- 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
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Driving ban for motorist who reversed into cyclist
A driver who braked suddenly then reversed into a cyclist who had banged on his car window after a close pass has been banned from driving for 12 months.
The motorist, Matthew Scarpellini from Warwick, aged 25, was given a conditional discharge after admitting dangerous driving at Warwick Crown Court, reports the Leamington Observer.
The incident happened in May 2013 when the cyclist, named as a Mr Green from Coventry was riding along Myton Road in Leamington Spa.
As he approached a traffic island, Scarpellini drove up behind him and sounded his horn, and what was described as “a bit of argy-bargy” between the pair as the driver tried to overtake the cyclist at the point where the road narrowed due to the traffic island.
During the court case, the prosecution said that Mr Green had banged on the car’s window with his hand.
That led to Scarpellini braking suddenly and reversing into the cyclist, who sustained a grazed elbow and knee after falling off his bike, which was also damaged. He drove away, but police found him later the same day.
Judge Sylvia de Bertodano said: “This was an altercation with a cyclist. It matters not in the least whose fault it was.
“The cyclist didn’t like the way he was driving and hit his side window, and he stopped and reversed back and hit the bike.”
Scarpellini was ordered to pay the Mr Green £100 compensation and will also have to pay a £60 victim surcharge.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 3 sec ago
Am I the only person genuinely surprised to read this? I'd assumed that it would be at night - but 10.30 in the morning???
- Veloism 17 min 38 sec ago
They don't deserve any payment, but the rebrand was done before Ashley got his stinky hands on it, so they probably did.
- chrisonabike 20 min ago
There's a book that can help you with that! I can't remember if it covers traffic jams on the Via Appia specifically but I'm sure there are some...
- hawkinspeter 41 min 26 sec ago
Totally agree - that's a very nice route for walking along by the river when you're not forced onto Crews Hole Rd.
- brooksby 44 min 52 sec ago
There are a lot of people out there who seem to think exactly that. It's like all those times that the traffic lights change as you are halfway...
- brooksby 1 hour 51 min ago
No, you're not missing anything. I've just re-read the original article and I clearly just presumed they would hand in their licence…
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 1 min ago
That still annoys me about the BBC - iplayer only keeps some programmes available for a short time, so we have to rely on people making copies to...
- nextSibling 2 hours 52 min ago
The point of limited-run models like these isn't to make a profit. It's a marketing exercise to get the brand in the media via filler articles that...
- FionaJJ 3 hours 23 min ago
Seems like a flaw. I wonder who decided that? Surely it's in everyone's interests to come up with an agreement that a portion of the car-park be...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 28 min ago
Don't forget the hour record!...
Add new comment
58 comments
Errr …….. you don't know what you are talking about. Attempted manslaughter ………………..
No such offence exists. To be guilty of murder one has to have had intent to kill some one.
Please do your research before spreading incorrect information.
Here's a hint:
There are varying degrees of manslaughter:
1) Voluntary Manslaughter.
2) Involuntary Manslaughter (which covers manslaughter by gross negligence and manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act).
They were all of the things that I was taking into consideration, Vonhelmet.
@oozaveared, isn't there a provision for having knowledge of the consequence? That is, if I stand in the High Street with a shotgun, I have no intention of killing anyone, but it would be reasonable to assume that the firing of said gun into a crowd is very likely to kill someone, no?
Translated to cars, teh question is whether the driver is aware that running over a cyclist( or even anyone) has I high likelyhood of killing them, all things considered.
While I didn't plan beforehand, I have made a decision to use the vehicle as a weapon, and I'm fully aware that death may result. Surely that can fall under the name of murder.
Unless he was reversing at 30mph, I don't think reversing into the victim is quite comparable to firing a shotgun into a crowd of people.
Translating to cars would mean driving a car at speed into a crowd on a high street. That would be a translation of your shotgun analogy.
Death may result from all manner of things, but an attempted murder charge requires death to be the intention. It's very unlikely that simply reversing into someone would meet that requirement.
I struggle to see why it isn't assault, sure, but you can't just look at all these driving incidents and say "Death may have resulted, therefore it's attempted murder."
Simple answer is no. The charge is quite a simple one. Person A fully intended to kill person B.
Proving it, even if there are high levels of violence, is actually very hard. Why?Because let's say someone sustainedly a beats of someone with a baseball bat. It may be possible that they might die from that. If they do it's simple. It's murder. If they don't die then it becomes more difficult precisely because they don't die. Now you have to prove "mens rea" for murder. That is you have to prove their state of mind. It's far more tricky to prove that someone intended to murder another person but failed than it is to prove murder.
In any case it is entirely inappropriate here. Deliberately running someone over at 50mph could easily be charged as attempted murder and probably would be. Reversing at someone at a few mph even with intent to injure them gets nowhere near that level of intent for attempted murder.
However stupid reckless and aggressive the driver was, It's also pretty obvious that the driver did not seriously intend to actually kill the cyclist. That's why attempted murder is not appropriate as a charge.
The law is pretty clear and well defined on this stuff and you can't just be hyperbolic and charge people with the most serious thing you can think of.
here are the guidelines:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/attempted_murder/
Cheers for that, I wasn't directly looking at using a car as a weapon, just looking at those cases where a non weapon is used as a weapon in general.
Unless someone actually says 'I plan to kill this person' how on earth can you ever prove this?
In what way is this 'clear'? Because he failed to kill the guy or because lawyers have magic powers of insight?
Of course we all know how effective driving bans really are.
As the saying goes, if you want to get away with killing a cyclist use your car.
I'm certainly no expert on the law, but surely if the driver had got out of the car and assaulted the cyclist (or indeed anyone) with a knife or a club then it would have been treated as such and the punishment on conviction would be a criminal record, a fine and/or jail time or whatever one gets for attacking and injuring someone with a weapon.
However because he used a car, then it's not assault and ABH, but a standard road traffic violation, with a punishment based on licence points and presumably no criminal record.
Is this correct?
Grazes, the injuries described in the article, would almost certainly not qualify as actual bodily harm.
Is this some sort of joke? The CPS are incompetent the judge is hopeless, total idiot. Should be removed for their ill-informed remarks. Absolute joke of a sentence. The driver should be in jail for at least 3 years and 10 year driving ban for what they did. Their actions were clearly premeditated calculated to cause injury and damage. These sorts of cases bring the courts into disrepute. They don't give a shit about the safety of cyclists.
A deliberate act like that is worth jail time. It was clearly an assault using a car as a weapon.
This is how it should have been dealt with:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/17/driver-jailed-bus-weapon-cyclist
It appears that a clear intent to injure someone through the use of a motor vehicle is not considered as bad as reckless driving, which has no intent but instead only an implied consequence for driving in a manner that could cause injury to others.
In the use of a motor vehicle this area of law is unique. Replace the car with any other object or weapon and it is the other way around - intent becomes murder, carelessness is manslaughter.
Useless lawyers. As usual. Motorist lawyers.
It was clearly an assault. The wrong charge was used. The mens rea was there for an assault charge.
Doing a search for "Using a vehicle as a weapon" and you'll notice countless incidents that drivers end up in prison... unless it involves a cyclist. It's evident that the courts are soft on drivers who injure cyclists, deliberate or not. There must surely be some research somewhere to back this up.
Seems like a reasonable punishment to me. Driver acts like a dick. Get's his privilege to drive taken away.
If I were the cyclist involved I'd be satisfied that justice had been served.
Driving while banned charge incoming in 3... 2...
Actually, he'll never get caught, as there are now only 3 traffic policeman in the entire country.
Wearing a clown suit to work is 'acting like a dick'. Deliberately reversing 2000 kg metal into someone is really rather more serious than that.
As someone who cycles in the Warwick/Leamington area regularly, on the whole it's not too bad but, I've encountered my fair share of ignorant/stupid/dangerous/absent-minded drivers.
I had an incident in Warwick where a road was narrowing and cars continued to squeeze past me until a lady in a Chelsea Tractor barely squeezed past and then had to slam her brakes on as cars were coming the other way. I barely had time to pull up and unclip to avoid riding into the back of her.
I was so incensed with the fact that she had no regard for me or my safety that I smacked the back of her car which then produced a foul-mouthed torrent of abuse from her before she drove off at speed.
IMHO, all drivers (I'm one too, don't worry) should have to resit their test every 10 years and spend time as a cyclist as part of that so that they can appreciate what we have to put up with. It's not just other road users but the state of the roads themselves that must be negotiated.
A cyclist feels threatened by a car and reacts. This is considered as "argy bargy" giving the impression that the victim and aggressor were on a level playing field.
We have a ton and a half of car (arbitary figure as I don't know what car was being driven) being reversed at a cyclist and the judge considers “This was an altercation with a cyclist. It matters not in the least whose fault it was."
Does she consider bullying as being a bit of bants too?
I suggest the judge is investigated as she seems to be firmly biased against cyclists and unfit to make correct rulings.
#Shocking
Has it really taken over 2 years to get this dangerous driver off the roads?!
I cycle this road frequently and it's by far the worst one I know around this area for close passes. Mostly by parents driving their precious ones to school in their Range Rovers, paying little attention to anything other than finding somewhere to stop. I take primary position when approaching the islands - I'd rather be shouted at and/or tooted at than nearly knocked off my bike every time. Slapping a window/bodywork of a car is almost a given every time I ride there.
Yep, it's the only way. Unless there is already someone right on top of me I make an effort to get right into the middle of the road, because otherwise some moron is guaranteed to try to squeeze through.
OOOh, local story!
Fortunately, I think we're quite lucky round here and generally drivers aren't as bad as other parts of the country.
Saying that, on her commute my girlfriend did once have a guy driving slowly next to her whilst shouting at her for something she did wrong. I don't think he realised the irony of accusing wrong-doing whilst driving slowly down a busy road shouting at a female cyclist whilst holding up traffic.
Can any lawyers on the forum please inform us what the threshold would be for instances where a driver deliberately drives into a cyclist to be considered as assault or attempted murder? I have the strong feeling that if the driver in this case had an altercation with a pedestrian, then deliberately reversed into them, they would not be up for a charge of dangerous driving but rather for something more serious.
There was an instance in Yorkshire recently where a driver deliberately drove into a pedestrian following an argument, seriously injuring them. The driver was charged with attempted murder. I do wonder if such a charge would have been brought if the pedestrian were a cyclist.
Attempted murder is where someone deliberately tries to kill someone else. Not tries to scare, or hurt, but can be shown to have every intention to kill them. It's quite hard to prove because unlike actual murder there is no death. Ipso facto you have to prove that the intention was to kill but the perp just failed to do so.
Usually that is going to require some sort of premeditation ie that there was a thoroughgoing plan. Or that an attack was sustained. so not lashing out but a continued beating, use of a weapon specifically for the purpose.
This gets nowhere near the level of evidence necessary for an attempted murder charge. If he'd knocked him off and than continually drove over him several times so that the intent to kill was demonstrated then maybe.
Attempted murder requires that the Crown can prove that the attacker actually intended to kill the victim.
Wow. I hate to roll out the tired old comparisons, but this seems fairly light punishment. The facts were he was an aggressive driver, blaring his horn at a cyclist who was doing no wrong, then tried to over take at an island (I bloody hate when people do that) was so close the cyclist could tap on his window, and then tried to reverse over/in to him.
Sounds like a very angry, aggressive man, who could very easily seriously injure or kill someone.
Pages