- 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
- David9694 10 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- the little onion 28 min 51 sec ago
Am I missing something, or is there no mention in the story about a licence being handed in? The driver has to do some kind of awareness course,...
- biking59boomer 50 min 48 sec ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Rendel Harris 51 min 10 sec ago
Spartan response to Philip II of Macedon ("If I invade Laconia you shall never rise again!" Spartan response: "If.") I think, a century after...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 15 min ago
Votes for rat-runs then!...
- pockstone 1 hour 55 min ago
Casting is completed for the remake of Scorsese's 'Last temptation of Christ':
- Cyclo1964 3 hours 22 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
- joules1975 6 hours 16 min ago
Fair enough, but to describe the tool required for the lockrings as 'niche' when its a readily available in various forms from dozens of...
- Secret_squirrel 7 hours 10 min ago
Disappointed that the not even in the land of the free do they shoot or jail bike thieves.
Add new comment
51 comments
Anyone with a teaspoon of grey matter could see that his comment is aimed at the troll, who's done a pretty good job of getting the reaction he/she so wanted.
It seems rather likelier that this person is replying to the original comment by alexuk, defending "accidental" carnage on the roads as opposed to actual murder, and effectively stating that killing cyclists is fine if they have the audacity to ride faster than he deems fit. If you had read the comment in full, you would surely have come to the same conclusion, in which case, physician, heal thyself.
I'll assume your comment is directed at the OP.
It's not an accident when you drive whilst high on drugs, that's always a conscious decision and one that deserves to be appropriately punished.
He's a drug driver, so no, it's no accident. He didn't see the cyclist, as he wasn't looking. He was annoyed at the vehicle in front, most likely berating the driver as he went past. His attention was elsewhere when it should have been looking ahead. He never even braked, even after he wiped the cyclist out.
Taking enough drugs to impair your driving, pulling onto the wrong side of the road without having a view of who is in that lane, overtaking at a junction. None of that is an 'accident'. It's criminal negligence, in the literal sense.
Clearly no one on Road.cc ever made a mistake in their lives. You're all so quick to judge and spew hate. Shows your age. I'm glad you're not working the courts.
Nobody in these comments thus far (12:03 p.m.) has made any comment that could be remotely construed as "spewing hate". In fact the only person who appears to be spewing hate is your good self, against other commentators because they don't agree with your point of view. Perhaps you could take off your troll hat for a moment and consider how you would feel if you or one of your loved ones was nearly killed, hospitalised with a risk of paralysis and with a punctured lung and spinal fractures because somebody chose to drive whilst stoned and couldn't be bothered to wait behind another driver so drove head-on into you. Would you be shrugging your injuries, or perhaps those to a child of yours, off as "sometimes accidents happen"?
I'd hope we save our 'mistakes' for things that have little consequence - such as putting too many sugars in someone's tea, perhaps. On the roads, sensible people mitigate against their 'mistakes' by looking twice, leaving extra room, not being stoned, driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions etc.
If someone can't drive without taking people out, they're not fit to drive.
Simple and concise, if only every driver could read and understand this
I have never driven under the influence of cannabis.
You dismissed life changing injuries as an accident when they were the result of deliberate, illegal choices.
I'm glad you're not working the courts.
I make mistakes every day of my life and yet somehow in 37 years of driving I have managed to avoid drink / drug driving. It's a very simple thing to do. Nobody ever drives under the influence by accident, they just didn't care or were willing to take the risk because they thought they knew better and it didn't affect them / they wouldn't get caught.
Which bit is it that you consider a mistake: the driving under the influence of drugs or the dangerous overtake through a junction at speed on the wrong side of the road without checking the way was clear? And what would you need to do as a driver to deserve a substantial custodial sentence?
....that's exactly where I work
I would be glad if I thought there was a modicum of hope that if - for example - he got irritated again by not being able to drive for a few years that he couldn't just jump back in the car with almost no chance of being caught. And approximately zero penalty if he was.
Accident? Only if most of what happens in the world is an accident. Here there were several decisions taken (or not) by the colliding car driver including a couple of really fundamental ones e.g. never drive while intoxicated and always make proper observations before changing speed or course. Oh, and don't just drive off and leave people lying in the road (certainly the first to react were people in a different vehicle entirely).
Additionally there are a few decisions made here by the designers of our infra: the only "protection" for vulnerable users at that junction is paint and it's physically possible to overtake at the junction (at least one country blocks or strongly discourages overtaking into a lane with oncoming vehicles in many places) etc.
"...clearly intention to do harm could not be proven. If he pulled out having seen the cyclist, then dangerous all-day". So you need to drive directly into someone and have it proven that you wanted to harm them in order to get a dangerous driving conviction?! What an absurd take. That sounds more like attempted murder to me.
What is driving 100 mph into a house in a 30 mph zone after drinking 10 pints? Is that just careless unless you can prove I wanted to harm the house or its occupants?
An accident is a tree falling in your path or a wall collapsing. It's a river bursting it's banks and sweeping you off your feet. This was a collision caused by distraction, ineptness and impatience. It was further excaberated by the use of drugs. You're not even meant to attempt an overtake in a junction and if you are forced to do so in exceptional circumstances you exert great caution. This driver was probably eyeballing the stalled driver resulting in the crash.
Clearly the doped up driver did not see the rider, quite possibly because he never bothered to look. That still leaves the fact that he chose to DUI, overtake at a junction and fail to stop at the scene of a collision. None of these actions were accidental (a much overused word) they were negligent in the true meaning of the word, see adendum.
Your laissez faire attitude to the whole incident is actually quite shocking, certainly to me as a driver of 50+ years and rider of 60+ years. I feel that you really ought to go and hang your head in shame.
Adendum:
Negligent is an adjective that means apt to neglect, customarily neglectful, characterized by negligence, careless, heedless, culpably careless, or showing lack of attention1. Negligence is an important legal concept that refers to the failure to use the care that a normally careful person would in a given situation2. Negligence is a common claim in lawsuits regarding medical malpractice, auto accidents, and workplace injuries2.
1
negligent แปลว่าอะไร ดูความหมาย ตัวอย่างประโยค หมายความว่า พจนานุกรม ...
[dict.longdo.com]
dict.longdo.com
2
Negligent Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
[merriam-webster.com]
merriam-webster.com
How is this careless and not dangerous driving? Drugs in system? Careless. Overtaking without looking properly? Clearly careless. FFS.
And how was it a "close call" - that's a close pass. This was a direct effing hit!!! Screwed up the poor cyclist's life -hope he can eventually recover. Gaol time is clearly appropriate.
How is this careless and not dangerous driving?
Because it's only a cyclist who was KSI'd. I thought you would all have learned by now that the police and justice system treat cyclists as people who have brought it upon themselves. B*****d should have gone to prison, even if only for a short sentence, because that establishes him as a criminal, whereas 'community service' doesn't.
Pages