- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
CCTV footage of incident that saw drug driver avoid jail for hitting cyclist (Facebook/Ted Sayers)Drug driver who caused horrific crash which seriously injured cyclist avoids jail, given 10-month suspended sentence
A driver twice the legal limit for cannabis who hit a cyclist 20 feet into the air, while overtaking another vehicle at a set of traffic lights, causing serious injuries, has avoided jail.
CCTV footage of the shocking incident in Blackburn, Lancashire, in August 2023 was shared on Facebook and shows the moment drug driver Danial Arshad lost patience with a stalled motorist and overtook in the lane for oncoming traffic, causing a head-on collision with Nicholas Cooper.
Arshad pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving and was sentenced at Preston Crown Court to a 10-month sentence, suspended for two years, and received a three-year driving ban, the Lancashire Telegraph reported from the sentencing.
The court heard Mr Cooper "was very fortunate not to have died" and the collision was a "very severe impact all because you [Arshad] were impatient to get around a car that had stalled at the lights".
Mr Cooper's injuries were so severe that there was a risk of paralysis throughout his time in hospital. He also suffered a collapsed lung and fractures to his ribs and spine.
Arshad was found to be positive for cannabis at twice the prescribed limit when he was drug tested by police, the court hearing that his impatience caused the serious collision at the Four Lane Ends junction at around 7.40pm on Thursday 31 August 2024.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Cooper said he feels he "partially died in the incident" and he is "mourning the loss of who I was before".
"During my time in hospital, I lost my dignity but I felt at my most vulnerable when I was discharged," the prosecutor read on the cyclist's behalf. "I was a very good racer and going against the best in the world, and I lost that opportunity and will never get it again as cycling was so much part of my identity."
The judge, Richard Gioserano, 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.
"Mr Cooper was very fortunate not to have died, and this was of course a very severe impact and all because you were impatient to get around a car that had stalled at the lights," he told the court.
"Your view was restricted by the car that had stalled, and you were under the influence to some extent of cannabis. You are of previous good character, and you are genuinely remorseful, and you continue to demonstrate that. You have been fortunate, and I hope this is the last time a criminal court will see you."
Arshad's legal representation suggested in mitigation that the drug driver had described his actions as "the worst mistake of my life" and he would never forgive himself. He is required to undertake 15 days of rehabilitation activity and 300 hours of unpaid work as part of his sentence. He has also been suspended from driving for three years.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 7 sec ago
There is no solar version of the Edge 1050.
- Jimthebikeguy.com 1 hour 33 min ago
Try and get rid of the negative associations around carbon and pressfit. Carbon frames are no more troublesome than metal, and pressfit is no more...
- r32hoo 5 hours 52 min ago
The first generation CHPT3 items made in concert with Castelli were fantastic quality, and when purchased on sale were a reasonable investment. I...
- David9694 9 hours 1 min ago
Theres not one scrap of self-help among drivers is there, it's always someone else's issue.
- Simon E 9 hours 49 min ago
Oh dear. A single bike in a single size in one shop is not indicative of the entire UK market for bicycles. And the slump isn't just bikes, it's...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 42 min ago
Ridiculed or is it just jealousy?
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 7 min ago
Thank goodness for that. I don't suppose anyone would want you to. You certainly behave like one though.
- Eton Rifle 13 hours 15 min ago
You do see some utterly ridiculous examples of car use....
- Eton Rifle 13 hours 37 min ago
Exactly. Every road death is a tragedy but this is at the "twat deserved it" end of the spectrum, looking at the state of that car.
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 45 min ago
I'm not the editor of this article, nor indeed of anything on this website. One would have thought that didn't require explaining.
Add new comment
51 comments
So this has reminded me to see if there has been any progress on the trial of the killer of my friend, club mate John Froud who was killed by a driver who also high on cannabis.
The story on Road CC was covered here.
Well the trial happened, unfortunatly it was not reported on this site. But I found it on the the timetrial forum.
It's not good news, and it seems that it doesn't matter if you kill or injure a cyclist, being wacked out on drugs when you crash into somebody (or just a another cyclist) gets the same sentence. Diddly squat.
At the hearing on 02/08/2024 at Winchester Crown Court the defendant Sergiu ZIMBRU was sentenced as follows:
Offence: Cause death by careless / inconsiderate driving – 25/09/2022
(No mention of the drug abuse there I note)
Suspended sentence order made;
- 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months
- Rehabilitation Activity Requirement: Offender to comply with any instructions of the responsible officer to attend appointments (with the responsible officer or someone else nominated by them), or to participate in any activity as required by the responsible officer up to a maximum of 20 Days
- Unpaid Work Requirement: Carry out unpaid work for 300 Hours within the next twelve months. This work will be supervised by the responsible office.
Obligatory disqualification until extended test passed. Disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence for 24 Months. Disqualification obligatory for the offence. Driving record endorsed. Disqualified until extended test of competence has been passed. Sections 34(1) & 36 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Ordered to pay a court surcharge of £114.00.
Also, why is the judge downplaying the cannabis use? "Under the influence to some extent"? WTAF? There's a limit for a reason, and this guy was TWICE over it. How is that any different from being twice over the alcohol limit, which I think would have put this guy in jail?
Perhaps the judge is a "recreational user" at the weekends and can't see the harm in it? FFS.
Certainly not going to defend the car driver in this instance however to answer your question; this came up on this site about a year ago and I found a wiki page that gave lots of info about how cannabis metabolises completely differently to alcohol so a simple blood test is completely useless. There were also lots of other mitigating factors like how regular a user you were etc etc. Potentially you could still be 'over the limit' weeks after partaking, clearly you're not going to be 'under the influence' after such a long time. There were dozens of studies that all showed the same thing. As you can imagine it's got their heads scratching in the US where it's legal in many states. This knowledge is becoming more widely known now so possibly the judge was aware that the driver hadn't used in the precding 12-24 hours.
For this poor guy it was a life-changing injury, even if as far as the medical profession (and certainly, this idiot judge) is concerned he's made a "full recovery". Life changing because Cooper will never be the rider he was. A big injury like that, you're never the same again. Froome, Bernal, Geoghegan-Hart, and in my own small way, me. I was mid-40s (my 1st Cat career long gone) when I T-boned a car which didn't look and pulled across me, I was doing 25mph. My femoral neck had to be rebuilt. I had a good outcome but I'm not the rider I was, I wouldn't be competitive in Masters racing.
There needs to be more recognition of victim's lives being messed up when sentencing, not only if someone dies.
I hope Cooper gets over his loss, because loss is what it is.
So here is a question to ponder: If Arshad had caused a head-on collision with a motor vehicle causing its driver to suffer injuries as severe as those suffered by Mr. Cooper, would the sentence imposed on Arshad have been the same?
I took particular interest in this article because the incident occurred in the area where I grew up. I lived at the top of that hill (Revidge Road) and used to cycle daily down to Pleckgate High School. I remember reading about it last year and not just on Road.cc either. What amazed me was the victim blaming when I read through the readers' comments in the various articles; see the article in Lancashire Evening Telegraph for example:
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23764403.moment-cyclist-involved-horror-crash-car/
Typically, cyclists ride too fast and treat the roads like their own personal velodromes. Ironically, cyclists are also the greatest cause of drivers being held up! Obviously, drivers treating our roads like their own personal racetrack is acceptable.
That is a very light sentence. I hope the injured cyclist can recover and can also sue the driver for very heavy damages. Why the driver isn't banned from driving for longer makes no sense.
Hopefully the result of this case is changed due to being unduly lenient.
I was impressed by how quickly people from the other motor vehicles leapt out to go and see how the fallen cyclist was doing…
Presumably "shocked, I was shocked"... and then "not rushing to leave my safe space having just seen a graphic demonstration of how fragile vulnerable road users are"?
I experienced similar behaviour when I attended the casualties of a collision between the vehicle in front of mine, and a vehicle coming the other way.
The incident blocked the road, so the other vehicles , travelling in both directions, were unable to move for some time.
In all the time it took the emergency vehicles to arrive, and for the casualties to be attended to, I was the only person to get out and help.
Eventually, the police started interviewing any of the motorists who may have to observed the collision.
It then transpired that the driver of the car immediately behind the oncoming car was a nurse.
Now, I know that there are lots of disciplines in nursing, but I'd like to think that the common factor in all of them is a natural tendency to care for others.
I suppose I'll never know why they stayed put, but it does illustrate how people react in such circumstances.
The judge, Richard Gioserano, described the incident as a "close call"...
Which demonstrates the difference between plain English and legalese. Nowhere else could a life-threatening, life-altering, high speed collision, entirely the fault of the driver, be described as a "close call". I wonder if he'd call it that if it had been his son who nearly died.
I'd despair, but I'm way past that.
"close call"....it might have been an actual person....
Eburt is exactly right!
So, by "close call" did he mean "nobody died"? Because otherwise, saying it was just a close call is f-ing insane!
I thought that cannabis was supposed to calm you down? Ridiculous sentence,he should have been jailed for causing such serious injuries.
Also, how can he be of 'good character' if he has been purchasing cannabis? It is a controlled substance that he has been buying from criminals. People of good character may have the misfortune to mix with crooks who's activities are unknown to them, but you do not unwittingly buy drugs.
For most users it does, although there is some evidence that heavy long-term use of stronger variants such as skunk can lead to psychotic events. Unfortunately it also tends to remove inhibitions and therefore encourages risk-taking behaviours which, coupled with the impairment to perception it also imposes, can lead to fatal errors of judgement. The correct sentencing for driving in such a condition seems still to need working on; if the driver in this case had twice the legal amount of alcohol in their blood one would think it very unlikely they would have got such lenient treatment.
I would urge you to read the all parties parliamentary report written by Professor David Nutt who used to be the governments advisor on drugs until he was sacked by Theresa May for it (her husband makes a shit load of money out of cannabis by the way). Some of your assumptions are inaccurate, there is some evidence that it can cause a physcotic episode in underdeveloped brains for those people who already have a disposition to suffering for that in the first place. Pretty much everything we've been reading about cannabis in the press is nothing more than scaremongering.
I'm not against cannabis per se, I used to enjoy a smoke myself in my far-off youth and I am broadly in favour of legalisation or at least decriminalisation. Not sure what "assumptions" of mine you're disagreeing with, you seem to agree, albeit with qualifications, that it can trigger psychosis for some people – just as alcohol and many other drugs can - and I presume you don't disagree that it's a pretty bad idea to drive stoned?
(also noting the comments about the variable metabolism of different drugs - sometimes same drug being quite different between persons - causing issues with detection / testing).
I do wonder about the mixed messages (in popular discourse) around drugs and where they are acceptable. We have - though a sustained effort, over a generation, with both campaigns and enforcement - picked up on "don't drive drunk". (Although even that's not "universal" but I'd say it's generally no longer socially acceptable).
But I've noticed that people don't necessarily apply that to cannabis or other drugs. (Albeit my data is from well over decade back when I was around people using drugs so doubtless some attitudes will have changed.) Was it just because "they can't check"? Was it because of "mixed messages" from authority and perceptions that "it's nowhere near as bad as booze" but "the authorities still criminalise it - so stuff 'em"?
Some drugs are clearly a lot more trouble but I don't think any drugs (including some substances we don't commonly categorise as "drugs") are entirely unproblematic. If only because people will always find ways to overdo things e.g. sugary mega-caffeine "energy drinks".
Whatever the pros and cons of change I would say that "none" is the right limit for alcoholic drinks near to when you're driving. Fighting the tide but I'd add the same for cycling as well - and to be fair drinking and walking certainly increases your personal risk. Same should go for any intoxicants. It's hard enough getting people to drive carefully given tiredness, emotional distraction, children in the car...
I'm fairly sure polls show lots, possibly most people think cannabis should be legalised. It's less harmful than alcohol, and there is plenty of evidence that the current system of prohibition causes far more harm. In that respect, most people (even judges) won't think that someone who uses cannabis is of bad character any more than discovering that someone didn't wait until they were eighteen before having their first pint in a pub.
I'd argue the poor character comes from driving whilst still under the influence of cannabis, and the lack of patience when overtaking, which I'd argue reflects a permanent bad attitude. Reading the original article the driver abandoned the car and ripped off the number plates - presumably a clumsy attempt at a cover up. That to me is a more relevant sign of bad character.
One of the very obvious pitfalls of prohibition is that it's much harder for people to be educated on the dangers of drug driving. I have a good idea how much I can drink and when if I want to be sure of being under the legal drink drive limitthe next time I drive. If I were a cannabis user (I'm not - just think the laws are daft) I wouldn't have a clue how to work out when I'd next be safe to drive. An unregulated market means I'd have no idea how many 'units' I'd consumed, and under prohibition there is a lack of general knowledge in the population, never mind communicated official research as to how long it takes for whatever I have consumed to enter and then leave my system.
I remember turning up at a local police station the day after my friend's eighteenth to ask if he could be breathalised as we weren't sure if he was OK to drive yet. They had a good laugh, but went along with it. We'd never consider asking for a check against the cannabis driving limit.
Of course this man may have smoked a joint immediately before getting into the car, and there is no ambiguity that he should have known he was not fit to drive. If there were any doubt he should have avoided driving/consuming the cannabis, but I genuinely have no idea how much he'd need to have smoked or when to be twice over the legal limit, so I find it harder to be judgemental on that one.
What strange logic.
Surely then the sensible approach to take is the one I take when it comes to driving ... if I have had any alcohol at all I don't drive. Simple. My wife sussed out years ago that if she wanted me to drive home from a social gathering all she had to do was say "yes" to the first glass of wine or bottle of beer she was offered.
That way I would immediately assume driving duties and be on the J2O (other soft drinks are available ... though expensive) all evening.
100% this. Any alcohol at all impairs one's ability to drive, I get really frustrated seeing friends calculating how much they can have and still be legal and I do, I'm afraid, feel it incumbent upon me to point out to them sometimes that what they are really doing is calculating how impaired they can be without being punished for it (I used to do this myself in my motorcycle days so I am definitely not whiter than white in this respect). I love a pint or five myself so I'm definitely not anti-alcohol but there's only one sensible level of alcohol for drivers and that is 0%; the sooner the law is changed to reflect this the better.
Cannabis may act as a sedative. Long term use does result in impaired cognative processes. There is also evidence that it can increase anxiety and bring on psychotic issues.
No, no, no!
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.
You get more for protesting climate change.
You're the kind of bed wetter that is the reason we have such poor driving standards. Where on earth do you pull out at lights like that to overtake, it can't possibly be justifed. Lets hope when someone does this again it doesnt kill you, but if it does.....oh well they didn't mean it.
You appear to have got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick with spectacularly stupid ease. Clearly when CF says "You get more for protesting climate change" he is pointing out how ridiculous it is that this person didn't go to prison for such an appalling offence while people whose only crime was to engage in civil disobedience have done. How you've managed to think that he is trying to justify either the offence or the sentence is quite beyond me, and I suspect anybody with more than a teaspoon of grey matter in their skulls.
Pages