Community order for hit-and-run driver who left cyclist with broken pelvis

This is a ridiculously light sentence. Yet again, the cyclist is an underclass who deserves less justice . Am I right that any citizen can challenge an unduly light sentence?

But we must push through the law to protect us from killer cyclists..... 

Ridiculous

Sack the magistrates for incompetence

They should be setting sentences as a deterrent, this is less than a slap on the wrist and does not send the correct messages at all

Now that there is an offence of Causing Serious Injury by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving, hopefully we won't see so many drivers keeping their licenses after mowing down vunerable road users.

Draft guidelines call for a minimum 12 month disqualification - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/cau...

"believed he had clipped another vehicle, although he agreed that even if that had been the case he should have stopped at the scene"

So his defence was that he is so incompetent at driving that he cannot distinguish between a car and a cyclist, willingly drives in such a manner that he cannot safely pass this cyclist that he thinks is the size of a car, collides with them and knowingly drove away hoping to not be traced.

Tell me again why he still has a licence

Oh come on 

This is f-ing ridiculous.

No f-f-ing driving ban?!?

(and even ten points will be meaningless, because next time he gets points he'll just claim exceptional hardship)

Huge claim against the driver via his insurance company will help mend the wrongs.

I did that after getting twatted and the OB saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. 

I ended up with a lovely 5 figure payout after pursuing it with a brief.

The aspect which attracts my derision is the desperation to accept any excuse no how pathetic so they can say something as an excuse for not imposing deterrent penalties. Obviously, he didn't think 'he had clipped another vehicle' and is lying, or some shyster lawyer is lying for him. Anybody who cannot tell he has hit the rear of a cyclist would be obviously guilty of driving while paying no attention at all. He should have received an immediate ban so that he would appreciate that a penalty was intended- now he can proceed to close-pass as many cyclists as he chooses and the police would decline to take any proper action 'because he could be banned'. What is behind all this is the assumption that cyclists must expect to be hit from time to time, as a penalty for being on the roads, causing traffic jams etc etc., and that drivers are expected to hit the odd one or two. We all know the prevalent attitude from the recent tragic case of the Welsh national competitor whose serious injury was described as 'an accident' and who 'collided with a car'!

"A hit-and-run driver who left a cyclist with a broken cyclist........."

And he still didn't get a custodial sentence? 

If you'd like a proof-reader, my rates are quite reasonable.

Staggeringly lenient sentence considering the damage and the pathetic excuse.

Tell me again why cyclists need to be registered.......

Institutionally anti-cyclist

Magistrates. Seriously.  Get a grip.

He drove into another road user and left the scene.  10 points.  And not even a driving ban??  Ah, I see, because he had a clean license and thought he'd clipped another vehicle. Thats ok then.

This is just bollocks, on so many levels.

But anyway, back to worrying about killer cyclists.

Thats rubbish - good luck to all riders the  in Derbyshire and surrounding areas. 

Deserved a ban at least really.  Couldn't be allowed to suffer "unreasonable hardship" though...

.

Complete joke.

.