Driver swore at cyclist and then deliberately drove into her

Actually given previous sentances this is a pretty harsh one. We've seen drivers face far less in punishment for actually killing.

Is there not a way that us, all as members of the public, can strongly object to this individual being returned to the road on grounds of demonstrating ill fitness to drive (those sorts of approaches - you get my thinking).

If authorities object why can you not then hold them legally responsible should this driver go on to cause more harm?

Think about it in any other context. If you discovered a teacher was engaging in dubious activities online and warned the education authorities who failed to intervene, but that teacher went on to sexually assault a child for example the education authority would be guilty of failing the public in some way.

So, same situation here. Why would DVLA and/or Police and/or Dept. Transport be allowed to escape similar responsibility? We pay them to safeguard us, why are we not able to hold a government agency as responsible?

If that could be established you'd rapidly find government interested all of a sudden in who they allow on the roads and what they get up to, same as for teachers, medical staff, pilots/aviation safety etc etc.

Any legal bods on here able to comment on why this sort of strategy can't work?

Its funny how some motorists will do all sorts of dangerous sh*t just to make sure you know that you're in the wrong.

I remember this one time a large Merc pulling up alongside me on a downhill, swerving around due to oncoming traffic (the Merc, not me) , just so its female passenger (late middle-aged) could scream out of the window at me that I should be on the f-ing cycle path, that's what it's there for. I was able to scream back that (as was the case) the f-ing cycle path ends in less than 100 metres and I'd be put back on the road so what was the point. Some people.

Mr Butland deserved a far harsher punishment that he received, in my opinion, but my anecdote is there to illustrate that - also in my opinion - it's a scarily short and slippery slope from shouting at someone to using your car as a weapon.

If you buy a car and try and kill or injure people - we'll just take the car away....for a bit ..joke of a legal system

Ah the wonders of a motor vehicle. It allows even a 74 year old to indulge in a bit of GBH.

Calling a Tucson a 4x4 is more than a bit misleading, no low range and no locking diffs, but I'm sure the driver will be happy to be labelled a 4x4er. It's an SUV at best.

Just sayin'.

What a total c*nt. He should be in jail and his license permanently revoked.

Unreal sentence. If he'd swore at her and used a pick axe handle (for example) to attack her I think there would be a huge outcry and a heavier sentence. What is it about sitting in a car and carrying out an attack that seems to make it minor?

The courts and the system once again tells society that it is acceptable to run people over, as long as they are on a bicycle.

Doing this to a pedestrian would have had the driver sent to the slammer.

Where the hell does this man live? Is there any way of finding out?

if i swing a metal bar at someone, miss, swing again and hit and swing a third time causing broken bones, it would be assult and GBH, why is a 2tonne car not recognised as a weapon by the CPS?

on the other hand at least he didn't get away with careless driving.

@road.cc Your headline is inadequate. The correct one is "Judiciary again implicitly condone assaults on cyclists".

IMO the judge clearly demonstrates his partiality to the motorist point of view with this quote:
"It is not for members of the public to get involved in the way that you did."

That, coupled with the lack of custodial sentence for this vehicular assault suggests, to me, that the "Judge Recorder" in some degree believes that the cyclist was doing something wrong.

If I were dictator both of these old criminals would be doing some serious time.

Another ludicrously lenient sentence.   This criminal used a dangerous weapon to threaten and injure - that is the charge that should have been made. Judging by his behaviour alone,  he should be subject to strict medical tests to assess his capability to drive.   I would also question whether there might be age-related medical problems which could preclude his ownership of a driving licence. Those are terms and conditions that judge could have set as part of the sentence.

So if a cyclist waved a shotgun at him when he was walking along a joint use path, swore at him to "get out of my f***ing" way and fired shots which injured him would they get the same punishment?

Quote:

Furness did not impose a custodial sentence, saying that he was bearing in mind Butland’s age and the fact that he had up until this point led a blameless life

Blameless life bollocks.

Doing something like that has to be in your nature.  "Not been caught" would have been more accurate.

Or maybe he's just going senile.

I understand that he didn't have any convictions before this incident, but can't to think what would happen if he would be using a knife instead of car and injured her hand. He most probably go to jail for attempted murder. Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of using 2t vehiclle as a weapon. It's very effective on the road and doesn't give you a sentence.

He needs to get sentenced with riding a bike 500 miles per month. He could possibly empthasize with cyclists after his return to driving.

Made me think maybe if a driver (posably other offenders also) injures someone, through carelessnesses or intent they should be liable for medical costs that insue in whatever country the patient recieves treatment and rehabilitation. Particularly as we are considering making visitors from overseas liable for any medical cost during a visit.

He will never drive again, but a short custodial sentence would of been appropriate.

I had a similar incident except without the attempt to knock me and my wife off our bikes. An old fella tried to overtake us when he realised he couldn't get by without hitting the parked car on the other side of the road. Then when the road opened out he drove by closely in first gear revving away. Then 75 yds further along he pulled into his drive! Total intolerance for a few seconds advantage

Clearly a danger to everyone, and quite rightly removed from the road. Wonder if he went around trying to run down pedestrians who walk on the road too?