Cyclist flung over car by driver on pavement (credit, Kent Police)
Drug driver who smashed into cyclist on pavement while twice the legal limit for cannabis, flinging rider through the air and leaving him with life-changing injuries, handed six-month suspended sentence after motorist claimed he “faced impossible choice”
Clive Williams was also banned from driving for two years, but was not charged with any drugs offence, despite doctors telling the cyclist he was “lucky the impact had not killed me”
A motorist has been spared jail after leaving a cyclist with horrendous, life-changing injuries in a sickening head-on collision on the pavement, despite being twice the legal limit for cannabis, after his defence barrister claimed the driver was left with “an impossible choice” – to hit the car in front or swerve onto the pavement and into the path of the oncoming cyclist.
Clive Williams was handed a six-month suspended prison sentence and disqualified from driving for two years after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving following the shocking crash, which saw cyclist Les Norris fly into the car windscreen and over its roof, while his bike was flung through the air.
The 64-year-old suffered a serious injury to his pelvis, as a well as broken ribs and a fractured wrist, in the collision, and was forced to spend six weeks in hospital, where doctors told him he was lucky to be alive.
The incident took place on 30 April 2023 in Hawkinge, near Folkestone, Kent, as Norris cycled home from work on a longer route than usual, which he says he took due to it being sunny. According to the cyclist, as he rode on the pavement, he noticed that the line of traffic next to him had slowed, when a silver car suddenly veered into his path.
Folkestone Magistrates’ Court heard this week that Williams was following another motorist in front as he emerged from a roundabout onto the Canterbury Road, who then braked sharply, which prompted the 41-year-old to swerve onto the footpath, immediately hitting Norris head-on.
The force of the collision saw the cyclist slam into his handlebars, shattering his pelvis, before hitting the car’s windscreen and being thrown over the vehicle and onto the ground.
Footage of the incident, captured on a nearby property’s CCTV, shows Norris riding on the pavement before his bike can be spotted flying through the air. Dashcam footage from a motorist approaching the roundabout was also played in court (and also appears in the above clip), showing the moment Norris was struck as Williams swerved onto the pavement.
In a statement later given to the police and read in court, Norris said he could remember hitting the windscreen of the vehicle, going over the top, and then lying with blood dripping from his head.
“I remember the air ambulance paramedics putting me on a stretcher and I was in pain and total shock. I was wheeled to the ambulance and had ketamine to sedate me because of my injuries,” the statement said.
The cyclist was forced to undergo emergency surgery and remained in hospital for six weeks after the crash, which has left him with metal plates in his pelvis and wrist which will never be removed.
In a victim impact statement, Norris said he felt cheated by the crash, as he had always been fit and healthy and that had now been ripped away from him.
“When I saw the CT scan of my pelvis there were bits of bone everywhere and it was like it had exploded, I couldn’t believe the mess,” he said.
“The doctors said it was life-threatening and I was lucky the impact had not killed me.”
Detailing how he has been forced to give up his hobbies, such as skiing and paddleboarding, the 64-year-old continued: “This is the hardest most traumatic time of my life. I was in the Navy on submarines for three months [at a time] and that seems like a walk in the park [compared to this].
“My surgeon said it was the most complex operation he’d ever done before, and I now have a titanium cage [in my pelvis] for the rest of my life which I can feel and even turning over in bed causes me pain.”
The court heard that Mr Norris is now forced to sleep in an adjustable bed without his wife and still suffers from a frozen shoulder and pain in his wrist, while suffering from mild PTSD, which has seen him undertake cognitive therapy. He also said it will be “some time” before he cycles again and that he is still reliant on painkillers.
In another statement, Mr Norris’ wife said her “world had been turned upside down” by the crash, and that she also often feels low and depressed.
“Seeing him on a ventilator in the hospital broke me,” she said. “Les was the main victim, but I feel like a victim too.”
The court also heard this week that Williams had smoked a cannabis joint the night before the crash, and that a test for drugs found the 41-year-old to be twice the legal limit.
However, despite being charged with causing serious injury by careless driving, to which he pleaded guilty in August, he was never charged with any drug-related offences.
Nevertheless, Terry Knox, prosecuting, told the Magistrates that Williams’ test result this was still an “aggravating factor” that should be taken into account when it comes to sentencing.
In court, Williams denied driving dangerously or speeding, and said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes, arguing that he carried out an emergency manoeuvre to avoid a collision.
Mr Knox said the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving and sentencing guidelines said the starting point for punishment was a year’s custody.
Defending, Olivia Rawlings said Williams had admitted his guilt at the outset, and that there had been no malice in his actions.
“He was facing an impossible choice – to hit the car in front or swerve – and [with] the timescale he faced, he swerved away from the car and even Mr Norris said he must have been trying to avoid the car,” she said.
“There was no evidence of speeding. He was too close to the car in front. He was not charged over the cannabis, but that should be taken into consideration he smoked a small amount the night before.
“He’s of previous good character and has genuine remorse. He’s not driven since the incident and has some health problems.”
While taking into account the “distressing” impact the crash has had on Mr Norris and his wife, the chairman of the bench said they accepted there was a low risk of Williams reoffending and, as a result, he would be sentenced to 24 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months.
The motorist was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 24 months. Williams was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £154 and £85 court costs.
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
He just wasn't paying attention to the road and swerved + didn't want to admit that - weve all seen it happen, most brake now tho, anyone with any degree of intelligence wouldn't swerve onto a pavement and also the initial argument stands of not paying attention cause he didn't see the cyclist, also
"after his defence barrister claimed the driver was left with “an impossible choice” – to hit the car in front or swerve onto the pavement and into the path of the oncoming cyclist."
Firstly, if the driver was driving at an appropriate speed ( i.e. safely) for the road , there would have been a safe stop and no "impossible choice" would have arisen. How is it I never have these issues when I am driving ? Because i bloody drive safely and at an appropriate speed , without phone use, and with proper attention to my surroundings and always considering the safety of vulnerable road users. It really isn't that hard. But of course, it is very hard to dial in some empathy if you don't have it to begin with ...
And finally, to Les Norris , i know this has been a horrendous time for you and your partner, my thoughts are with you , it is a horrendous thing to happen
The speed looks ok to me. He just needed to brake. It looks like he didn't even steer then brake, only steered. It's a bizarre choice, perhaps it was an attempted undertake. He's still going at some speed at the end of the video.
"said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes." The video clearly shows this was not the case.
"Smoked a joint the night before". Is it plausible to do this and still have the level that showed up in the drugs test? Or is it just a lie, and possible that he smoked nearer to the time of the collision? The camera footage says it was around 1:50 pm.
I don't know anything about how long cannabis impairs you. A quick Google says the effects of one joint might be gone just 5 hours later.
"Smoked a joint the night before". Is it plausible to do this and still have the level that showed up in the drugs test? Or is it just a lie, and possible that he smoked nearer to the time of the collision?
Certainly not in the business of defending this lowlife or his driving but yes, that is definitely plausible, it can show up on a saliva test as used by the police for up to 48 hours after use, and depending on the amount he smoked the night before it could show up at twice the legal limit 12 hours later. Of course he might well have smoked a smaller amount an hour before, the test can't tell.
This is a terrible case. A drugged up driver who lied to the Court, and perhaps himself, and the Magistrates swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Even at a physical level, the traffic island prebisouly had a grass verge, but had had a bank of trees planted on that corner in 2008-9 which now restricts the sightline on the approach for that driver. In 2008 he could have seen the either car.
Yet the Traffic Island still has a 40mph limit throught it, nor was redesigned to make drivers slow down, and that exit was widened (hatchings made narrower) in between 2009 and 2021. Notice how the signboard the other way is longer visible.
From what I see, the kerb in the location where the druggie went up the kerb is very low. I think there's a high probability he deliberately went up the kerb at speed to avoid slowing down and didn't see the cyclist due to his impatience and drugged up state. My sympathy 100% with Mr Norris the cyclist.
That's how I read the video...deliberate undertake of right turning car using the low kerbed path....so should have gone to a higher court and charged with Dangerous Driving ...instead pleaded guilty to lesser offense...as to suspended sentences ...trend would seem to predate prison crisis. Seems routine for "nice people"...message gives is you will only go to prison if you repeat your appalling driving or I guess in this case if you are caught driving while banned. My sympathy with the cyclist...same age as me and feel for the pain and loss of activities enjoyed.
A guilty plea to careless is a normal informal plea bargaining process imo - an abuse.
I'm not sure there's anything informal or abusive about it. It is a standard part of our legal system that a guilty plea leads to a reduced sentence.
I think what mattw was getting at was that sometimes the CPS will charge with a lesser offence in exchange for a guilty plea. For example, many years ago (1987 age 18) I was glassed in a club, broken nose requiring surgery, stitches in left eye. The police wanted to go with GBH, the newly formed CPS were told by the defence that they'd plead guilty to ABH with a fine and compensation to keep it at magistrate court, but contest it in a crown court to try and avoid a custodial sentence. The CPS went with ABH...
I also saw it as a comment on going with a lower charge in exchange for a guilty plea.
As hp has argued many times, we need a driving examiner to give expert witness that the standard of driving meets the dangerous driving threshold.
I would not particularly want to crash into a car and rely on my airbag, seat belt and crumple zone to protect me but I would absolutely choose to if the alternative is to mow down an innocent person on a pavement. Nothing "impossible" about that choice. Should be inside for several years. I do wonder whether the overcrowding in prisons is having an effect on sentencing. If yes then alternatives such as curfews, lifetime driving bans and financially punitive fines should be used. If drivers know that they could lose 50% of their wealth as a fine for such incidents then they would take more care.
“He was facing an impossible choice – to hit the car in front or swerve – and [with] the timescale he faced, he swerved away from the car and even Mr Norris said he must have been trying to avoid the car,”
... exactly the kind of argument that opponents of self-driving vehicles use against them (with little consideration that self-driving vehicles will be actively avoiding that kind of situation to start with)
Or there's the other choice - leave enough room to brake safely...
IOW: Don't drive like a c**t?
Far too many drivers refuse to behave responsibly (and it is refusal, not ignorance or some other excuse). They simply shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel.
Mr Norris was minding his own business, behaving responsibly, but he has had trauma and life-changing injuries because this skinhead prick didn't want to scratch his car. And the justice system doesn't really want to do anything about it. In that case it's high time someone else did.
I would not particularly want to crash into a car and rely on my airbag, seat belt and crumple zone to protect me but I would absolutely choose to if the alternative is to mow down an innocent person on a pavement. Nothing "impossible" about that choice.
I had the same initial reaction to the headline choice, but I think that at the time he swerved, he didn't realise there was a person there. He wasn't paying proper attention to the road and car ahead, I'm sure he wasn't paying attention to the pavement/cycle path.
Obviously "don't drive so close to the car in front that you can't brake in time" is a better choice. (If he did deliberately choose to undertake on the verge without looking what was there when he could have stopped, and lied about it, that's worse.)
(I did once find myself thinking I wouldn't stop in time in very heavy rain on a motorway when the car ahead stopped. It was when trying to steer into the hard shoulder to avoid them while still braking didn't turn the car that I realised my front wheels were locked and hydroplaning. Pumping the brakes did then stop without running into them. These days ABS would have done it for me.)
looking at the (admittadly poor) footage there doesn't look to be much slowing down going on, prior to the impact, i feel he was more likely attempting to pass on the footpath rather than avoid a collision.
"In court, Williams denied driving dangerously or speeding, and said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes, arguing that he carried out an emergency manoeuvre to avoid a collision." - this defence is an admittance of incompetent driving, the driver should always be able to stop in the distance they can see is clear in front of them
This doesn't look like an emergency braking from the car in front, maybe the video is not clear enough, but I can see the cars stopping very progressively?
Cannabis is well known for slow reaction times, and to create confusion in the mind when fast decisions are required, both major problems when driving, I'm surprised there is a "legal limit" (I didn't know it was legal in the UK).
My guess is that this driver has very good relationships, although the power of the cannabis lobby might be enough to influence some judges...
Add new comment
71 comments
That seems a very lenient sentence for very poor driving while under the influence. It looks like the driver was trying to overtake on the pavement.
He just wasn't paying attention to the road and swerved + didn't want to admit that - weve all seen it happen, most brake now tho, anyone with any degree of intelligence wouldn't swerve onto a pavement and also the initial argument stands of not paying attention cause he didn't see the cyclist, also
"after his defence barrister claimed the driver was left with “an impossible choice” – to hit the car in front or swerve onto the pavement and into the path of the oncoming cyclist."
Firstly, if the driver was driving at an appropriate speed ( i.e. safely) for the road , there would have been a safe stop and no "impossible choice" would have arisen. How is it I never have these issues when I am driving ? Because i bloody drive safely and at an appropriate speed , without phone use, and with proper attention to my surroundings and always considering the safety of vulnerable road users. It really isn't that hard. But of course, it is very hard to dial in some empathy if you don't have it to begin with ...
And finally, to Les Norris , i know this has been a horrendous time for you and your partner, my thoughts are with you , it is a horrendous thing to happen
The speed looks ok to me. He just needed to brake. It looks like he didn't even steer then brake, only steered. It's a bizarre choice, perhaps it was an attempted undertake. He's still going at some speed at the end of the video.
"said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes." The video clearly shows this was not the case.
"Smoked a joint the night before". Is it plausible to do this and still have the level that showed up in the drugs test? Or is it just a lie, and possible that he smoked nearer to the time of the collision? The camera footage says it was around 1:50 pm.
I don't know anything about how long cannabis impairs you. A quick Google says the effects of one joint might be gone just 5 hours later.
Certainly not in the business of defending this lowlife or his driving but yes, that is definitely plausible, it can show up on a saliva test as used by the police for up to 48 hours after use, and depending on the amount he smoked the night before it could show up at twice the legal limit 12 hours later. Of course he might well have smoked a smaller amount an hour before, the test can't tell.
This is a terrible case. A drugged up driver who lied to the Court, and perhaps himself, and the Magistrates swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Even at a physical level, the traffic island prebisouly had a grass verge, but had had a bank of trees planted on that corner in 2008-9 which now restricts the sightline on the approach for that driver. In 2008 he could have seen the either car.
Yet the Traffic Island still has a 40mph limit throught it, nor was redesigned to make drivers slow down, and that exit was widened (hatchings made narrower) in between 2009 and 2021. Notice how the signboard the other way is longer visible.
Drivers eye view 2009
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1209469,1.1620605,3a,75y,6.62h,95.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLoFOle7u-CjU8X7vjZI5Kw!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Drivers eye view 2021
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.120932,1.1620791,3a,75y,6.62h,95.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHbTA0gUf6g8CH2033nqnHQ!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Location
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1213504,1.1616737,194m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
PS. How do we do Streetview links on roadcc that work?
It seems a fairly core need.
Click on the 3 dots, then on Share or Embed image, then Copy Link. Paste the link into your comment e.g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/gNKLVD3DLiAfFhuG8
So for 2023:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RGUXMkttJn4nDbe99
Thanks.
From what I see, the kerb in the location where the druggie went up the kerb is very low. I think there's a high probability he deliberately went up the kerb at speed to avoid slowing down and didn't see the cyclist due to his impatience and drugged up state. My sympathy 100% with Mr Norris the cyclist.
This is 2009 at the end of the path.
It tells us all we need to know about the last Govt's attitude to the public realm, and investment.
Is that really the same spot?
This is a link to 2023:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1212186,1.1623972,3a,19.3y,293.99h,79.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s53hLzMz558-dgAp858GSkg!2e0!5s20230401T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
2023:
That's how I read the video...deliberate undertake of right turning car using the low kerbed path....so should have gone to a higher court and charged with Dangerous Driving ...instead pleaded guilty to lesser offense...as to suspended sentences ...trend would seem to predate prison crisis. Seems routine for "nice people"...message gives is you will only go to prison if you repeat your appalling driving or I guess in this case if you are caught driving while banned. My sympathy with the cyclist...same age as me and feel for the pain and loss of activities enjoyed.
A guilty plea to careless is a normal informal plea bargaining process imo - an abuse.
I'm not sure there's anything informal or abusive about it. It is a standard part of our legal system that a guilty plea leads to a reduced sentence.
I think what mattw was getting at was that sometimes the CPS will charge with a lesser offence in exchange for a guilty plea. For example, many years ago (1987 age 18) I was glassed in a club, broken nose requiring surgery, stitches in left eye. The police wanted to go with GBH, the newly formed CPS were told by the defence that they'd plead guilty to ABH with a fine and compensation to keep it at magistrate court, but contest it in a crown court to try and avoid a custodial sentence. The CPS went with ABH...
I also saw it as a comment on going with a lower charge in exchange for a guilty plea.
As hp has argued many times, we need a driving examiner to give expert witness that the standard of driving meets the dangerous driving threshold.
Don't worry Iain Duncan-Smith will be along to sort this out any moment now.
...any moment. Any moment now.
I would not particularly want to crash into a car and rely on my airbag, seat belt and crumple zone to protect me but I would absolutely choose to if the alternative is to mow down an innocent person on a pavement. Nothing "impossible" about that choice. Should be inside for several years. I do wonder whether the overcrowding in prisons is having an effect on sentencing. If yes then alternatives such as curfews, lifetime driving bans and financially punitive fines should be used. If drivers know that they could lose 50% of their wealth as a fine for such incidents then they would take more care.
You might not, but most of those overtaking me on blind bends and hill crests take the option of the squishy sideswipe rather than the head on.
Exactly. The number of drivers that do that is mind-bongling.
Or there's the other choice - leave enough room to brake safely...
Also, isn't...
“He was facing an impossible choice – to hit the car in front or swerve – and [with] the timescale he faced, he swerved away from the car and even Mr Norris said he must have been trying to avoid the car,”
... exactly the kind of argument that opponents of self-driving vehicles use against them (with little consideration that self-driving vehicles will be actively avoiding that kind of situation to start with)
IOW: Don't drive like a c**t?
Far too many drivers refuse to behave responsibly (and it is refusal, not ignorance or some other excuse). They simply shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel.
Mr Norris was minding his own business, behaving responsibly, but he has had trauma and life-changing injuries because this skinhead prick didn't want to scratch his car. And the justice system doesn't really want to do anything about it. In that case it's high time someone else did.
I had the same initial reaction to the headline choice, but I think that at the time he swerved, he didn't realise there was a person there. He wasn't paying proper attention to the road and car ahead, I'm sure he wasn't paying attention to the pavement/cycle path.
Obviously "don't drive so close to the car in front that you can't brake in time" is a better choice. (If he did deliberately choose to undertake on the verge without looking what was there when he could have stopped, and lied about it, that's worse.)
(I did once find myself thinking I wouldn't stop in time in very heavy rain on a motorway when the car ahead stopped. It was when trying to steer into the hard shoulder to avoid them while still braking didn't turn the car that I realised my front wheels were locked and hydroplaning. Pumping the brakes did then stop without running into them. These days ABS would have done it for me.)
looking at the (admittadly poor) footage there doesn't look to be much slowing down going on, prior to the impact, i feel he was more likely attempting to pass on the footpath rather than avoid a collision.
"In court, Williams denied driving dangerously or speeding, and said he recalled the driver in front of him slamming on their brakes, arguing that he carried out an emergency manoeuvre to avoid a collision." - this defence is an admittance of incompetent driving, the driver should always be able to stop in the distance they can see is clear in front of them
Saying you don't deserve punishment because your dangerous driving was due to incompetence is almost a recognised defense in the UK.
Here's a good (but sad) article on the Incompetence Paradox.
that was an intersting article to read, thanks
This doesn't look like an emergency braking from the car in front, maybe the video is not clear enough, but I can see the cars stopping very progressively?
Cannabis is well known for slow reaction times, and to create confusion in the mind when fast decisions are required, both major problems when driving, I'm surprised there is a "legal limit" (I didn't know it was legal in the UK).
My guess is that this driver has very good relationships, although the power of the cannabis lobby might be enough to influence some judges...
Pages