Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Motorist avoids jail for deliberately ramming cyclist who questioned close pass

"This incident felt like a hate attack on me. I feel hate towards cyclists is getting worse. We are people too."...

A driver who deliberately rammed a cyclist following an argument about a close pass has been given a suspended sentence for dangerous driving and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the incident seeing the victim flung into the air and left with whiplash after complaining to the motorist about an earlier overtake, telling her he had it on camera and later striking her wing mirror after she again drove too close to him.

Sarah Torgerson was sentenced on Friday at Leicester Crown Court, Leicestershire Live reports, and was told by recorder Justin Wigoder that she had "effectively ruined" the cyclist's life and the "very serious offence" would carry the "right sentence [... of] three to four years in prison", but due to mitigating factors she instead received a two-year sentence suspended for two years.

The victim thought he had broken his spine, such was the collision force, and described the incident as "like a hate attack" against cyclists, explaining that his bike worth £8,000 is unusable due to the damage and he "almost had a panic attack" when he tried to ride again post-recovery.

The incident happened on 2 February 2022, the man cycling south on Loughborough Road in Birstall when he was overtaken by two vehicles, the second being driven by 40-year-old Torgerson who close passed him.

As the traffic stopped he caught up with the driver and objected to the close overtake, telling her that he had a camera running and had filmed the incident.

In response, the driver stuck a finger up at the cyclist and both parties continued on their way. Moments later, at the Red Hill Roundabout, the driver stopped her Ford Focus very close to the cyclist who "reached out and banged down on her wing mirror".

Torgerson then rammed into the cyclist, launching him into the air and causing a heavy impact to his spine as he landed on the kerb and hit his head on the road. The driver, who it is reported has a previous conviction for dangerous driving from 2007, admitted ramming the cyclist when she phoned Leicestershire Police from the scene.

The man suffered whiplash and bruising, his bike written off and a watch worth more than £700 smashed. He also reported having to cancel a cycling trip to Mallorca.

In a statement heard in court, read out by prosecutor Eunice Gedzah, the cyclist said the incident had ruined his life and felt like a "hate attack" on him for being a cyclist.

"This incident felt like a hate attack on me. I feel hate towards cyclists is getting worse. We are people too," he said. "Since this incident, when I last went out on my bike I almost had a panic attack. I'm even a lot more nervous in a car, even when my wife's driving me. I'm not normally a nervous person. It's the fact she deliberately drove into me."

Torgerson's legal representation, Michelle Harding, said the cyclist had hit the vehicle's wing mirror "with some force because he felt she was too close to him" and argued the subsequent attack was partly explained by her client's mental health struggles.

"She turned her wheel into him and knocked him off his bike," Ms Harding admitted. "Her condition is not an excuse but goes some way to explaining why she may have behaved as she did."

Having heard the evidence, Mr Wigoder concluded "it's that serious" that under normal circumstances a motorist who acted as Torgerson did should expect to be sent to prison for three to four years as "cyclists are vulnerable and it's the court's first duty to protect them".

However, he decided Torgerson should not be sent "straight to prison" due to mitigating factors, including her mental health history, the fact she has two young children, and a doctor's opinion that she suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder that might cause "outbursts".

"I'm not going to send you straight to prison," Mr Wigoder said. "But what you did was to drive your car deliberately at a vulnerable cyclist. He thought he had a broken spine and, as you heard, you have effectively ruined his life. The one thing he really enjoyed was cycling, both to work and socially, and he can't do that now.

"This was a very serious offence indeed. I think the right sentence is three to four years in prison — it's that serious. Cyclists are vulnerable and it's the court's first duty to protect them."

Torgerson's two-year sentence is suspended for two years and she will be required to spend 30 days working with probation services. She was also banned from driving for two years and must take an extended retest in order to reclaim her licence.

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

75 comments

Avatar
ROOTminus1 replied to Steve K | 1 year ago
6 likes

I'd argue against that. How does the ability to have sex without contraception grant anyone the right to ignore a lack of competency for operating a motor vehicle?

Avatar
Steve K replied to ROOTminus1 | 1 year ago
1 like

ROOTminus1 wrote:

I'd argue against that. How does the ability to have sex without contraception grant anyone the right to ignore a lack of competency for operating a motor vehicle?

It doesn't - but imprisoning mothers punishes innocent children and should be a last resort.

In any case, I wasn't saying she shouldn't be jailed because of that - just that it was the only one of the mitigations given I have any sympathy for in this case and these circumstances.

Avatar
levestane replied to Steve K | 1 year ago
1 like

I hope the same mitigation is applied regardless of gender/sex.

Avatar
Steve K replied to levestane | 1 year ago
4 likes

levestane wrote:

I hope the same mitigation is applied regardless of gender/sex.

If they are the main care giver, then yes - but the fact in the majority of cases that is the mother.

Avatar
David9694 replied to levestane | 1 year ago
3 likes

Women have had their share of rough justice down the decades. Society has a habit of being more angry with bad women than with men because more of a line is seen to have been crossed. 

I agree with all that's been said about lengthy or permanent driving bans - if you're going to plead that you dunnit because of mental illness then you don't get to have it both ways and carry on driving after a short ban.

It's difficult, and often has consequences, to lock up a parent of small children for any length of time, but you cannot do what she's done and just walk away when your victim hobbles away. 

Avatar
Andrewbanshee replied to David9694 | 1 year ago
3 likes

This is blatantly untrue. Just look at the sentencing for like for like crimes. Women consistently get a better deal.
Throughout history working class people have had a raw deal, just differently dependant on gender.

Avatar
cidermart | 1 year ago
5 likes

Do not go to jail, pass Go and collect your £200 and take a big shit on someone because they ride a bicycle. Utter fucking joke.

Avatar
Surreyrider | 1 year ago
5 likes

It's depressing 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
19 likes

This is exactly the kind of person that should never be allowed in charge of a car on public roads. The reduced sentence is laughable seeing that it was a deliberate assault, but I want to see a lifetime driving ban.

Avatar
the little onion | 1 year ago
16 likes

the justice system is institutionally anti-cyclist

 

Sure, she deliberately rammed another human with 1.5 tonnes of metal, but she should be allowed back in control of that lump of metal in 2 years.....

Avatar
ROOTminus1 | 1 year ago
24 likes

Shes got prior offences because of poor mental health, but that now somehow sits as mitigation?!? If historic evidence says you aren't fit to drive, then YOU SHOULDNT BE DRIVING!

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
21 likes

Nothing about this tells me this driver will be safe again in two years

 

Quote:

and a doctor's opinion that she suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder that might cause "outbursts".......will be required to take an extended retest in order to reclaim her licence

what about a requirement for a doctor to sign off that she is no longer prone to outbursts caused by PTSD before being allowed to handle a lethal weapon again?

Avatar
brooksby replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
4 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

Nothing about this tells me this driver will be safe again in two years

Quote:

and a doctor's opinion that she suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder that might cause "outbursts".......will be required to take an extended retest in order to reclaim her licence

what about a requirement for a doctor to sign off that she is no longer prone to outbursts caused by PTSD before being allowed to handle a lethal weapon again?

Exactly: more than the extended retest, can't the court mandate some serious therapy (or drugs)?  And until a professional can assure the public that this person isn't going to "just lash out" again then they shouldn't be allowed back behind the wheel of a car...

Avatar
IanMK replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
6 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

what about a requirement for a doctor to sign off that she is no longer prone to outbursts caused by PTSD before being allowed to handle a lethal weapon again?

That's exactly how the system should work. The DVLA should now know that she has a medical condition (PTSD) that is shown to effect her ability to drive safely. It's the DVLAs job to seek a medical assesment BEFORE they issue a new license. It would also be interesting to know if she used the same mitigation in her previous conviction. If that was the case then the DVLA should be held to account.

(NB I have no reason to believe that this will happen or in fact ever happens)

Avatar
Gus T replied to IanMK | 1 year ago
4 likes

Due to legislative changes ubder a previous tory government, the onus  is on the driver to report any health conditios that affect their ability to drive, Courts & GP's are no longer required to report these. All DVLA will know is that she has been banned for 2 years due to dangerous driving. 

Rediculous

Pages

Latest Comments