- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
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”
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.
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.
Latest Comments
- Destroyer666 2 hours 9 min ago
"...the beeswax-based covering magically shuns off whatever might be lurking in the corners. Even after multiple rides, when the bars rattled about...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 24 min ago
I've always wondered - why does the one-armed person in the cloak have their hand in the one-armed person with the cane?
- David9694 3 hours 31 min ago
t-boned
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 52 min ago
I didn't know the blue RA saddle was a holy grail - I had a 1986 RA bought new in 1987 with a blue saddle that lasted me very well until 2002 when...
- newbankgyratory 5 hours 2 min ago
Solution: Put these up everywhere. Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 59 min ago
Glad you like it - this week was the first proper commuting week since I got it, 250kms nice and warm but not boiled, indeed - and when the...
- Rendel Harris 7 hours 32 min ago
As what you have said is demonstrably untrue, given that the event is organised and has been for the last four years by a professional events...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 46 sec ago
Accessibility issue. Of course by necessity / co- evolution the Dutch generally provide a fairly "one size fits standard bikes" parking solution -...
- Steve K 9 hours 15 min ago
I'm there now too, if anyone wants a follow/wants to follow me. @cyclingtheseaso
- Shepton 9 hours 51 min ago
I totally agree. I used to commute through Long Ashton and only started getting agro from motorists when the pavement was made to be a shared path....
Add new comment
71 comments
the existance of a legal limit bugs me to, its not a subkject I know anything about but this case almost seems to have accepted that the drug was low concentration and not a significant factor - absolutly baffling
It isn't legal although not heavily policed in terms of individual users. We don't really have a "cannabis lobby", that's something you may have in the USA (I'm guessing you're there or in some other country where it's legal?) but as it's not legal to grow or sell over here we have a few small groups pressing for legalisation but nothing that you would call a lobby.
I think the point of the legal limit is to differentiate between people who have recently smoked and someone who might have had a joint a week ago and who still has traces in their system but obviously whose driving is not affected, although if, as here, the court appears to have pretty much ignored the fact that the driver was over the legal limit then there doesn't seem much point in having one. In my opinion roadside sobriety tests of reaction times and coordination, as used in the USA, would be much more useful as evidence of reduced capacity or otherwise.
It's not set to zero as walking and breathing down a London street, especially the one those driving whilst black athletes live on, could mean everyone gave a positive result.
Same with cocaine and touching folding money.
How can there be a legal limit for something that is illegal?
The sentencing for "driving offences" (let's just call them crimes) like this are an absolute joke - a totally unfunny one.
So basically, here you have a drugged driver who almost kills an innocent person, and effectively ruins his life. The sentence is suspended and a short driving ban. How is this justice?
We cyclists need to campaign for proportionate sentences for driving crimes in which people are hurt. How on earth can sentences like this abomination be acceptable in our society?
"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, ...." to turn right into a presumably signed road junction....no, absolutely no way Williams could possibly have predicted that with on-coming traffic the car in front of him might come to a halt. Give me strength!
I'm sure no-one in the UK needs me to say this, but on my occasional visits back there since moving to South Australia in 2005 I would have to say that driving standards have fallen depressingly. I'm sure there are many reasons, but courts giving offenders like Willaims what is effectively a free pass don't send anything like the right signal.
Stay safe all (to the best of your limited ability to influence that).
It's not particularly clear, but from what I can make out it's worse than that. It's the car in front of the car in front of the miscreant that stops to turn, and does so well before they get there, giving plenty of opportunity to see the obstruction. But they didn't see it because they were driving up the arse of the second car (which then stops behind the turning car) and not looking where they were going. They then pass both cars on the pavement, illustrating just how insufficient the space they'd given themselves was (assuming they were actually making some attempt to stop, which I'm not convinced is certain).
Far too many cars drive far too close to the car in front. I see it every day. Even on fairly quiet motorways and dual carriageways there are people who drive far too close behind you for ages or who pull in right in front of you after overtaking.
Where overtaking isn't an option it can appear as if the offending driver is bullying the one in front to go faster or pull over, but there are a lot of times when there really is no potential benefit. I'm overtaking a row of traffic, pull in as soon as humanly possible due to the car behind being frighteningly close behind, then they pull in behind me and continue to drive too close to me, and forcing the car behind to slow down to maintain a safe distance.
I don't think most of the offending drivers realise they are dangerously close, or that even when they get away with no crashes they are simply wasting fuel and energy to maintain to do so. I think all aspects of road safety would benefit from a campaign to encourage drivers to leave a decent stopping distance.
There are thousands of such incidents on youtube, dangerous tailgating, brake checks and even threats of violence. Drivers don't just hate cyclists, lots of them hate other drivers.
I reckon a lot of them also hate themselves, which brings about a special kind of rage.
This is what it looks like to me as well. It also looks like they don't even brake.
Well he didn't face an impossible choice did he.
1. To take cannabis and be high as a kite. A dumb choice that most likely led to the accident.
2. To drive inappropriately so when the car in front slowed down he couldn't stop, another choice that was not a clever one.
3. When faced with crashing into the car in front went on the pavement, irrespective of what was there. Or did not form the plan that if something was there to go further off the road to avoid hitting a cyclist or pedestrian that happened to be there. Overall no impossible decisions just a series of bloody awful ones.
This is one where the book should be thrown at someone, drunk or drugged and cause an injury then you should be made an example of.
All true, but it is the legal system at fault, not just the driver.
Hit a car with multiple safety features or plough along a footpath. Not really an impossible choice. I hope the insurance claim hurts him like the victim of his drug driving
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.
That is correct, I've checked it out on the "Sentancing guidlines uk" website.
I cannot see any extenuating circumstances. I don't think having a good defence lawyer counts.
So What went wrong, why is this guy not behind bars?
It starts with that, then factors such as previous character, timeliness of a guilty plea, different aspects of what arose, intent - all impact the amendments to that starting point.
"previous character" is a legal fiction. It is really previous record. "He's of previous good character" just means he's not been before the court before, but then most people aren't, until they are.
The intent... well, he didn't intend to hurt the cyclist (you'd have to prove that was the purpose of his actions), and he was reacting to circumstances arising in front of him. Now, we know, because cyclists are, on average, better drivers, that he shoudln't have been so close and, having been caught out, he shouldn't have swerved (because that almost never results in a more positive outcome than simply braking). So actually his intent was the intent to drive carelessly with the possible ramifications for other road users caught up in the ensuing consequences. Short of parasomnia, all driving is intentional, so let's reduce the consequences of that in judicial consideration.
However, and I realise this may not be popular, I don't think custodial sentences are the answer, though nor are current alternatives. That's because they don't really address the behaviour or the mindset.
I think we need a much more constructive package of penalties and remediation. They need to be financial; they need to affect your licence to drive; and they need to occupy your time so that you constructively focus on the mindset of sharing the road.
Focused community service - not painting community rooms; but attending training, assisting in a hospital morgue, being required to cycle lots of places. they could even enjoy it - I don't care... I want them to come out realising that they are not the centre of their own little universe.
It is not the lack of prison per se that bugs me. It is if this driver injured anybody to this degree with anything other than a car a custodial sentence would be almost certain to follow.
I think that litter picking next to busy roads would be good community service for driving offences.
6 months is the maximum sentance a Magistrate can give. Causing Serious Injury By Careless Driving is an "either way" offence, so this could (and should) have gone to a Crown Court, where a longer sentance could be given.
What a nasty collission.
Does anyone know if the same 40mph speed limit applies for the oncoming traffic? Around this corner, with very poor visibility, 40mph seem far too much - in particular if irresponsible, drugged drivers add another 10mph on top.
Another degenerate drug user walks from court having left a cyclist with life changing injuries and who knows what damage to his mental health.
Today I read that a man was fined a total of £9,000 (including costs) for silently praying in a restricted area, Adam Smith-Connor. I also read that a bigot has been sentenced to 31 months imprisonment for inciting people on Twitter, Lucy Connolly.
Surely Clive William's offence must fall somewhere between these two? Instead he's been fined barely £250 and two years (24 months) suspended. No justice in this country if you offend in a car.
Jesus. F*cking. Wept.
And there's a "war on motorists" you say?
Yes, using feather dusters as weapons.
The no-option option:
Every car has at least two of these pedals ... one to make it go faster, one to make it go slower.
There is *always* an option ... and it should always be the middle pedal.
Let's for arguments sake say the driver didn't just seriously hurt the cyclist but left them as a vegetable or even killed them. Would that of brought a different sentence?
While we are at it, let's not forget this was on the pavement so remove cyclist insert mother pushing young child in pram or pushchair. Is it still the same punishment? Would that be an impossible choice to make over an oncoming steel box?
I really do not understand the courts leniency in this case. Remove all mention of the word cyclist , he hit a person on the pavement while high on drugs. How the fuck is that not dangerous driving?
100%
All this case does, along with the many other examples of lenient sentences given to drivers when the victim is a cyclist, is tell the public that people who ride bikes are fair game.
If the victim was not on a bike we can all be certain that the punishment would have been at least slightly more severe.
I strongly suspect that if it had been a pedestrian rather than someone on a bike they would have been killed, as they would likely have gone under the car rather than over it.
Probably also be dead if it were a car with a higher bonnet.
Contributary negligence. The cyclist shouldn't be on the pavement.
There's no mention of it being a shared path or anything like that and no mention of the defence using it in mitigation but it could well be a justification in some people's mind.
Don't be so stupid. I don't have to say anymore . That's just plain dumb
Lost for words. What will it take to deal with dangerous road users? Justice has not been done. #motonormativity rules in the UK. Vehicles through dangerous road users kill and maim day in day out and it is accepted by society.
Pages