Updated: Driver in Simon Richardson case found guilty of dangerous driving

Unfortunately I'm sure that there are many drivers on our roads who are equally impaired, especially in rural areas.

What do you think the drivers of the cars outside that nice rural pub are up to? I'll give you a clue - its not drinking lemonade.

Drink driving in particular is a massive issue in rural areas as the chances of getting caught are almost zero.

I think we need to go over to the system used in various countries in the EU. The driver is automatically at fault in an accident and the burden of proof is on their shoulders, ie they need witnesses to say it was the other road user's fault (be that cyclist,pedestrian or horse rider).
As with other people have on this site have said I also believe that "careless" driving is DANGEROUS and both should be subject to upgraded (and more severe) sentencing guidelines

I'm afraid that dangerous driving is not a mandatory prison sentence. It's also a maximum of 2 years. Even cases of causing death by dangrous driving have resulted in suspended sentences.

That's the problem here. Remember that the Judge can only sentence with what he's got and in accordance with previous cases.

.

@zeb: He did!

From the BBC:
The jury also heard Adams, when interviewed by police, said he had been drinking the night before and had drunk his first whisky at 6am when he woke up.

Edward Adams denied dangerous driving in August 2011 but admitted drink-driving
Adams said: "I couldn't see a cyclist. I followed a black car and he pulled across."

"I assumed that he was pulled across he was turning off the road. I now know he was driving around the other car."

"Later I felt one hell of a bang and I thought I had hit a sheep. I slowed right down.

He admitted lying to police about driving at the time of the accident at 9.40am on a morning trip to pick up oil.

Adams said he had seen a car overtake him on the road where the incident happened and then he was blinded by sunlight.

So he didn't just not see the cyclist, he didn't see 'the other car' that the black car overtook?! What?! The guy can't see a damn thing!

At least the jury have returned the right verdict. Now watch as the Judge mumbles something about previous good character and lets him walk away with community service, a fine and a 12 month ban.

I am surprised they did not say he had the sun in the eyes...

I really hope he doesn't get off with a slap on the wrist. Several years in prison and a lifetime driving ban would be appropriate.

Just a few points.

1. The guy isn't actually a murderer as no-one is dead.

2. On the "how can a lawyer advise" point. I'll guarantee you, as a lawyer, that his lawyer would have told him that he was screwed. But you do what your client tells you as long as you don't mislead the Court in doing so.

Back to the main part, my main concern is that the serious prison sentences (if you can even call them that) are for causing death by dangerous/careless driving and not, believe it or not, causing injury by.

I'm hoping for a prison sentence here but I'll bet he "gets away with it."

Plain and simple; this guy is a Murderer and should be treated like one. Hope he gets a long long very long sentence in prison

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-19198543

Found Guilty of Dangerous Driving

You can follow simon on twitter at @CyclingSimonMBE

A solicitor who puts forward a plea of not guilty on behalf of a client who admits drunken driving and driving with defective eyesight to dangerous driving should be in the dock as well, outrageous.

Aweful case. I hoop Simon Richardson recovers.

If Edward Adams was driving drunk with defective eyesight the law should automatically consider this dangerous driving.

Surely hiding his van should fall under Perverting the course of justice as well.

I'm still confused at the differentiation between 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving. Surely careless driving IS dangerous driving? Is there a difference between careless and dangerous shooting?

So he also broke the law by not reporting that he had hit a sheep to the police within 24hrs let alone being pissed out of his head and not able to see. Ooooh I feel some quality british justice about to be delivered.

We'll see. I do not doubt that he will be found guilty. I am just curious as to see what he is found guilty of and the sentence that is handed down.

When I grew up I was taught that a "Hit and run" accident was a criminal offence irrespective out the actual degree of the accident. But so often now this elemnet seems to be almost totally ignored.

This certainly makes for interesting reading,

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

In this case, even if the driver doesn't believe they were driving dangerously, being over the limit or having bad eye sight still constitutes dangerous driving, so its difficult to see how or why it is possible for the driver to plead not guilty when both have been proven. Can any lawyers amongst the readership illuminate why he might have been advised to do this? Also the penalty says 1 to 14 years, is this advisor or if convicted will the minimum sentence be a custodial one?

I'm sorry but if he has a blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit and can only partially read a number plate 2 metres away when the law says he should be able to read one 20 metres away then surely any attempt he makes to drive is by definition dangerous regardless of whether he hits someone or not and he should be found guilty.

If his eyesight was so bad, how could he have possibly been convinced that it was a sheep that he'd hit? As sparrow_h says, why hide the van too?

Sounds like someone who is utterly reckless when it comes to other people's safety.

My eyesight is pretty bad (-6.5 with an extra 1.25 astigmatism). When others try my specs on for a laugh, they joke that it's 'like taking drugs'. I cannot read even the top line unaided when I have an eye test. I sure as f*** wouldn't go anywhere, even walking, without specs. YET... I reckon I can see part of a number plate at 2 metres without them. And this was measured WITH his specs on!

This is beyond disgusting. If it wasn't for the witness, and indeed the Police willingness to deploy the helicopter to search for the vehicle, would he have even been caught? He seriously, seriously, needs the book thrown at him.

How can you be over the limit, that myopic, THOUGHT you only hit a sheep, and yet deny dangerous driving?! FFS.

If he thought he had hit a sheep, why would he have hidden his van? Sounds like this man is not being completely honest here, in his efforts to weasel out of taking responsibility for seriously injuring someone and leaving them to die.

I can't see how he can deny that he was driving dangerously. How safe would he feel if everyone drove like that???

He could only read a partial number plate at 2 meters. How can he claim to have been blinded by an object 98M miles away.

Sorry for the flippancy.

As said it will be very interesting to see the outcome. I would not be surprised to see the "Dangerous Driving" to be reduced to "Undue Car and Attention" or whatever it's called these days. It's usually claimed that "Dangerous Driving" can't be proven.

If my eyesight was that bad, I rode my bike drunk, knocked over a pensioner, ran from the scene and tried to hide my guilt but was later found the national press would be up in arms. It would be a front page story calling for the culling of all cyclists.

Unless of course a footballer was found to have had a shag with someone. The only sort of story that would knock me off the cover.

Give him a break, the sun was in his eyes!

Sickening story and a total coward hiding behind a total BS fabricated story, can't see get off the road apparently 20% of drivers would fail the 20m test now

Cases of driving over the limit disgust me, simply because that person is allowed behind the wheel of a car again!!
Prison sentence followed by life ban from driving!!!

What's the betting here, £250 fine and three points? maybe a more extreme sentence where Edward Adams needs write a letter of apology?