Drives into two cyclist and flees
Discussion
Can't believe that a two year ban and £20 victim surcharge.
Guy nearly kills 2/3 cyclists and leaves the scene p.
Anyone else think it's too light?
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/in-your-area/cyclis...
Guy nearly kills 2/3 cyclists and leaves the scene p.
Anyone else think it's too light?
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/in-your-area/cyclis...
Woah up a bit. Fill in the blanks.
He's 81 years old.
He pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving - which has a mandatory extended test before getting the licence back, and he can't even apply to do that until he's 83.
Simple version - he is never, ever driving again.
On top of that, it's not that he's escaped a fine or community order. He's been given a Conditional Discharge. That means that he's not been sentenced... yet. If he's back in court for anything in the next 18mo, then he's getting sentenced for this, too. In the meantime, he's been told he's never, ever driving again.
He's 81 years old.
He pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving - which has a mandatory extended test before getting the licence back, and he can't even apply to do that until he's 83.
Simple version - he is never, ever driving again.
On top of that, it's not that he's escaped a fine or community order. He's been given a Conditional Discharge. That means that he's not been sentenced... yet. If he's back in court for anything in the next 18mo, then he's getting sentenced for this, too. In the meantime, he's been told he's never, ever driving again.
matjk said:
Why is he never ever driving again ? Can he not take an extended re-test at 83 ? People are driving at 100 so ...
If he pass an extended test at 83 he is beck out on the road.Edited by matjk on Tuesday 31st July 00:41
Good thing about going over 70 is you can only go to prison for not paying the tax man that's about it.
For me the fact he fled is aggravating, people make mistakes ploughing through like that and not even flinching.
Seems crazy, I assume the bikes had to be paid for out of their own pockets.
One of the reasons I have not done much riding this year is because there are so many people willing to drive like this in Somerset.
Seems worst case you get a driving ban and £20 fine. At least one cyclist was seriously injured it's a joke. When are these out of touch judges going to that this sorted of behaviour towards cyclists is unacceptable.
Zigster said:
The driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving but not guilty to causing injury by dangerous driving. How does that logic stack up? Genuinely curious.
In the US, they'd call it a "plea bargain".Stick your paw up to the lesser offence, get sentenced for that, and save all the hassle and expense of a trial. Win all round.
The end result is that the driver is off the road for the rest of his life. That's surely the most important thing, far more so than sticking an 80yo (health?) into prison or giving him a fine that will probably just effectively get knocked off the inheritance to his family soon enough. Community order probably isn't a goer on the basis of age.
TooMany2cvs said:
.....
The end result is that the driver is off the road for the rest of his life. That's surely the most important thing, far more so than sticking an 80yo (health?) into prison or giving him a fine that will probably just effectively get knocked off the inheritance to his family soon enough. Community order probably isn't a goer on the basis of age.
As above though, he may well be back on the road, and probably much sooner than the cyclist who he nearly killed.The end result is that the driver is off the road for the rest of his life. That's surely the most important thing, far more so than sticking an 80yo (health?) into prison or giving him a fine that will probably just effectively get knocked off the inheritance to his family soon enough. Community order probably isn't a goer on the basis of age.
For me his age should be ignored when it comes to punishment, if he's old enough and well enough to drive, his age and health is irrelevant when it comes to sentencing. Yes, we all want to keep our independence and drive for as long as we can, but that shouldn't be at the expense of other road users safety, and it shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free' card to play when you mess up.
The more times elderly drivers get (effectively) let-off due to their age, the longer they will continue to drive when they should really be hanging up their keys IMHO.
He was undoubtedly way too close to the cyclists and shouldn't have attempted the overtake but it does look as if the rear cyclist veered out into his path without checking behind him.
I agree with the fault lying with the motorist but it looks as if the cyclist could and should have been more aware
I agree with the fault lying with the motorist but it looks as if the cyclist could and should have been more aware
ClaphamGT3 said:
He was undoubtedly way too close to the cyclists and shouldn't have attempted the overtake but it does look as if the rear cyclist veered out into his path without checking behind him.
I agree with the fault lying with the motorist but it looks as if the cyclist could and should have been more aware
The old driver admitted the offence, absolutely no comeback on the cyclist at all.I agree with the fault lying with the motorist but it looks as if the cyclist could and should have been more aware
As you say he either didn't see the cyclists, didn't see the car coming the other way which stopped him giving the cyclist enough room, or completely misjudged the width of the road. You're supposed to allow for cyclists swerving around road gullies etc, 100% his fault.
Zigster said:
The driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving but not guilty to causing injury by dangerous driving. How does that logic stack up? Genuinely curious.
A defendant can enter whatever plea he/she chooses. I think we can be pretty sure, facing such a serious charge, that he would have taken legal advice.linked article said:
But he admitted a lesser charge of dangerous driving when he appeared at Taunton Crown Court, which was accepted by the prosecution.
I would not be in the least surprised if the defence had a preliminary conversation with the prosecution before the trial commenced..The CPS then decided it was content to take the guaranteed win.
Whether anyone on here thinks that stinks is moot. The deal has been done..
Red Devil said:
Zigster said:
The driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving but not guilty to causing injury by dangerous driving. How does that logic stack up? Genuinely curious.
A defendant can enter whatever plea he/she chooses. I think we can be pretty sure, facing such a serious charge, that he would have taken legal advice.linked article said:
But he admitted a lesser charge of dangerous driving when he appeared at Taunton Crown Court, which was accepted by the prosecution.
I would not be in the least surprised if the defence had a preliminary conversation with the prosecution before the trial commenced..The CPS then decided it was content to take the guaranteed win.
Whether anyone on here thinks that stinks is moot. The deal has been done..
Guilty to dangerous driving, for an incident which caused an injury = guilty of causing injury by dangerous driving!
Red Devil said:
I would not be in the least surprised if the defence had a preliminary conversation with the prosecution before the trial commenced..
The CPS then decided it was content to take the guaranteed win.
Whether anyone on here thinks that stinks is moot. The deal has been done..
Given that he hasn't been sentenced yet - and won't be unless he's back in court on something else in the next 18 months - I wonder if there's even any difference between where he is now, and where he'd be if he'd pleaded guilty to the more serious charge?The CPS then decided it was content to take the guaranteed win.
Whether anyone on here thinks that stinks is moot. The deal has been done..
The Surveyor said:
Well I for one think it stinks.
Guilty to dangerous driving, for an incident which caused an injury = guilty of causing injury by dangerous driving!
For me stopping and admitting the accident would of shown some remorse.Guilty to dangerous driving, for an incident which caused an injury = guilty of causing injury by dangerous driving!
Seems he was either cold and callous or unfit to drive.
He fled and had to be tracked down and seems to care not. This makes it worse for seen no evidence that the guy has shown any remorse.
If he owed that vat man money I expect sending him to prison would be fine, but nearly kills 3 cyclists damages hundreds in bike gear, leaves them with fairly serious injuries and drives in like it never happened. He is 81 £20 fine and he has do an extended test.
What is the deterrent for people who are not fit to drive due age or illness but do so anyway. Worst case I get caught £20 fine and they make me use my free bus pass! Ok let's get the Mazda out on the open road!
Johnnytheboy said:
When they stop thinking it was an accident, I guess.
Wasn't an accident it was a road traffic collision and clearly the driver of the Mazda fell well below that of a competent driver.The fine is less than £100 fpn for minor speeding
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 31st July 12:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff