Driver fined £625 & given five points for attacking cyclist with car

Using a gun to kill someone is just plain stupid.... use your car to run them over. The senile old bastards in court will let you off with finger wagging, probably for getting caught!

Surely you already knew that!?!

A Polish national called Wlodzimierz Umaniec, also known as Vladimir Umanets, attacked a painting, an inanimate object, in 2012 to promote his artistic movement, Yellowism...

... and spent 18 months in prison.

I'm sure I read that in some countries they have classified motor vehicles a deadly weapons, therefore, a wilful assault with one, as opposed to just being a shit driver, becomes an assault with a deadly weapon.

I think the law needs to catch up with this now.

I've never understood why a car is treated differently from a hammer or a cricket bat or anything else you might attack someone with. Accidentally kill someone with a hammer or by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building and it's manslaughter - no question. Why can't we treat all objects the same?

Sad that the 5 points was imposed for "not stopping" - have always assumed that this offence is considered serious by the police and courts because it is intended to protect drivers from financial loss not because of any reasons of concern about injuries - a law intended to protect property is the only effective one in a case of intended physical harm.
Considering the driver pleaded not guilty seems very odd that no points were given for the careless driving charge as sentencing guidelines indicate 3 points minimum.
8points might make the driver think about his driving behaviour.
As to the cyclist swearing at the driver (or his passenger) I'm pretty sure that in assault case this wouldn't be considered - am thinking of some high profile cases involving footballers being wound up at nightclubs and then lashing out - the prior verbal abuse isn't accepted as a legitimate reason for a violent response.

Magistrate sentences in line with societies expectations shocker

edit not defending the sentence there should be some sort of "wreckless endangerment" charge - the driver intended harm and if that isn't dangerous driving the law needs changing

My missus once applied to be a magistrate... she failed.

Apparently her rigidly unforgiving views on drink driving were not in line with those of the magistrates

to quote: "...I think we've all just had one more than we really should one time or another..."

I have no faith in our magistrate system whatsoever... best course of action in these incidents is make a note of the registration number, locate the drivers address, get your car, drive to the persons address and then 'accidentally' run the blighter down... whats the worst that can happen?

OK, so we've all come to the agreement that the driver is a first class tw@t and the law is useless, so what are we all going to do about it?

Ah, yes... Sweet FA!

Stay safe out there.

The law has dealt with him. If you don't like how it did it, then change the law by taking some time to agitate for tougher sentences for this sort of behaviour.

This sort of internet bullying is similar behaviour* to a person riding a cyclist off the road with a car - and I presume no one here would like that.

*Yeah - before you start nit-picking and go whining on about lethality and so on, it's still bullying. The weapon used is different, not the attitude of the person wielding it.

Its seems to me that the Establishment has it in for cyclists, whom they probably view as some do-gooder activists.

The effort put in by the State to stopping cyclists riding on pavements, ignoring stop signs and red lights, or discouraging them from thinking they have any rights on the road is staggering.

Any driver who deliberately collides with a pedestrian, cyclist or any other road user ought to be charged with dangerous driving at the very least. If anyone is injured because of the offence then the perpetrators ought to be charged with anything from malicious wounding, to attempted murder. The range of offences is huge and there is no satisfactory reason why the CPS should not make the effort in prosecute to the fullest extent because there is no doubt, it is in the public interest.

Finally, anyone who leaves the scene of an accident is, by definition, aggravating any offence they may have committed. The driver may have been drunk, or otherwise intoxicated. He may have been involved in some other illegal activity. He maybe even thought he was above the law. So he evades the authorities to avoid more serious trouble. Apart from cowardice and deceit, why would someone leave the scene of an accident? Whatever really motivated the offender to leave is irrelevant, we cannot believe him whatever he says, but leave he did and for that he should have been jailed.

If I was at the CPS I would have pushed to have the offence heard at Crown Court, as I understand the Magistrates Court cannot sentence to more than 2 years in prison per offence and given the seriousness surely a higher sentence should have been sought. Considering he pleaded not guilty I would have given him at least 3 years in prison, banned him from driving for 10 years and ordered him to re-sit his test. And I'm rather a liberal when it comes to punishment.

For once, what a shame the Police didn't have a car parked up at the foot of Sawyer Hill.

Deliberatley hit someone with a hammer - attempted murder.
Deliberatley hit someone with a car - just careless!
Absurd!

That is only 2points more and the same fine I got for pleading guilty to speeding 76 in a 50 on an empty dual carriage way.

This deserves letters to the home secratary to appeal the sentence, and an investigation as to why this was notcharged as dangerous driving.

Old news.

When I was learning to drive a car my instructor said to me "the first thing you have to realise is that you are in charge of a lethal weapon so you have to be responsible." It goes without saying that deliberately aiming a car at a cyclist, however much you feel you are provoked, is the height of irresponsibility and should be punished as such. A fitting punishment would be a one year driving ban at least so that this clown would have to use a bike and then he'd realise the error of his ways (maybe).

Pint of single cream down the air vents along the windscreen of that jag please.

I reckon this Jag driver has friends in high places. Just saying.

I can only hope the cyclist takes a civil case. This is exactly the sort of case where a driver's insurance company should first pay out (because they are there to compensate third parties such as a cyclist awarded damages) and then take the driver to court to recoup their costs (because the driver should ultimately be fully liable for harm he wilfully inflicted, it makes no sense for drivers to be able to insure themselves against their own malicious acts.)

As a car driver as well as a cyclist, the law should be clear just how much force I can use to knock a cyclist off his bike that is annoying me.
Equally so, it should also be clear what the consequences will be if I am ever knocked off my bike in the afore mentioned manner, if I so choose to knock the head off of the car driver. Clearly the law is no deterrent in this matter.

As a car driver as well as a cyclist, the law should be clear just how much force I can use to knock a cyclist off his bike that is annoying me.
Equally so, it should also be clear what the consequences will be if I am ever knocked off my bike in the afore mentioned manner, if I so choose to knock the head off of the car driver. Clearly the law is no deterrent in this matter.

If you look what the motorist was charged with, this never got to the CPS for a prosecution decision, so they dont really deserve any criticism. This time.

This is down to the police officer who did the initial investigation and a traffic process case builder, who is likely to be a civilian employee/retired police officer who doesn't really care too much.

Lack of witnesses willing to testify and turn up at court could have been an issue, hence the half hearted prosecution.
In the hit and run case I testified at, the guy got a year ban - max end of spectrum.
All I'd observe is that justice is failing when people feel the need to take it into their own hands. Time to bring it to Goldsmith's attention as stated above

FFS

i see this as a victory for cyclists, we can now punch people through windscreens and claim we were careless in our indicating....what could go wrong...

On a serious note, it just shows the the law is outdated and is very much in need of a overhaul.

The judge has a limit on what sentences he can appose so its not his fault.

Just another case of lazy public sector CPS lawyers who get paid the same either way so they take the easy option. There's just no incentive for them to blot their copy book of easy wins on low grade charges by pushing for the proper charges and penalties.

Privatise the lazy buggers. Make the victim in cases like this the joint client and give them a say (legally guided) in the charge to be brought. I'd be spitting bullets if I was deliberately rammed with a car and the CPS said it was "careless driving". That is the wrong charge. The lazy, split the difference, no need to get excited, knock off at 5 charge.

Makes you want to puke.