Driver who “used vehicle as weapon” to ram teenagers on bikes jailed

Never heard of upride before and it looks very interesting so thank you for the link.

Never heard of upride before and it looks very interesting so thank you for the link

As it happens this coincides with another stage in my long term action against the major enemy of cyclists round here: Lancashire Constabulary. Ben Wallace MP asked me months ago to make the standard complaint to LC about LC (Ho! Ho! I know exactly how that's going to work out) and report the result to him. I have spent the time collecting many dozens of No MOT/ insurance, No VED, illegal plate vehicles - about all of which Lancashire Constabulary will leap into complete inaction. So, I have loaded 3 trial videos onto upRIDE, so you'll be able to see them instead of the close pass stills I have previously displayed. In the meantime, here's a Christmas Day photo at Wyre Bridge in Garstang, of Mercedes OM61 JAY (but illegal plate) belonging to Hooray-Henry climate-burning nutter driving holiday company Cannon Run- the sort of people who make Clarkson look like Greta Thunberg

I look forward to seeing them and uploading some of my own. It seems 'red light jump' and 'illegal vehicle' categories could be added to 'crash', 'close call' and 'close pass'.

I suspect upRide will be overloaded and may not be very useful

After a week, my 3 close-passes are still 'awaiting moderation'. upRide is no use, but still provided entertainment. On the mobile, Vodafone blocked the site for suspect content and reserved it for 'Over 18'. I've seen this error before: a hospital website blocked access to information about 'water melon stomach'- a genuine pathological process, but no doubt objected to because 'water melons'

That was a shocker.

Check your MoT government website:

"HV70 CNL

There is a problem

Check that the registration you entered is correct."

Looks like a false reg number.

EDIT: the number is actually HV70 CNJ, which matches.

mattw wrote:

One can sypathesize with the annoyance -

But not with American spelling.  Or indeed, the absence of a an "m".

I could say it was a typoo, but it wasn't. So guilty.

eburtthebike wrote:

mattw wrote:

One can sypathesize with the annoyance -

But not with American spelling.  Or indeed, the absence of a an "m".

As used by those Americans at Penguin and Oxford University Press, among others!

mattw wrote:

We're always asking for more serious sentences, and here we are for once.

Where is that exactly? I think getting 27m (of which he will likely serve half) is very light for trying to kill 2 people with something that could have very easily resulted in fatalities. The outcome could have been far worse.

I think he was charged for what he did, and plead guilty, and received an appropriate sentence for that following the guidelines. For me the surprise, if any, was that the charge was so serious.

I don't think a charge based on "tried to kill" would have stuck, because that would be (presumably) attempted murder, and I am not clear that the premeditated intention to kill was there.

I very much agree that the outcome could have been far worse, but charges cannot usually be laid charge based on what has not happened.

I agree that he was charged with an appropriate crime and sentenced in accordance with sentencing guidelines, but I also think that 27m for someone who very easily could have killed 2 people through their intended actions.

Essentially I have a fundamental disagreement with how the justice system works. When my revolution comes people will be sentenced based on their actions and the intentions behind them, with a view primarily to reduce the likelihood of that person committing an offence again (i.e. restorative) with a secondary view to deter others from committing an offence (i.e. punitive). The outcome (e.g. whether or not someone died) is irrelevant in my view.

Tx for your reply.

I think actions + outcomes are relatively straightforward, assuming evidence is available and ignoring differing qualities of legal defense solicitors etc, but judging motivation/intention is far more difficult without specific actions which are clearly linked to a motivation.

eg in the vid posted elsewhere in this comments section we can see the repeated and deliberate assaults from the driver.

I'm lairy of assumptions about what may be grey areas, as for me it is a bit too parallel to Blair's Indeterminate Sentences ("Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)" )debacle, which has left hundreds rotting in prison for years and years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-c....

Equally I recognise that I am a newbie in this space, and many here have been chiselling away in the road safety quarry far longer than I have, so I welcome the debate.

That does make we wonder about Indeterminate Driving Bans, though.

That intent is difficult to judge is a fair comment, and of course like everything else it should be judged based on evidence available. For instance, proving intent in a collision with a road user can sometimes be difficult, but when one party is repeatedly mounting the pavement, it becomes easier to gauge.

I would be happy to see a minimum term and a minimum criteria to be considered 'rehabilitated' in sentencing. If someone doesn't ever achieve the standard to be considered safe in our society, in my opinion they should never be let out.

Not a lawyer, but wasn't a large part of the reason for "Causing death by dangerous / careless driving" because of all the difficulties with demonstrating "intent" in existing possible charges (manslaughter / murder / GBH etc)?  And later "causing serious injury by dangerous driving" (That and because we have an overly-accepting "accidents happen" mindset when it comes to drivers - which is still the case...)

Also presumably part of the reason for the intent to bring in "causing serious injury by careless driving" recently.

Again - I'm just a punter here but I assume the idea for these offenses was to have make the decision process something like: a) did an incident occur? b) Did it involve this driver? c) Was the incident due to the actions or inaction of the driver? and d) was this driving within the "definition" of "careless" or "dangerous"?

I suspect things founder mostly at (c) e.g. "the cyclist wobbled and fell off by themselves" / "the cyclist made themselves invisible" etc. and (d) "Yes, a, b, and c apply but many people drive like this sometimes, that harm occurred was just bad luck - accidents happen and the driver didn't mean to cause harm"

Reading the many reports in road.cc it seems to me that the magistrates, judge and jury are still looking for some kind of "did they mean to do it".  I think it's a human pyschology thing.  So it would seem that the need to show some kind of "intent" has not disappeared.

Of course it's possibly that our hopelessly subjective, "how long's a piece of string" definition of "careless" / "dangerous" driving is the real issue.  (Those definitions really don't help.)

Quote:

I don't think a charge based on "tried to kill" would have stuck, because that would be (presumably) attempted murder, and I am not clear that the premeditated intention to kill was there.

Ok, he didn't setout that day deciding "I'm going to kill someone", but he drove after and at two people in different parts of the Street including mounting the pavement. So it wasn't a momentary rage moment and he intentionally decided to drive after them and ram them. And he could easily have been charged with "GBH with Intent" as driving a two tonne truck at speed into a child isn't done just to scare someone. If you look at that, he got the bottom end of the sentencing.

As for the Defence quote, I realise he does have to mitigate, but do we have Defence solicitors stating, "He might have shot at the victim, but the bullet passed through the victim and he lived so his injuries are not serious." ?
 

Thanks for the reply. Fair comment.

Turns out the kids were innocent victims of circumstance - the driver must have had the chip on his shoulder all along.

Sriracha wrote:

Turns out the kids were innocent victims of circumstance - the driver must have had the chip on his shoulder all along.

I dunno. A lovely car like that... I reckon he was loving it.

why are these cases still driving offences and never prosecuted as as assault with a deadly weapon?
Because the victims are lycra-clad cyclists who pass red lights every day and knock down pedestrians, obviously