There’s been a lot of chatter around the suspended prison sentence story for the driver who was found with twice the legal limit for cannabis in his system hit a cyclist while overtaking a stalled car at a red light, sending the rider coming from the opposite direction flying 20 feet into the air and leaving him with serious injuries.
CCTV footage of the incident showed Danial Arshad cause a head-on collision with Nicholas Cooper, who suffered a collapsed lung, fractures to his ribs and spine, and even a risk of paralysis, with the judge himself saying “Mr Cooper was very fortunate not to have died.”
However, the judge also described the incident as a “close call” and said it was clear Arshad being “impatient” and “under the influence to some extent of cannabis” had caused it, ultimately handing him a 10 year suspended prison sentence. He was suspended for driving for three years and is required to undertake 15 days of rehabilitation activity and 300 hours of unpaid work as part of his sentence.
> Drug driver who caused horrific crash which seriously injured cyclist avoids jail, given 10-month suspended sentence
The sentence seems to have caught a lot of backlash from cyclists, who described the decision as “appalling” and “joke of a sentence”.
A cyclist who goes by the name of Orpington Cyclist on Twitter tagged the Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and asked: “What does the below tell you about road safety in the UK?”
Another person replied saying that “the timing of that report coincides perfectly with Louise Haigh’s discussions on road safety” and that “without sentencing that reflects the severity, less people will want to cycle and bad or dangerous drivers will have little to deter them from endangering others in the future.”
Meanwhile, another person replied to road.cc’s tweet about the news criticising the judge describing the incident as a close call, saying: “A close call is when they miss you not when they hit you. What hope do you have with judges like this?”
There were several others who thought the judge’s sentence was too lenient, one even saying: “Judge needs sacking, not competent to take the evidence and create a sentence or needs to fine the driver 50k and ban for ten years.”
Another person wrote: “I know it’s not comparable but a woman was recently jailed for 12 weeks for missing a probation appointment 20 yrs ago, thereby losing her job & her children. What’s worse, missing an appointment, or drug-driving & hitting a cyclist? What’s gone wrong with our legal system?”
On Facebook, Howard Crompton wrote: “That made my stomach turn. The cyclist in question has been let down so badly it’s untrue. I hope he puts in an extensive insurance claim too. How is there any tolerance for drink or drugs I don’t know. I know it won’t stop people doing it, but sentences like this are outrageous.”
Fairley Grist said: “I was initially angry about this and Having seen the video and read the comments from the judge almost excusing the driver and saying it was a “close call” I am absolutely fuming and disgusted at the sentencing.”
However, under the road.cc report, reader alexuk thought that the sentence was harsh on the cyclist but ultimately fair, writing: “May sound harsh, but seems appropriate given the evidence. He didn't see the cyclist hauling ass towards him, if he did, it seems likely he wouldn't have pulled out; clearly intention to do harm could not be proven.
“If he pulled out having seen the cyclist, then dangerous all-day. I'm glad the driver is off the road for the next 3yrs and has to spend the next two years on best behaviour with mandated rehab + 300hrs unpaid.
“Sometimes accidents happen. I hope the rider manages to find himself again and the driver makes a positive change to his life.”
Add new comment
52 comments
If I might offer a translation of what Prudhomme said that actually makes sense: "Given cycling's history, and not such distant history either, it's a reasonable question. I can't answer that. He's certainly turning in pretty impressive performances in both stage races and one-dayers. The testing protocols are in place, we fought the ASO to have independent testing and now the ITA is doing the tests. So there we are."
Murderer who drove stolen car into cyclist jailed (BBC).
As regards the careless/ dangerous disinction:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8l5zjy39zo
The case above demonstrates the deployment of the police/ CPS dodge designed to get their beloved motorists off killing people deemed expendable (in this case not a cyclist, when it may have been an advice letter dodge, but a biker) by making a plea bargain deal with the shyster defence lawyer to plead guilty to the 'not quite perfect driving causing an accidental death' charge in return for a joke penalty. We're told it could be a prison sentence, but I have my doubts that it will be many, if any, days behind bars.
There is an official 20p/mile mileage allowance if using a bike for work :-
https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-business-travel-mileage/rules-f...
I'd go a bit further though and add a 'active travel surcharge' of at least £100.00 to VED and also a surcharge on fossil fuel of 5p/litre at point of sale and 1p/kwh if electric charging.
This can be invested in cycling infrastructure, as well as active travel initiatives and public transport. Blue badge holders etc. could be exempted from this. Cyclists can also claim for their mileage if they are willing to have a 'black box' fitted to their bikes that tracks actual miles ridden (it would have to be connected to the pedals and the wheels and cut out at speeds over about 20mph to stop people trying to game the system by towing a wheel behind a car...)
However, I'm 99% sure that that does not include the normal journey to and from work.
You're right it doesn't. Although back when I had a 60 mile round trip commute, it was remarkable the number of times I had cause to visit a client on the way to or from the office.
Even then, I think you are only allowed to claim for the additional mileage.
But neatly demonstrates why incentivising certain behaviours via the tax system is often a bad idea.
Regarding tax relief for employees who cycle to work...
I'm sure I red somewhere, years ago, that the BNEFIT to the economy of people cycling to work was in the order of 20-25p per mile.
And the COST to the economy of people driving was 50p per mile.
Given inflation it would be a fair bit more by now, but it makes cents to give back 20p per mile now and increase it as time goes on.
For the question "How do you prove a distance cycled and not driven?”...
Strava and other apps might have an answer...
(The apps can track max and average speed over a journey.
And given cyclists face less disruption to journey times during rush hour compared to drivers, this would also be a usefull data set to show drivers that we aren't the primary cause of congestion/delays.
As seen in this video from CycleGaz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z57UgWLCfRg )
I'm wondering if there has been a study done for those who walk to work.
Thanks for mentioning the walkers!! I walk to work every day, it's just over a mile but the amount of people I pass that are getting in cars to go to the same workplace is ridiculous (or probably not!!!)
That is ridiculous.
As is a 700 metre school run like this:
https://youtu.be/R-dp-G6W8Jk
And such apps data collection can easily be faked.
Drivers don't have to prove their mileage normally, except possibly to their employers, if they have such. I've never been asked by HMRC to do so in 26 years as a freelancer. But you can't rule out that you might one day be asked.
Cycling will be the same. I think that any form of tax relief for company cars ought to go right now though, it incentivises damaging behaviour.
Wow, look at you all frothing at the mouth. Sad to see. This is why motorists hate us. Try to be more open-minded, understanding, tolerant and forgiving and we'll all get along much better.
Here's alex being open-minded, understanding, tolerant and forgiving…
I have a feeling we've been here before with this one.
Go back under your bridge, troll
I'm sure the cyclist with life changing injuries would agree with you.
We should be tolerant of drug drivers then. Any others - drink drivers, notrous oxide drivers, dangerous drivers, careless drivers ?
DOn't get this threshold between careless and dangerous driving. If you drive like an arse and someone gets hurt, whether careless or not, it was certainly dangerous to someone!
As I understand it, the difference should be that careless driving is when someone is driving legally, but then causes a collision through their lack of attention etc. Dangerous driving is when the manner of driving itself is illegal, such as speeding or being under the influence.
However, courts/juries don't seem to abide by that distinction and many cases of obviously illegally dangerous driving get prosecuted as careless.
I'm not sure that distinction exists in law. The legal definitons are that careless driving is drving that falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver, whilst dangerous driving is driving that falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver and would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Breaking various other road traffic laws could therefore be indicative of dangerous driving, but I don't think it is either sufficient nor strictly necessary in law.
I don't think the legal definitions are particularly helpful and certainly don't seem to be used in driving cases. My definition at least allows for some kind of guideline to distinguish what should be considered dangerous versus careless.
Agree with you both. I think the current legalese is a nonsense with far too much subjectivity - "longer than a piece of string / far longer than a piece of string". BUT I think it is currently as OnYerBike says. Albeit there is further guidance for these offenses (for sentencing certainly).
In practice there seem to be a whole different set of assumptions and rules in play (such as the use of suggestion that the defendant was an incompetent driver who was overwhelmed - ergo "they didn't mean it" ergo they shouldn't be punished!). CPS goes for the lesser offense often, partly a tool to persuade people to plead guilty.
Didn't these offenses come out of an effort to "drain the drama" or "reduce the level of proof of evil intent" back when the charges were murder, manslaughter, assault / wounding / GBH etc. - as it was too hard to prove / juries would not convict drivers on other available charges e.g. murder, manslaughter etc.?
Apart from "change!" and "cost / available resources" (the latter might be a genuine show-stopper) does anyone know legal reason why we couldn't bring in "would this fail a driving test" as a test of safe-enough driving? And/or with a driving examiner as expert witness?
Also is it possible to dual-charge e.g. dangerous and careless so e.g. the CPS would put this as a more serious charge without worrying that failure at that would see no conviction at all?
On a lighter note, those Tommasini frames are gorgeous 😍
Yes, but I'm not sure about the fork decals.
It's your website of course so it's up to you, but surprised to see you quoting alexuk's comments here. If you have the facility to look at the entirety of their comments (something that would be a really useful feature to add for all users by the way, at the moment clicking on somebody's name just gets a "No bikes allowed" page) you will see that they are a fairly notorious anti-cyclist, pro-motorist troll in the Nigel mould whose only purpose here is to cause annoyance and draw attention to themselves (and yes, I know I fall for it far too often).
"sometimes accidents happen".
Enough said.
Accidentally deciding to rage overtake a stalled car and using the oncoming lane despite it not being clear to do so.
It's disgusting that some people (including our "justice" system) believe that not seeing a clearly visible road user is some kind of mitigation when it's actually a very good reason to prevent that person from ever driving again. Whether or not they intended to main and injure is beside the point - if they can't drive safely then why are they allowed to hold a driving license?
He went on to suggest that surely all road.cc had made mistakes - that will undoubtedly be true, but I doubt many of us have driven under the influence of cannabis.
I'm not convinced that the cannabis influence is the main cause of his disastrous driving, but simply another reason why his license should be removed. It was his choice to perform that overtake in such a manner and I think focussing on whether he'd smoked or had a bad night's sleep or was just generally irritable and impatient is missing the point that when driving you are responsible for checking that it is safe to perform a maneouvre. Obviously, drinking drastically affects decision making and reaction times, but habitual smokers will often have no measurable change in reaction times or ability to make quick decisions. There has even been some studies that show that a habitual smoker may drive better when medicated to their usual level rather than feeling withdrawal affects (e.g. yawning, aversion to bright lights).
Pages