A man has been jailed for ramming a motorcyclist

[black-k1]

8IKERDAVE said:

That video was an uncomfortable watch! I must admit I very rarely end up in road rage situations on the bike (in fact I can't think of any), but should anything like that arise I would be opening the throttle and leaving them behind and to st with the speed limit! One of the safest things you can do on a bike is get yourself away from a dangerous situation with the power.

I think "just getting away" very much depends on just how much risk you are willing to take and the video shows that the car driver was willing to take some very extreme risks.

[ingenieur]

I think the people outraged by the fact he didn't get a longer sentence aren't seeing the proportionality. It has to be quantified and they have to figure out a way of measuring it to be able to determine the right punishment. A most serious case would have to involve a fatality somewhere within the incident.

Murder usually has an element of pre-planning and so does attempted-murder as it's the same except unsuccessful execution of the plan.

The motorcyclists injuries were described as serious but legally speaking that is anything which requires medical attention. So whilst his injuries were serious that is a step below 'life changing' which is how they describe a permanent injury which you'll never fully recover from.

So they probably got the sentence just about right when you apply all the right balances.

I disagree with serving part terms though. It shouldn't work like that. Judges should expect a sentence given to be the sentence served and not have to try to figure out if a longer term is required to compensate for people serving short sentences. Neither should the pubic be required to accept that any sentence given will be halved in any case as it seems unjust to only serve part of your punishment.

[Bazsm]

That is a scary video, if the driver can do something like that you have to wonder about his lack of self control as that’s not just road rage. A permanent driving ban would seem more appropriate for all road users safety!

[ingenieur]

Bazsm said:

That is a scary video, if the driver can do something like that you have to wonder about his lack of self control as that’s not just road rage. A permanent driving ban would seem more appropriate for all road users safety!

He could be banned like Katie Price has been banned.

[croyde]

It's the fact that not only was he out to get the motorcyclist, he was quite happy to take out an oncoming car to do so.

That sort of mental belongs in a lunatic asylum for a very very long time.

[waynedear]

He got lucky with the bushes.

[Iamnotkloot]

croyde said:

It's the fact that not only was he out to get the motorcyclist, he was quite happy to take out an oncoming car to do so.

That sort of mental belongs in a lunatic asylum for a very very long time.

I also feel quite sorry for the oncoming driver - he had nothing to do with the road rage incident and still got rammed....

I think the perp' should have been given a 20 year or more driving ban.

[ingenieur]

croyde said:

It's the fact that not only was he out to get the motorcyclist, he was quite happy to take out an oncoming car to do so.

That sort of mental belongs in a lunatic asylum for a very very long time.

The part of it covering intensions is some of the overall issue but not all of it. In total it all has to be considered. i.e. what actually happened carries more weight than what the protagonist thought might have happened or had planned to have happen. Same as the difference between murder, attempted murder and manslaughter. Different levels of intent and outcome. You can't really say there should be no distinction between one kind of horrible crime and another. It's horrible stuff to have to think about but there are thresholds and balances all over the place.

[Nath911t]

That was a sad watch and could have been a lot worse. The driver should have that sentence doubled and the ban is way too short.

[HybridTheory]

ingenieur said:

I think the people outraged by the fact he didn't get a longer sentence aren't seeing the proportionality. It has to be quantified and they have to figure out a way of measuring it to be able to determine the right punishment. A most serious case would have to involve a fatality somewhere within the incident.

Murder usually has an element of pre-planning and so does attempted-murder as it's the same except unsuccessful execution of the plan.

The motorcyclists injuries were described as serious but legally speaking that is anything which requires medical attention. So whilst his injuries were serious that is a step below 'life changing' which is how they describe a permanent injury which you'll never fully recover from.

So they probably got the sentence just about right when you apply all the right balances.

I disagree with serving part terms though. It shouldn't work like that. Judges should expect a sentence given to be the sentence served and not have to try to figure out if a longer term is required to compensate for people serving short sentences. Neither should the pubic be required to accept that any sentence given will be halved in any case as it seems unjust to only serve part of your punishment.

The only reason it wasn’t manslaughter was because the biker got lucky and went headfirst off the bridge into a bush .

Surely this was gbh with intent with aggravating factors like using his car as a weapon

[poo at Paul's]

Trevor555 said:

Super Sonic said:

Imo anyone who uses a vehicle as a weapon should be charged w attempted mirder.

This

Ramming him like that I think the driver clearly had "kill" on his mind

It wasn't just a little nudge was it.

And he hit another car head on whilst doing so. Madness

[LunarOne]

Unbelievable! Rida Kazem, the driver of that speeding Range Rover SVR that launched on the North Circular got 7.5 years for the accident that killed one and injured another as well as himself (he lost a leg below the knee). And he wasn't intending to cause any harm. He was just driving dangerously.

This guy was driving dangerously and DID intend to cause injury at the very least. While nobody was killed, that's just by pure luck. He ended up injuring the biker and someone in the car he crashed into. That's why I think the perp should have received a 10-year sentence to guarantee at least 5 years inside, followed by a 10-year driving ban.

Edited by LunarOne on Wednesday 20th March 14:38

[Seasonal Hero]

Blows my mind that anyone ever gets their licence back after that.

[Krikkit]

HybridTheory said:

Surely this was gbh with intent with aggravating factors like using his car as a weapon

Obviously not according to the CPS etc.

[Rushjob]

Krikkit said:

HybridTheory said:

Surely this was gbh with intent with aggravating factors like using his car as a weapon

Obviously not according to the CPS etc.

From the article it says.......

"He was jailed for four years and 10 months after being convicted at Aylesbury crown court of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and grievous bodily harm with intent.

[ingenieur]

LunarOne said:

Unbelievable! Rida Kazem, the driver of that speeding Range Rover SVR that launched on the North Circular got 7.5 years for the accident that killed one and injured another as well as himself (he lost a leg below the knee). And he wasn't intending to cause any harm. He was just driving dangerously.

This guy was driving dangerously and DID intend to cause injury at the very least. While nobody was killed, that's just by pure luck. He ended up injuring the biker and someone in the car he crashed into. That's why I think the perp should have received a 10-year sentence to guarantee at least 5 years inside, followed by a 10-year driving ban.

Edited by LunarOne on Wednesday 20th March 14:38

Again, proportionality... correct, it is lucky nobody was killed... but that's also why he wasn't given a 10 year sentence / driving ban. It is mostly about what actually happened rather than what could have happened. If there had been a fatality somewhere (in the oncoming car even) then the story would be a lot different. Not to excuse what he did in any way.

[wc98]

ingenieur said:

I think the people outraged by the fact he didn't get a longer sentence aren't seeing the proportionality. It has to be quantified and they have to figure out a way of measuring it to be able to determine the right punishment. A most serious case would have to involve a fatality somewhere within the incident.

Murder usually has an element of pre-planning and so does attempted-murder as it's the same except unsuccessful execution of the plan.

The motorcyclists injuries were described as serious but legally speaking that is anything which requires medical attention. So whilst his injuries were serious that is a step below 'life changing' which is how they describe a permanent injury which you'll never fully recover from.

So they probably got the sentence just about right when you apply all the right balances.

I disagree with serving part terms though. It shouldn't work like that. Judges should expect a sentence given to be the sentence served and not have to try to figure out if a longer term is required to compensate for people serving short sentences. Neither should the pubic be required to accept that any sentence given will be halved in any case as it seems unjust to only serve part of your punishment.

Oh i am seeing the proportionality or lack of it. There is a weird thing going on where vehicles are used as weapons where the sentence never seems to fit the crime.
No, they didn't get the sentence right, anyone that can lose their rag to the level they use their car like that needs removing from the road forever. I do believe we have a better system of law and order than most places but by christ there are some judges with their heads buried in the sand. I will never accept people can be jailed for just speeding when someone showing outright intent to harm can receive a sentence as low as this. You're not a judge or JP by any chance

[Trevor555]

ingenieur said:

Murder usually has an element of pre-planning and so does attempted-murder as it's the same except unsuccessful execution of the plan.

How long does it need to be pre planned though?

I'd say in this case, whatever was the initial cause of this disagreement, it was from this point the driver seemed determined to try and cause death to this motorcyclist.

How does the law define pre planned?

Days?
Hours?
Minutes?

Genuine question.

[Pit Pony]

Hammersia said:

But cars are quicker than motorbikes

But cars can't go down Alleyways, or down steps.

[ingenieur]

Trevor555 said:

ingenieur said:

Murder usually has an element of pre-planning and so does attempted-murder as it's the same except unsuccessful execution of the plan.

How long does it need to be pre planned though?

I'd say in this case, whatever was the initial cause of this disagreement, it was from this point the driver seemed determined to try and cause death to this motorcyclist.

How does the law define pre planned?

Days?
Hours?
Minutes?

Genuine question.

It would be prior to the aggravation. So the car driver would have left his home at a time he knew he would intersect with the motorcyclist showing that he had deliberately set out for there to be a meeting, at which point he would try to ram him off the road. More likely they did not know each other and when they both decided to engage with one another the guy on two wheels came off worse.