Driver jailed after breaking cyclist’s nose in Leeds city centre attack

As I said below, maybe the cyclist was coming from Wellington Street and rather than going across and turning 90 degrees was cutting the corner, intending to join to cycle lane outside Back York Place, Wardell was driving up the right turn lane but seeing the cyclist coming down the adjacent lane decided to swerve at him to "teach him a lesson"? Sounds the sort of thing a five-time convicted thug would do.

You understand that his brief is obliged to try? The judge, in this case, rightly threw that all straight back:

The judge noted the potential hardship that Wardell’s family might suffer if he were given a custodial sentence, but told him: “You, however, are the author of their misfortune by being in the dock today.

“You should have had concern for your wife and child in the car before you got out and proceeded to batter seven bells out of a cyclist.

The clue was in the defence words "during the eight years prior to the assault, as well as in the two and a half years since then, his client had kept out of trouble."

Kind of begs the question: What happened 8 years and a day ago?

ooldbaker wrote:

The clue was in the defence words "during the eight years prior to the assault, as well as in the two and a half years since then, his client had kept out of trouble."

Kind of begs the question: What happened 8 years and a day ago?

I was wondering what sentence he got for his fifth assault - if he had been in prison for seven-and-a-half years and had only been out for six months then keeping out of trouble isn't much of a boast…

Runningwolf wrote:

  I also believe that as cyclists we have a duty, like other road users to follow the rules of the road, so the cyclist was wrong for cycling the wrong way along the road.  However there is never an excuse to use violence in cases like this.    

It's a bi-directional cycle lane, so they weren't cycling the wrong way.

the little onion wrote:

It's a bi-directional cycle lane, so they weren't cycling the wrong way.

Pure speculation but I suspect what happened was that the cyclist was coming from the T-junction which stands about where the photograph above was taken and was cutting across diagonally to the cycle lane rather than riding across the junction and turning 90° left into it. Not best practice, but the fact that Wardell is described as driving his car at him would indicate that he wasn't even in his way, he made a positive decision to go out of his way to drive as a cyclist.

eburtthebike wrote:

Any chance road.cc getting in touch with a few of the shock jocks who have fomented this attitude, like Cristo the cretin, and asking if they feel the tiniest bit responsible for this egregious assault?

Sadly, that will just give them more ammunition and opportunity to cement and air their noxious opinions.

Road.cc would be better getting in touch with Cristo et al, via its paramilitary wing, and removing any evidence of him/them ever having existed.

Yes it seems Wardell hadn't got it figured out. If you get out of your car and hit someone you break the states monopoly on the use of violence. If on the other hand you run them over, 'by accident', whilst they cycle the wrong way on a one way street, then the judge may take the view that 'by the grace of God go I.'

A very good point.
Intent must be established.
And the reason why road cyclists must always wear a camera. Front and back.

Road cyclists.
Wear a camera. Always.

Fignion's ghost wrote:

A very good point. Intent must be established. And the reason why road cyclists must always wear a camera. Front and back. Road cyclists. Wear a camera. Always.

All for marginal gains and all but if you do so know why you are doing this.  The main benefit is the ability to review your own rides.  The possible other benefits are not a given and may not come to you but other cylists / road users.  That's because a) crashes, close passes and other violence - the bad thing has already occurred to you. b) It assumes the camera recorded the incident e.g. you'd charged it and it captured some relevant images with sufficient clarity and didn't get rendered useless in a crash. c) The case has to come to court - obvious, you might think... d) If so footage will be challenged in court of course - timestamps, where this happened, chain of custody, can you really see who's driving etc. e) Even in what appear to be open-and-shut cases to us cycling keyboard warriors judges and juries have repeatedly said "no case to answer".

So as long as you're aware of all the above and willing to make the investment and effort then yes - the nation's road users ought to thank you!

Sadly, had Wardell just stayed in his car and run him over, he would probably have got off more lightly.

My guess; family breakdown, lack of upbringing, lack of parents, a succession of parents/carers, role models who behave the same way. No idea if any of that applies in this case, but I see it daily and it's tragic.

Sriracha wrote:

My guess; family breakdown, lack of upbringing, lack of parents, a succession of parents/carers, role models who behave the same way. No idea if any of that applies in this case, but I see it daily and it's tragic.

You may well be right in which case Mr Wardell is also a victim. However custodial sentences are there in order to protect the public and Mr Wardell is clearly a danger to the public. As such I think a heavier sentence is clearly merited. As to any hardship his family might incur, to be honest I imagine the judge is doing them a favour. 

I was not trying to excuse Mr Wardell his sentence, only trying to answer your question.
Edit "the question" (with thanks to wtjs)

I have done a 'like' for balance, but it wasn't his question

Sriracha wrote:

I was not trying to excuse Mr Wardell his sentence, only trying to answer your question. Edit "the question" (with thanks to wtjs)

I didn't think you were (trying to excuse Mr Wardell his sentence, or his behaviour I imagine, just trying to understand how is that people can behave in such an anti-social manner)   

iandusud wrote:

However custodial sentences are there in order to protect the public and Mr Wardell is clearly a danger to the public.

Custodial sentences are not there to protect the public, they are an out-dated, disproven petty revenge by society on the criminals we manage to catch.  The recidivism rate is enormous because prisons don't reform, but they might train them to be better criminals.