A driver who crashed into an oncoming cyclist while going “too fast” on a blind bend, leaving him with life-threatening injuries and trauma, was given 180 hours of community service and a 12-month driving ban after he apologised to the cyclist during the hearing in the court.
Edward Seabrook, of Kibworth Beauchamp, had only passed his driving test 12 weeks ago and turned 18 one day before the collision which took place in October 2023 at Saddington Reservoir, near Kibworth, Leicestershire.
At the time of the collision, Mr Peter Taylor, 66, was cycling along an unnamed narrow country lane between Saddington and Gumley with his wife riding behind him when he was struck head-on by a black Volkswagen Polo being driven too fast around a blind bend by Seabrook.
During the hearing at Leicester Magistrates’ Court last week, LeicestershireLive reports that Seabrook turned around to apologise to Mr Taylor, who sat in the public gallery, telling him: “I’m so sorry for everything. I’m so sorry.”
Prosecutor Sukhy Basi told the magistrates that the driver was on his way to a football match when the collision happened, adding: “There was a blind bend, and when the collision took place, Mr Taylor had been cycling from Gumley towards Saddington. He heard the screech of tyres and can't remember anything after that. His injuries were very serious.”
> “Inattentive” driver with “comprehensive loss of concentration” who drove on wrong side of the road and killed cyclist jailed for two years
Mr Basi said Taylor, who had been thrown over the car and landed on the ground, suffered head injuries, a broken spine, broken ribs, a damaged jaw bone and lacerations to his face, as well as other wounds all over his body and a broken toe.
The court heard Taylor’s statement, in which the cyclist wrote: “I could so easily have been killed that day. I hope the driver has understood how close he was to killing me and my wife.”
He shared that his wife was still having flashbacks of seeing him “flying through the air and lying motionless on the road.” He added: “She thought I was dead.”
Taylor also said that the incident had ended their enjoyment of cycling, and that the injury to his jaw meant that he would have to sleep in a special mouthguard every night for the rest of his life — a daily reminder of his injury caused by the driver. He added that he was still suffering neck and back pain, requiring medication and weekly appointments.
David Rhodes, representing Seabrook, told the magistrates his client was glad Mr Taylor and his wife had attended the sentencing hearing, saying: “He has been incessantly checking with me to see how Mr Taylor is. His view is that if he could do anything to make it better for the Taylors, then he will.”
He said that Seabrook had not driven since the collision and had been getting therapy for his own trauma. Mr Rhodes added: “He still has nightmares and this is something he will never, ever forget.
“He took that corner way too fast. It’s something he wishes he could reverse.”
The chairman of the bench, Robert Boden, told him: “The guidelines for this offence do include prison, but in our opinion that isn't appropriate in these circumstances.”
> HGV driver given community sentence for running over and killing 22-year-old cyclist waiting at red light
Seabrook, who had pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving at an earlier hearing, was given a 12-month community order including 180 hours of unpaid work.
He was also banned from driving for 12 months and will have to take an extended retest before he can drive unsupervised and without L-plates, while also being ordered to pay £85 court costs and a £114 victim surcharge.
The sentencing has drawn criticism from the local news website’s readers, with one of them commenting: “Absolutely disgusting outcome! Goodness knows how the victim must feel! No wonder people run amok, no deterrent whatsoever!”
Another person wrote: “Sorry. The sentence is far too soft! Deserves prison, what example does it set for other overprivileged youth? No worries, soft sentence, ruined 2 lives, and can get away with it!”
One reader described it as the driver “basically got off”.
Last year, an uninsured teenage motorist who swerved onto the wrong side of the road in a bid to “scare” a group of approaching cyclists, hitting one and leaving them with “catastrophic” fatal injuries, was sentenced to over ten years in a young offenders’ institute and banned from driving for 12 and a half years for what the prosecutor described as an “exceptionally dangerous manoeuvre”.
In another recent horrifying incident from the USA, a 13-year-old driver with a 15-year-old passenger from New Mexico were charged with an open count of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, leaving the scene of an accident involving great bodily harm or death, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a person, after they deliberately hit a cyclist in a bike lane and uploaded the footage to social media.
Add new comment
10 comments
If the driver was truly remorseful they would have pleaded guilty to dangerous driving rather than careless. No doubt the CPS would have bargained this with them so they are just as much to blame in my opinion. No problem with no prison time but the length of the ban is a disgrace.
Yet another young driver under the impression that driving fast down country lanes is exciting and without risk. Until driving is seen as utilitarian way of getting from A to B as safely as possible things like this will continue. Thank you to all the car ads on telly which the regulator lets the car companies get away with. If you want to drive fast book a track day and risk no ones life but your own.
Apart from any incarceration or fines, in my view driving bans need to be more routinely administered.
One year ban for the driver involved in an incident in which a vulnerable road user is injured.
Five year bans for the driver involved in an incident in which a vulnerable road user sustains serious, life threatening or life changing injuries.
Lifetime ban for the driver involved in an incident in which a vulnerable road user is killed.
Add in presumed liability and in a few years the only drivers left on the roads will be the ones who are chilled out, courteous, chug along within the speed limit, operate within the parameters set by the law and give folk plenty of room.
end rant
Agree, but again it's how to start to break the vicious circle?
Currently there's very little disincentive not to ignore bans, because cars are seen as an essential tool if not a human right ("exceptional hardship..."), so people don't seem to be terribly supportive (e.g. informing the police), the roads aren't well policed (not a priority / "no resource"), the courts don't apply much in the way of penalty and ultimately the politicians don't see this as a way to make themselves popular.
Bans need a decent chance of being detected doing so, and a penalty for ignoring them which is a reasonable deterrent and (because some just don't care) with the sanction of removing people from the driving population (e.g. prison until we get some kind of tech solution, and maybe even then).
Presumed liability is (everywhere it's practiced) strictly a civil measure. I'm not sure how often people manage to get compensation currently? I do wonder - given we struggle to bring drivers to court for causing injury or even death (and also struggle to convict them when we do). Although of course criminal standards are different. Anyway - while having this is a good idea it's possibly icing for a cake we don't yet have?
Standard lawyer - derived 'remorse' along with equally routine 'offender as victim' placement. I wouldn't be impressed by this 'he's having counselling for his trauma' bollocks. I can appreciate the arguments for not sending him to prison even for a short sentence, although I don't agree with them. However the joke 'it wasn't a serious offence' ban adds insult to considerable 'life changing injury', while the offender accepts the commiserations of his friends for having to stand around in hi-viz leaning on a brush.
Maybe the community service. The regret seems genuine. But 12 months? What's wrong with 5 year bans, in this and so many other cases. Indeed in the very worst cases, lifetime bans.
Apology means FA. Who cares if he regrets or not. The milk has spilled. I hope the family successfully sues the perp for a massive personal injury compensation to be paid out of his motor insurance policy. That way he will forever be turned down by insurers when trying to renew.
It may be that the driver is genuinely remorseful, and that a heavier sentence would make no difference, but the ban is derisory.
Because 'sorry makes *everything* better.
To be fair, it sounds like he might actually be sorry rather than the usual. "The defendent claimed no fault at all for hitting the cyclist until they we're finally persuaded that they weren't going to get away with it and pled guilty to avoid a longer sentence. In light of their admission of guilt we would like to give them a reduced sentence..."
...... It's just an "oopsie!"