“One of us has some minor permanent scarring, one of us now has no driving licence for 6 months and is significantly poorer this Christmas”
“There are no winners” says a road.cc reader who was left with permanent scarring on his arm after a van driver deliberately knocked him off his bike in a hit and run incident – with the motorist receiving a six-month ban from driving and a hefty fine just in time for Christmas. In this guest blog post John, the cyclist involved, recounts the incident and its aftermath, which he also filmed in this video.
I’m presenting this story here in the hope that the message eventually gets out to drivers that cyclists are dangerous, that they carry cameras and are not afraid to submit footage to the authorities, and that sometimes the authorities actually do take action and that the consequences can be costly.
This incident occurred in July 2018 and concluded with a court appearance and guilty plea by the driver last week.
I feel awful for the guy, no licence, possibly leading to loss of his job and a considerable fine issued by the magistrates at a time when finding a new job and spare cash is not exactly easy.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m satisfied that the incident was handled by the police and that due process has now been served.
For what it’s worth, and I appreciate that some may accuse me of letting the side down, I did ask the barrister for the prosecution at court that if possible I would be happy without a driving ban being imposed, she thought he would be lucky not to receive a custodial sentence. All for a few moments of uncontrolled anger and stupidity.
It happened on my afternoon commute home and came quite out of the blue. At the time I only carried a rear facing Fly6 but the back facing video pretty much speaks for itself.
There was no previous interaction with the driver, I was consistently riding secondary position and there is no issue with visibility. The road here is quite wide enough for safe overtaking and is a 30mph zone despite being designated as an A road, I’ve ridden this same route pretty much daily for over 20 years.
The incident should have been no more than your standard No-vertake, approaching a pedestrian crossing at red with cars waiting for the lights to change.
Initially the van starts with a decent wide overtake but then starts pulling in towards me, pushing me towards the curb and the side road, which was not an option due to a car coming from the left.
The van got to within a few inches of my bar end and was still angling into the curb so the rear panel got a single open handed slap, which you can hear on the video. We were both going pretty slow at that point due to the stationary traffic at the lights ahead and the situation was not particularly threatening.
The van stopped and as I passed I muttered “Bit close, Matey”, again you can hear this on the video, no expletives, no verbal interaction with the driver, I didn’t even give him a glance.
As I go ahead of the van, you can see how close to the curb it is. My line is just to the right of the points on the zig zag lines, an old motorcyclist habit to avoid white lines and the van door/wing mirror is well inside that line with the van still angling somewhat into the kerb.
Thinking no more of it and with the lights having turned green I moved off following the cars ahead - at which point the van comes up alongside me and is then deliberately driven into me, catching the bar end and causing me to fall towards the side of the van and into the road where I picked up some reasonably photogenic road rash to my elbow and knee.
A little up the road, the van came to a stop before accelerating away at speed. The passenger of a following car came to my assistance and provided a witness statement that I recorded on my phone.
Police were pretty good about it, came to my house for a statement a few days later and took a copy of the video. Not super prompt, but they had been dealing with a fatal RTC on the other side of town that same afternoon so I was small potatoes in the grand scheme of people having a bad day on that particular day.
The police interviewed the registered keeper of the van and he admitted being the driver that day, claiming that there was a verbal altercation but backtracking when he was shown the video.
The legal process ground on, Covid came and delayed everything but eventually a court date was set.
The driver initially pleaded Not Guilty which meant I had to attend St Albans Magistrates' Court which I was not particularly looking forward to - but on the day he changed his plea and I ended up spending a rather dull afternoon in the witness room without ever having to actually go into the courtroom.
I wouldn't really hold that against him particularly. The law seems to be more of a game and victims, witnesses and accused are the playing pieces. I expect his lawyer recommended that he plead not guilty up to the day just in case the witnesses decided not to turn up, but then change his plea once we did and still get the benefit of doing so in the sentencing. Maybe they also made a deal with the prosecution over the two dismissed charges?
The defendant pleaded guilty to the following charge:
Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road/in a public place without due care and attention
The following two charges had no evidence offered and were dismissed:
Driver of a vehicle fail to stop after a road accident
Driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident fail to report that accident
The sentence was as follows:
Fined £180
Court costs £620
Disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence for 6 months. Discretionary disqualification. Driving record endorsed. Section 34(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Thanks to: PC Alex Wheeler - Hertfordshire Constabulary
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
There are some drivers that are psychologically unsuited to driving. If you are triggered by a percieved slight such as this causing you to physically harm someone then you should never be allowed back in a motor vehicle. Even if that was not legally possible the very least would be an extensive anger management course which would have pass/fail criteria. I believe that there are a small percentage of aggressive drivers that bully other drivers (eg tailgating) as well as other more vulnerable road users. I honestly think that if these idiots were permanently removed from driving then there would be an exponential increase in road calming, benefiting all road users.
There are some drivers that are psychologically unsuited to driving. If you are triggered by a percieved slight such as this causing you to physically harm someone then you should never be allowed back in a motor vehicle.
Isn't it the "Don't you DARE touch my car!" phenomenon...
... I honestly think that if these idiots were permanently removed from driving then there would be an exponential increase in road calming, benefiting all road users.
In my company, it was found that 80% of collisions involved a poule of only 10% of our drivers (results not regressed for whether it was a fault collision)
... I honestly think that if these idiots were permanently removed from driving then there would be an exponential increase in road calming, benefiting all road users.
In my company, it was found that 80% of collisions involved a poule of only 10% of our drivers (results not regressed for whether it was a fault collision)
And it's extremely likely that applies to the entire population, so if we can get that 10% off the road, we'd reduce collisions by 80%, and we'd all benefit by not being killed/injured/scared shitless by them. It really is time we stopped excusing driving like this and banned the perpetrator for long enough to make them think long and hard about doing it again, or maybe just take their car away.
Captain Badgerreplied to eburtthebike |3 years ago
4 likes
eburtthebike wrote:
....
And it's extremely likely that applies to the entire population, so if we can get that 10% off the road, we'd reduce collisions by 80%, and we'd all benefit by not being killed/injured/scared shitless by them. It really is time we stopped excusing driving like this and banned the perpetrator for long enough to make them think long and hard about doing it again, or maybe just take their car away.
Indeed, that would be a perfectly reasonable extrapolation. I don't see that our drivers would be unrepresentative of the wider public to any significant extent, with the proviso that our drivers are predominantly male.
To me removal of licence should not be seen in terms of punishment - that's what fines, CS and prison are for. It's to do with mitigation of risk, and any magistrate/judge/recorder/whatever that fails to take this basic step is failing in their duty to protect the public.
Assaults with weapons like guns, knives, baseball bats, and even fists are treated much more seriously by the police and courts than those with vehicles, even though there is no logical reason for it.
indeed, any threatening with a weapon then the weapon will be confiscated at the time of the arreeest and be part of the evidence, and after the justice process will be destroyed/archived/disposed off by the courts.
In the case of a vehicle assault like this, they have the weapon in thier possesion and can continue to use it (or even sell it !) before the trial. It should be confiscated as evidence and if found guilty then said weapon is disposed of as the court sees fit, not haded back to the offender.
Can you imagine a mugger being handed his knife as he leaves the court, or a bank robber being handed a sawn off shotgun when he comes home from jail !
I'm glad the cops took this seriously enough to pursue it. This is one driver who, when he gets his licence back, will think very seriously about how he drives in the future. And to be honest, that's the really important thing here. Not only that, he'll probably talk about this incident with his family and friends. It's likely they'll be more wary around cyclists too, knowing that if they drive aggressively, they're likely to end up with driving offences on their record. As to the driver being less employable, that's his own fault and he's only got himself to blame.
I don't see why a "verbal altercation" would have any bearing on any of the case against the dangerous driver? Just seems like whataboutery.
Time and time again we see, a cyclist's verbal response to being physically threatened, the two things are not equivalent. Two people disagreeing with each, other, maybe loudly and shouty, has got naff all to do with one choosing to physically harm the other, especially when one has a deadly weapin and the other is unarmed.
We're all winners with this dangerous idiot off the roads for a bit and hopefully with the experience and fine he'll behave better in future. Maybe others will learn from it too. Lots of road users winners from this result.
Quite. Never sure why 'verbal altercation' is considered a defence in such instances. After all, someone saying something nasty to you in the street would not give you a legal reason to push them over into the road. It would still be assault, and rightly so, not 'using a fist without due care and attention'.
I don't see why a "verbal altercation" would have any bearing on any of the case against the dangerous driver? Just seems like whataboutery.
Indeed, the driver claiming verbal altercation gives motive for the assault, and proves he was aware of the cyclist, and therefore should have been able to avoid him easily.
So aggravating factor, and removes the potential defence of not being aware of the cyclist.
Well done for persevering, and it's great that you had the support of Herts.
Someone attacked you, deliberately, with a 1.5 ton steel club. They knew full well they'd hit you, but chose to speed away, not caring how badly you may have been injured. Later they lied to the police to implicate you, in order to get themselves off the hook for an unprovoked attack. There was clearly no aggressive, or even remotely impolite, interaction from you. My view is if there was it would make no difference, attacking someone with a weapon can never be an acceptable response to a verbal altercation.
You are certainly more charitable than I, I would not be asking for their licence not to be revoked. Get well soon, and have a great Xmas
That level of deliberately dangerous driving should have led to a much longer ban. It's not as if we have a shortage of vehicles on the roads, so why do we need this complete idiot endangering others too?
To be honest, I think this should have led to some jail time due to the deliberate nature of it - quite clearly assault.
I'm sorry for this incident, however, this in the opening paragraph stands out:
" a van driver deliberately knocked him off his bike in a hit and run incident " (emphasis added). This is an offence against the person (assault) and not a driving offence. The fact that the weapon was a van should make no difference. Once again, there is a blind spot in the law.
Add new comment
46 comments
As this was obviously no accident, I wouldn't want him banned or fined either; I'd want the fucker run over with a van. Preferably his own.
There are some drivers that are psychologically unsuited to driving. If you are triggered by a percieved slight such as this causing you to physically harm someone then you should never be allowed back in a motor vehicle. Even if that was not legally possible the very least would be an extensive anger management course which would have pass/fail criteria. I believe that there are a small percentage of aggressive drivers that bully other drivers (eg tailgating) as well as other more vulnerable road users. I honestly think that if these idiots were permanently removed from driving then there would be an exponential increase in road calming, benefiting all road users.
Isn't it the "Don't you DARE touch my car!" phenomenon...
In my company, it was found that 80% of collisions involved a poule of only 10% of our drivers (results not regressed for whether it was a fault collision)
And it's extremely likely that applies to the entire population, so if we can get that 10% off the road, we'd reduce collisions by 80%, and we'd all benefit by not being killed/injured/scared shitless by them. It really is time we stopped excusing driving like this and banned the perpetrator for long enough to make them think long and hard about doing it again, or maybe just take their car away.
Indeed, that would be a perfectly reasonable extrapolation. I don't see that our drivers would be unrepresentative of the wider public to any significant extent, with the proviso that our drivers are predominantly male.
To me removal of licence should not be seen in terms of punishment - that's what fines, CS and prison are for. It's to do with mitigation of risk, and any magistrate/judge/recorder/whatever that fails to take this basic step is failing in their duty to protect the public.
John has behaved impeccably throughout.
Assaults with weapons like guns, knives, baseball bats, and even fists are treated much more seriously by the police and courts than those with vehicles, even though there is no logical reason for it.
indeed, any threatening with a weapon then the weapon will be confiscated at the time of the arreeest and be part of the evidence, and after the justice process will be destroyed/archived/disposed off by the courts.
In the case of a vehicle assault like this, they have the weapon in thier possesion and can continue to use it (or even sell it !) before the trial. It should be confiscated as evidence and if found guilty then said weapon is disposed of as the court sees fit, not haded back to the offender.
Can you imagine a mugger being handed his knife as he leaves the court, or a bank robber being handed a sawn off shotgun when he comes home from jail !
I'm glad the cops took this seriously enough to pursue it. This is one driver who, when he gets his licence back, will think very seriously about how he drives in the future. And to be honest, that's the really important thing here. Not only that, he'll probably talk about this incident with his family and friends. It's likely they'll be more wary around cyclists too, knowing that if they drive aggressively, they're likely to end up with driving offences on their record. As to the driver being less employable, that's his own fault and he's only got himself to blame.
I don't see why a "verbal altercation" would have any bearing on any of the case against the dangerous driver? Just seems like whataboutery.
Time and time again we see, a cyclist's verbal response to being physically threatened, the two things are not equivalent. Two people disagreeing with each, other, maybe loudly and shouty, has got naff all to do with one choosing to physically harm the other, especially when one has a deadly weapin and the other is unarmed.
We're all winners with this dangerous idiot off the roads for a bit and hopefully with the experience and fine he'll behave better in future. Maybe others will learn from it too. Lots of road users winners from this result.
Quite. Never sure why 'verbal altercation' is considered a defence in such instances. After all, someone saying something nasty to you in the street would not give you a legal reason to push them over into the road. It would still be assault, and rightly so, not 'using a fist without due care and attention'.
Indeed, the driver claiming verbal altercation gives motive for the assault, and proves he was aware of the cyclist, and therefore should have been able to avoid him easily.
So aggravating factor, and removes the potential defence of not being aware of the cyclist.
Well done for persevering, and it's great that you had the support of Herts.
Someone attacked you, deliberately, with a 1.5 ton steel club. They knew full well they'd hit you, but chose to speed away, not caring how badly you may have been injured. Later they lied to the police to implicate you, in order to get themselves off the hook for an unprovoked attack. There was clearly no aggressive, or even remotely impolite, interaction from you. My view is if there was it would make no difference, attacking someone with a weapon can never be an acceptable response to a verbal altercation.
You are certainly more charitable than I, I would not be asking for their licence not to be revoked. Get well soon, and have a great Xmas
what's the betting for his lawyer uttering the immortal words "this was completely out of character for my client"
That level of deliberately dangerous driving should have led to a much longer ban. It's not as if we have a shortage of vehicles on the roads, so why do we need this complete idiot endangering others too?
To be honest, I think this should have led to some jail time due to the deliberate nature of it - quite clearly assault.
I'm sorry for this incident, however, this in the opening paragraph stands out:
" a van driver deliberately knocked him off his bike in a hit and run incident " (emphasis added). This is an offence against the person (assault) and not a driving offence. The fact that the weapon was a van should make no difference. Once again, there is a blind spot in the law.
Pages