- 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
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgDerbyshire farmer who reversed into cyclist on purpose escapes jail
A Derbyshire farmer who reversed into a cyclist on purpose has escaped jail after being handed a suspended sentence and banned from driving for 18 months.
Steven Gammon, from Great Longstone, Bakewell, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving today at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court, reports The Star.
The incident happened on 4 August 2019 outside the Peak House pub in Little Longstone.
Robert Carr, prosecuting, told the court that the cyclist had been riding downhill on a narrow road, with space squeezed further still by a row of cars parked outside the public house.
As the cyclist, who was riding with his girlfriend, approached the parked cars, he saw Gammon driving towards him in his Vauxhall Astra.
The cyclist moved into the middle of the road, with the court told that Gammon, aged 40, braked to a halt.
The cyclist was said to have made a comment to Gammon as he passed the vehicle – he was also reported to have “clipped” it – and after passing, the motorist reversed at him “at speed.”
The victim was knocked to the ground, sustaining minor injuries, and despite his girlfriend calling on Gammon to stop, the farmer drove off.
The bike he was riding was badly damaged, and Mr Carr said that “It had some sentimental value to him because he had used the cycle to ride from Land’s End to John O’ Groats for charity.”
In mitigation, David Gittins told the court that Gammon, who has 96 sheep which graze on different strips of land, might lose his livelihood because he needed his car to care for the animals, including taking water to them.
“He is a tenant farmer and his wife cleans other properties in the afternoons,” he explained.
“If you know the area you will know that it is beautiful, but it is also very remote.”
Mr Gittins said that Gammon also needed access to his car to care for the couple’s two young children, adding that before the coronavirus crisis happened, the farmer had hoped to turn a profit this year for the first time.
The magistrates handed Gammon an 18-month driving ban alongside a six-week jail term, suspended for 18 months.
He will have to take an extended driving test to get his driving licence back, and was also ordered to pay £85 in costs as well as a £122 victim surcharge.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- quadtodd 38 min 21 sec ago
And 3 of the 'workers' are just leaning!
- yellowjack 1 hour 9 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- yellowjack 1 hour 25 min ago
Sounds cool. I haven't taken an "unnecessary flight" since 1992. Flown many times since then for work, but you can't patrol the Iraqi desert, or...
- NOtotheEU 1 hour 49 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
- TheBillder 2 hours 45 min ago
I rented a car a few weeks ago, a Skoda Octavia (needed a big car for a weekend), and the ride was astonishingly good compared to my own 10 year...
- Sriracha 3 hours 42 min ago
Shimano were castigated for not bringing on new factories to meet pandemic demand, thus gumming up the supply chain. Their argument at the time was...
- Romanp 3 hours 52 min ago
I figured out a reason of that squeaking noise. I have xpresso 2 and 7, and also xpro 10 pedals, and that squeaking isn't present only at Xpresso 2...
- MichaelWinnerRIP 4 hours 53 min ago
Italian tourist and pussycat in Portugal.
Add new comment
34 comments
That headline… Escaping from jail is a crime, lock him up 😉
Quiz answer:
I don't understand
The car coming towards the camera also jumped the lights.
[Edit: might not have been obvious, because they didn't use 'reply', and then the comment ordering has got scrambled, but wtjs posted the 'quiz question' at the bottom of their other post.]
Ah, OK: that makes sense now, thanks
What's the betting he will ignore the ban?
Ignoring the court instructions is treating the court with contempt so it should be quite simple.
I would like to see a change in the conditions of a ban so that driving while disqualified comes with an assumption (dangerous word I know) that the ban has been ignored everyday since it started, and is therefore replaced with the same length of custodial sentence. So if this guy is caught driving in 17 months time he is automatically jailed for 18 months.
But they'd only ever find out he was ignoring the court's instructions if and when he has another collision or gets stopped for something else. There's no way of actually stopping him getting behind the wheel and driving to his heart's content.
And if he was stopped, and found to be driving while banned, all that is likely to happen is that he'd get another ban (I've seen Police Interceptors - it happens! John Thomson said it, so it must be true).
Agreed, thats why I say ot should be a pretty severe (and automatic) punishment if caught driving while disqualified. I like many would also like to see longer bans (and up to life time bans) and also past history taken into acount like a life time ban for 2nd (maybe 3rd) disqual.
Yep, repeat offenders seem to just get further bans as if that makes a difference.
Then you even get the odd few who just keep on having points added because their "sob story" is that it will cause suh a hard ship that they can't be without the car. But surely when they get uptp 62 penalty points, they are such a danger on the roads that no matter why, it should be banned for years.
It's all very well 'having a go' at a (bad) motorist but if the situation 'escalates' make sure you have an 'escape plan' if the 'red mist' descends and they decide to turn their car into a weapon (because, like it or not, a cyclist is more vulnerable). Minor injuries could have been 'major' and no payout will bring back a sentimental bike; despite the satisfaction that the justice system punished the motorist.
I hate people who misuse quote marks.
I suppose that Shades could have used italics or a different font, but I think they were going for the written version of using their fingers to make quotation marks in the air...
Yes; and I still hate it because it's stupid.
Reporting this hate crime to the police. Grammar bigotry must stop! Think about that when the police come knocking.
FTFY.
"F" "T" "F" "Y"
Gammon being, well, a gammon; why is there no picture? We definitely need that thorough review of road laws so that attacking someone with a car is viewed the same as any other attack with a deadly weapon; attempted murder, it isn't a driving offence, it is a an attack with a deadly weapon.
Another driver gets reduced punishment by claiming hardship; would someone using knife or a gun or a baseball bat get the same consideration?
It seems crazy that a review of road laws is even needed when you see this case, yet it is. Did the police/prosecution think they wouldn't win any sort of assault charge so they settled on a deal for dangerous driving? Was it to ensure a prosecution, to save money of a longer trial or because this force don't take motoring offences seriously (especially when the victim is a 'cyclist'). Gammon didn't fall below the levels of a competant driver, he used two tonnes of metal to try to injure someone. That's not poor driving, that's a deliberate assault, easily punishable by current laws.
But the poor bloke, he lives somewhere beautiful but remote and cares for sheep and takes water to animals. The prosecution should have mentioned that his beautiful area is a hotbed of the far-right and that the animals he is skipping around caring for like some bucolic Mother Teresa he'll soon chop up into pieces and sell, 6 months into their 12 year lifespan. All true and all equally as irrelevant as the way he is represented in mitigation.
Without any review of motoring laws, a charge of wounding or assault occasioning ABH could have been put before a magistrate and the sentence then could have been up to five years. If they thought it was more serious it should go to Crown Court. We could review the road laws or the police, the CPS and magistrates could be retrained to take any assaults seriously no matter what the weapon of choice is.
Was it to ensure a prosecution, to save money of a longer trial or because this force don't take motoring offences seriously (especially when the victim is a 'cyclist'). Gammon didn't fall below the levels of a competant driver, he used two tonnes of metal to try to injure someone. That's not poor driving, that's a deliberate assault, easily punishable by current laws
Correct- police officers don't take motoring offences against cyclists seriously. Neither do they take motorists crashing through red lights seriously when cycllists aren't involved, so I suppoose they would claim an equality and diversity compliant contempt for all traffic laws. We don't need any new laws, codes etc. when the police simply snigger behind their helmets at any suggestion of enforcement- the new consultation demanding 2 metres clearance from cyclists for all big buses and lorries?! They must be dying in droves of laughter, when they know we all have to put up with 0.5 m several times a day while they refuse to take action.
No police response to this offence- quiz question: this is the A6 at Garstang, Lancashire- as well as the obvious red Astra crashing the lights, where is the other offence happening at the same time?
i totally agree with all you mentioned.
However the three cases below shows it to be "it depends".
The car thief who ran over PC Phillips in Birmingham (story overshadowed as almost the same week as PC Harper), was initially charged with Attempted murder but they didn't proceed with that charge but he pled guilty to several others including GBH and Dangerous driving which was probably for PC Phillips. (he also punched other Police but they might have been the assault charges).
The geezer who deliberately drove at two doormen was sent to trial on attempted murder and GBH but was cleared by a jury (Even after seeing how planned and deliberate it was).
However in a similar vein the man who drove into a nightclub was found guilty of two cases of attempted murder at trial
Now personally I don't see much difference between both of the latter cases. Someone kicked out of a club and vowing revenge and taking out the revenge by deliberately driving a vehicle and only through luck not killing anyone and yet one is attempted murder and one is cleared. (I'm sure skin colour wouldn't be a deciding factor....) However it does show that deliberately using a car as a weapon is still not cut and dried even if the serious charges are applied in court.
They weren't cyclists.
What a brilliantly appropriate name!
Where's the payment for the destroyed bike?
Insurance I guess.
Good point
I do love the whining and moaning motorists do when it looks like there going to loss their license. If only he thought of that before using his vehicle as a weapon.
its a sick joke that a deliberately attack using a vehicle just gets a dangerous driving charge. If the driver had been an isis terrorist rather than just a Gammon driver (lol) would it just be a dangerous driving charge.
Farmers often have a need for a shotgun too, try shooting someone with that because of "Gammoney" arseness, and you are never getting that licence back, indeed, probably slightly more than a small suspended sentence.
I hope someone checks on his complience with the ban...
Yes, being in possession and threatening someone with a weapon is treated far more harshly than actually purposely injuring or killing with a vehicle.
Their you go, fixed that for you.
Pages