If he was seriously injured, and the OP suggests he was, the offence would be "causing serious injury by dangerous driving" contrary to S1A RTA 1988. It carries a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, which interestingly used to be the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving 25 years ago.

It also carries a mandatory two year disqualification.

But the driver very intentionally, deliberately and maliciously left him for dead! You can't unintentionally drive a car away from a crime scene.

Exactly! And in 20 months, he'll be able to maim or kill others on the road. If a serious sentence isn't going to make any difference to his future decisions, then he needs to be kept off the road for a much longer time to protect decent members of society.

No sentence can undo injuries! That's not how sentencing works! Are you saying that, since the injuries can't be undone, the driver shouldn't be charged with anything?!

The implications can't be anything like as bad for him as for the victim who was airlifted to hospital with serious injuries. By the sound of it, he might never walk again.

The driver CHOSE to risk these implications. And the injuries were made worse by the fact that the driver DELIBERATELY and maliciously refused to stop and help. This is absolutely callous behaviour!

Sure. It sounds like that lady had suffered a lot as a result of her actions. And presumably, she didn't deliberately kill the person she hit and went to his aid immediately... unlike the driver in this case, who tried to save his own skin, risking (and probably causing) greater harm, and risking someone's life through intentional neglect.

To me, that level of cold-bloodedness is more concerning that someone who kills by accident. How can anyone leave a seriously injured person to just die alone by the side of the road?

I agree. I think there ought to be "black boxes" fitted to all cars, with CCTV so that there will be conclusive evidence in almost every crime committed on the roads.

But the idea that you think that a 20 month ban is too harsh seems crazy to me. What sentence do you think would be appropriate? Should he not have been banned at all, and just let off? Is it right to tell the public that it's perfectly fine if you hit someone and leave them for dead?

I just saw a clip of a TV programme following the work of the police on the roads.

A man was pulled over and found to be drunk. He refused a breath test. He was arrested and subsequently given a 3 year ban, a 12-month community order and had to pay £145 in costs.

"All" he did was fail to provide a specimen for analysis. The driver I referred to in the OP did this, also hit someone leaving them with serious injuries, AND left the scene of an accident, leaving the cyclist for dead AND failed to report the accident.

I just seems disproportionate to other sentences.

Sounds like another case of not getting the full story.

But we know what the charges were and we know what the sentences were.

A 3 year ban and 12 month Community Order for a simple failure to provide, I don't think so. Sounds like he/she is a repeat offender or there were other offences.

A three year ban is usually the start point for a repeat drink drive/ftp offence.

Judges and magistrates can (rightly) be influenced in their sentencing provision if good mitigation/remorse/guilty plea/previous god character is offered by the defence. Each case does need to be assessed individually.

Usually, our frustration at the level of sentencing is a product of either lack of knowledge of the detail of the case, or a bias in favour of the victim.

In the case of cyclists I do think that bias should become the norm. In other words I believe that those responsible for charging and sentencing need to fully appreciate the risks facing cyclists from inconsiderate, careless or dangerous driving. Driving that may be considered 'careless' around other motorists could quite easily be 'dangerous' in the vicinity of cyclists or other vulnerable road users, and this should more consistently be a consideration in deciding an appropriate charge.

I read all the research about helmets for cycling and decided they were probably of very little benefit (and could potentially be detrimental) so I didn't wear one for a few years. People with no knowledge of the subject often told me I should. I then read that lawyers in court would try to blame a cyclist for their own injuries and some had even succeeded in having claims reduced for cyclists that didn't wear helmets. So now I wear a helmet just so no-one could ever try to blame me in an accident. You don't want to be hit by a stupid motorist and then get told that you were somehow to blame for your injuries.

I hadn't considered the fact that previous convictions would be taken into account, so maybe that explains the different sentences in different cases.

But I still think a 20-month ban and a trivial fine is way too light a sentence for someone who seriously injured someone and left them for dead.

^^ There is a protest outside parliament today because a motorist who killed another driver "only" received a 6-year prison sentence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36761849

http://www.brake.org.uk/top-level/18-campaigns/1594-roads-to-justice-real-life-cases

I can't see much difference in leaving someone for dead at the side of the road and actually killing them. I know these were different incidents and the driver in the news report above deserves a harsher sentence because it's harder to kill someone in a car than on a bike, but still...

People are almost literally getting away with murder.

Anyone who hits a cyclist and leaves them for dead deserves prison but murder requires intent in their actions - it would be manslaughter if they are getting away with it - killing with a car seems to be an odd legal situation as, unless they can prove you were drunk or tired or aimed at the victim, you don't seem to get as serious jail time as other types of killing

I don't think that "most drivers hate cyclists". However, I do think that there is a big element of 'there but for the grace of God go I' when juries try motoring offences.

I seem to remember reading, back when the death penalty was being abolished, that the severity of the punishment has little effect on the offender; what really matters is the likelihood of being caught. In other words, doubling the sentences for murder won't make much difference to the murder rate, but doubling the chances of being caught would.


Which is why the move to increase the number of speed cameras and reduce the number of traffic officers on the roads was such a great idea.

...which will be why the road fatality statistics went pear shaped when speed cameras were introduced.
Quantity does not equate to quality, especially when you are enforcing a 'gauche' control placed on a skill based activity.

As I understand it, as cameras were introduced in the 90s the KSI rates changed very little. The issue was that from the 60s onwards, accidents and deaths had been on a consistent downward trend, and this came to a halt. Individual cameras could always show they had reduced accidents (due to regression to the mean), but the overall stats hardly moved, when they should have continued moving downwards.

And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You're right. From the mid nineties to about 2003/4 was the period where camera prosecution expanded exponentially year on year. It was also the period where the UK experienced a significant negative deviation to the steady, almost predictable trend of fatality reduction.

It would of course be impossible to single out speed cameras as the cause of that loss of trend of fatality reduction; but significant loss of trend (as this was) must be attributable to some extraordinary change in impact factors. The speed camera experiment and its supporting safety propaganda offered the police the opportunity to decimate their road policing departments, and those two factors must sit alongside any other factors that could be considered to be responsible for the trend loss.

Regarding RTTM, this is a statistical anomaly which was knowingly abused to show that cameras were responsible for reducing collisions and saving lives, but the figures produced were totally and knowingly false. The DfT stated that over 100 lives a year were being saved through the placement of speed cameras, and this was a provable lie manufactured through the abuse of the RTTM phenomenon.
Surprisingly, these totally discredited figures are still being used, as on the ROSPA site below.
It's easy to make a prima facie case that cameras will reduce fatalities, after all reducing speed of impact will reduce the likelihood of injury. But there is serious doubt that they have any real beneficial effect, and much analysis and anecdotal evidence that they create and engender a less safe driving environment.

Precisely. No-one is saying that speed cameras caused extra deaths. But at the same time road policing was reduced (it's expensive, while cameras are cheap) and I'm sure that is the main reason why the KSI stats stopped falling.


A speed camera can capture a driver's speed to a million decimal places, and the ease of automating the subsequent prosecution process makes it possible to detect and prosecute every single speeding motorist at a specific site if desired. But no camera in the world can detect the drunk driver, the bald tyres, the unroadworthy car, the driver on the edge of sleep, the aggressive and the incompetent. Police traffic officers were detecting and dealing with those issues for years until they were put on other duties. And, crucially, they did it with a degree of discretion, which meant that they retained a solid amount of support from most drivers. A couple of times I was stopped to 'have a word', and it modified my driving habits (and made me think) far more than an automated NIP dropping on the mat, which is just an annoyance.

I'm pretty convinced they have added to the tally, especially given what we know about the way our minds drive.

However the accident occurred and whatever factors were in play, it's the leaving someone for dead aspect that I struggle with. I could never live with myself if it was me.


I would actually rather be fined/banned/whatever (not that I would drive under the influence anyway) than have someone else's suffering on my conscience.

I was just reading about this driver who got caught doing 154mph!!! He got banned for less than 2 months (and a tiny £365 fine that doesn't come close to the cost of prosecution; his crime has been subsidised by the taxpayer).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36953439

It's insane. At least it was on a motorway with no pedestrians or cyclists, but still... It illustrates how socially acceptable dangerous driving is. People just aren't safe on the roads.

But clearly a decision was taken by the police/CPS based on the available evidence to prosecute for speeding and not for Dangerous Driving. Accordingly he was sentenced for the offence he pleaded guilty to.