Driver hits cyclist, left for dead. Let off in court.

esuhl

I just saw this depressing news article in which a driver hit a cyclist, left him for dead (conveniently avoiding the breathalyser)... and was let off with a suspended sentence, £85 fine, 4-month curfew, and a 20-month driving ban.

So... other than having a few early nights, he's basically been let off. By sheer luck, the cyclist survived with serious injuries.

Is it just me, or does this seem unduly lenient?

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/driver-given-12-week-suspended-11499988

unforeseen

It was about right

For what he was charged with then the sentence is about right. I wonder why he wasn't charged with anything else more serious? There is probably a lot more to this than is in that brief report, or else the police and CPS in that area are totally incompetent

esuhl

It was too lenient

unforeseen wrote: »

For what he was charged with then the sentence is about right. I wonder why he wasn't charged with anything else more serious? There is probably a lot more to this than is in that brief report, or else the police and CPS in that area are totally incompetent

He was charged with:

• Failing to stop at an accident
• Failing to provide a specimen for analysis
• Failing to report an accident that had caused injury to another person

Do you think he should have had other charges?

ceredigion

It was too lenient

esuhl wrote: »

Do you think he should have had other charges?

Attempted murder

unforeseen

It was about right

Driving without due care or similar?

UNLESS the accident was caused by the cyclist which is a possibility given the charges that were actually raised against the driver.

[Deleted User]

It was too lenient

ceredigion wrote: »

Attempted murder

There was a similar incident in Nottingham area (youtube vids by Reginald Scott to see this attack on him ) even worse than this one where the cyclists helmet cam , front and back view, revealed it as a definite attempt murder when a man in a hire car deliberately drove into the cyclist. The cyclist ended up half way over the car windscreen in full view of the passenger.Driver, never stopped and claimed he never saw anything.The fine was an insult to justice being a lousy £150 and 6 points.The Police Woman who took the case on should ve been charged with dereliction of duty she was that bad.Took 10 weeks to even contact the driver.
There is a war going off between some drivers and cyclists, especially the lycra man in full uniform and 3k bike.
I bought a carbon framed bike earlier this year and for the first time since the 1980 s I m riding around every evening doing my 10 or 15 miles.I am getting some idiots bawling some insult out at me, something I never got 40 years ago. I dont know if its jealousy that I can afford a fancy bike or that I am not an obese lump of lard like the people I see in cars. I bet this sort of behaviour only happens in the UK. This country has so many morons in it its the world centre of pig ignorant yobbos

giraffe69

It's not a great idea to seek to decide sentence by reading a brief newspaper article. Of course there may have been some incompetence leading to the charges or the sentence but at least they were there and not relying on "get Surrey" for all their info.

Johnmcl7

giraffe69 wrote: »

It's not a great idea to seek to decide sentence by reading a brief newspaper article. Of course there may have been some incompetence leading to the charges or the sentence but at least they were there and not relying on "get Surrey" for all their info.

As much as this sort of incident scares me, I do think this is a fair point and frequently there's a lot of important detail missed particularly as I guess journalists simply don't understand what can be quite a complex area of law. I don't really see what other charges they could definitely get him on that were more serious than he received given he didn't kill the person, driving without due care and attention and careless driving are both lower offences and Dangerous Driving carries the same class of penalty as he received.

Both dangerous driving and drink driving carry severe penalties and have an absolute minimum of a 12 month driving ban even if there was no accident or no-one was hurt because of the risk those offenders expose everyone else to. It does mean though that the bad driving may be the same but the consequences are different if say for example two drivers get drunk, both drive home and crash into a wall then both were as bad as each other but if one hit a pedestrian on their way into a wall should their sentence be more severe simply because there was someone there at the time but not for the other driver?

I think it's right these offences carry severe minimum penalties but I think there's also the issue of the lack of detection - a higher potential sentence for the offence likely wouldn't have changed this driver's choice (given the minimum is serious enough) but if he'd been stopped beforehand or perhaps others in his area had been it may have made a difference. I've always been teetotal and therefore unsurprisingly always been the designated driver and when leaving a pub late at night with drunken people, I've always expected to be pulled over and breathalysed but in many years of driving I've only been stopped once on a road block on new year's day. When Scotland lowered the alcohol limit I expected them to make more of a show of it initially and be more noticeable checking drivers but I've not been aware of anything like that.

Similarly with mobile phones, it scares me how often I see people muck up a roundabout or junction because they have one hand trying to hold a phone and the other to steer/indicate/gear shift. Yet it's only a three point offence they're risking and I suspect a very low chance of being caught.

I think it's a difficult issue particularly as reading this sort of article is quite chilling knowing that could be me left for dead, I've had a few very near misses and it's a serious concern the next one could be the last.

John

Strider590

The problem with stuff like this AND with our legal system, is that one is judged by a jury of ones peers and not by the law as such. This means that all sorts of social nonsense makes it's way into the whole process and because most drivers hate cyclists, the cyclist is screwed right from the start.

pendragon_arther

It was too lenient

The main problem is our prisons are jammed packed full so magistrates are inclined to not go down the route of jail sentences.

ic

That article doesn't go on to explain the consequences on the driver. Its quite possible they've lost their job and will struggle to find more work due to the sentence. If they're not a danger to society (remember can no longer drive), then what does locking him up in prison achieve?

I'd agree with the other comments, the story is too brief. Its a bit much to call it attempted murder - I doubt he'd left the house with the intention of running a cyclist over. I don't think there is such a thing as attempted manslaughter - i.e. almost killing somebody by accident, but not. Hence the sentences.