed so it was non threatening to me. I have also been cat-called by women of various ages.

It must be nice for the rest of you not to be hot like me.

normasnorks wrote:

Brooksby...you can disagree all you like. The law is specific to sexual offences. Giving a burglary example is irrelevant I'm afraid. I don't make the law but I have a good working knowledge of it.

This is an interesting point specific to sexual offences. My first thought on this was 'what about all the people who use cars in the commission of crimes?' 

However, lots of sexual offences are committed by drivers, often using the car as an actual means to commit their crimes. I've yet to read of one receiving a driving ban to curb such future behaviour.

normasnorks wrote:

Anyone convicted of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 can be made subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention order. It's a bit like an ASBO and can detail specific behaviour a person must not engage in if it is pertinent to their offending history and is proportionate. In this case, it certainly is proportionate!! Always keep both hands on the bars

I disagree.  That he was on a bicycle wasn't the reason he was behaving as he was, it was just the mode of transport he happened to be using.  As others have said, the equivalent would be banning someone from driving because they used a getaway car whilst committing a burglary.  And that, as we know, would almost certainly never happen.

kitkat wrote:

Jasckson wrote:

Motorist slaps cyclist's arse, drives away from police and crashes into railway bridge, no time in jail at all

This.

The judge hit the nail on the head around victim impact and the banning from bikes makes sense if it would be equally applied to people who do the same from cars. Possibly a case that can be cited in future for other victimes of this type of assault?
 

+100 for both these comments. This guy sounds like a complete sleazebag (sexual assault on a child is pretty vile) but those two cases seem like a glaring double-standard.

I also wonder if this guy would have had the same sentence if he'd sexually-assaulted women cyclists rather than pedestrians? How much is it dependent on the mode-of-transport of the perp and how much that of the victim?

Anyway, this guy shouldn't be banned from cycling, he should be banned from ever going within 100 yards of a woman or girl.

Jackson wrote:

Sounds like this bloke should have saved up for a car first.

Motorist slaps cyclist's arse, drives away from police and crashes into railway bridge, no time in jail at all :

http://road.cc/content/news/203909-man-pleads-guilty-dangerous-driving-a...

 

 

Plus, if you've got a decent car then you may actually pull. I imagine slapping arses in a Ferrari is vastly different to doing it on a Halfords Apollo with cartoon stickers on your helmet (ooh-er).

PaulBox wrote:

Kill a cyclist in a car, £80 fine.

Pinch a few arses on a bike, indefinite ban and a suspended prison sentence.

Not condoning what he did at all, but there is something seriously wrong and imbalanced in the world of sentencing.

Isn't sentencing significantly based on intent though? This guy clearly intended to do what he did as so deserves punishment whereas (and I don't really like writing this) people such as gail didn't intend to kill the cyclist.

racyrich wrote:

I'm intrigued now - just what things can a judge ban you from doing?   

I thought that you can't actually be banned from walking, cycling or riding a horse on the public highway. It was my understanding that the right of a cyclist to use the roads was established in a test case in 1870 or thereabouts.

Motorised vehicles and their drivers do not have the automatic right to use the roads and that is why both the driver and the vehicle have to be licensed to do so. That does not apply to pesestrians, cyclists or horse riders.

What if the offender above had been walking around groping girls' arses? Could the judge have banned him from walking around instead?