Driver avoids prison sentence after mowing down cyclist for 'riding over a bridge'

Obviously fucking not because simple-minded trolls like you are still here.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Reading between the lines, there's clearly more to this case than has been reported.

You are an utter moron, seeking to find some way in which intentionally driving a car into a person may be justified by some prior interaction between the two. On that basis the cyclist would be justified in going home to fetch a knife so he could stab the driver. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

People with no prior criminal history don't just randomly try to run people off the road, it doesn't make any sense. Judges don't hand out sentences like that given in the article without mitigation.

If it doesn't make any sense it isn't true.

The wording of the Judge's ruling implies that there was something serious going on in the guy's life. This isn't about not caring about cyclists. While this is an extremely light sentence, factors in mitigation play a significant part in sentences all of the time. No prior record and whatever else the judge mentions makes it seem likely that the driver went off because of something significant that was happening in his personal life and is unlikely to happen again.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you look at the bridge on Google maps it becomes clearer what has happened. The driver was probably someone like the character Michael Douglas played in Falling Down.......

That's as far as I got Nige, before you lost all credibility (yes I know everyone)

And you clearly didn't understand Falling Down.....

If you did get further you would have realised he also can't read English (even Road.cc's version) being as he couldn't see it reported that the driver initially slowed down in front of the cyclist causing them both to stop on the bridge. But even if that hadn't have happened, filtering could easily have applied and is no reason for a car to swerve across several lanes of traffic to intimidate and ultimately injure a cyclist or anyone else. 

As for the shared path, someone in the comments mentioned they were closed for work. Still trying to confirm that but in one story of recent closures on the bridge again it states:-

Quote:

“While cyclists are legally permitted to use the bridge traffic lanes, the opening of the south cantilever nearly twenty years ago was intended to provide them with a safer alternative for crossing the bridge. In offering these services we are doing our best to replicate the improved safety provided by the south cantilever and so, for this reason, we would strongly encourage cyclists to use this option during these works.”

. The option mentioned is a bus service, but as this is in the time of Covid, people might not be as willing to use that when they legally can use the bridge to the left hand turn the cyclist was taking when assaulted.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you look at the bridge on Google maps it becomes clearer what has happened. The driver was probably someone like the character Michael Douglas played in Falling Down - a good guy generally with a series of unfortunate events, with a possibly impertinent cyclist being one of them that he's unfortunately overreacted to. The judge may have taken that into account.

There are a couple of things that don't make sense or aren't pointed out in the story - the first is that the bridge is a dual carriageway-style toll bridge with a segregated walking and cycling lane, where cycles are prohibited 50 metres before the bridge starts, meaning a cyclist has deliberately ridden onto the dual carriageway ignoring the cycling and pedestrian lane. This may have led to the driver erroneously assuming the cyclist shouldn't have been no that section of the bridge.

The second is that the cyclist was apparently riding behind the car - why would the driver care about someone riding behind him unless he was doing something malevolent? Then all of a sudden later in the story, despite it not being reported that the cyclist over (or under?) took the car, it's reported that the driver cut across the road in front of the cyclist.

None of it makes sense, so unless we can see a full transcript of the case it's hard to speculate further other than what's already been written.

Let's suppose that the cyclist was acting like a wally, had held up the driver and maybe even hurled abuse at him. How does that in any way justify the driver using his car to knock the cyclist off into the stream of moving traffic where he could have easily been killed. Unless the cyclist had pulled a gun out and aimed it at the driver I cannot see any excuse for his actions. I appreciate that you're a troll seeking attention so I probably shouldn't even be replying to you. You need to seek help.

'...unfortunate events'?

' a good guy generally'?

'...possibly impertinent'?

'...unfortunately overreacted'?

'...doing something malevolent'?

He drove his car deliberately at an unprotected road user, with the very likely and entirely foreseeable consequence of death or serious injury (intended or unintended). Get real Nigel.

The road layout has sweet FA to do with it.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

possibly impertinent cyclist

impertinent
/ɪmˈpəːtɪnənt/

adjective
1. not showing proper respect

Does this reveal your prejudice, Nigel? Didn't show proper respect to his superior in the 4 wheeled vehicle? Because drivers are in some way worthy of respect from mere cyclists?

Quite how you cope with the dent to your self-esteem when you ride a bike (you told us that you do, I'm sure it's true) I do not know.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

There are a couple of things that don't make sense or aren't pointed out in the story - the first is that the bridge is a dual carriageway-style toll bridge with a segregated walking and cycling lane, where cycles are prohibited 50 metres before the bridge starts,

Theres a cycling/walking lane (closed when the street view car went through) but no prohbition for cyclists on the main carraigeway, if cycles were prohibited on the bridge there would be no need for further prohibition on entering the tunnel after then bridge when travelling west, as there could be no cyclists reaching that point.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

The second is that the cyclist was apparently riding behind the car - why would the driver care about someone riding behind him

Why indeed, just another driver keen to 'educate cyclists' on their own private interpretation of the highway code, like those that beep or flash you when riding two abreast when they are travelling in the opposite direction and there are no motor vehicles behind the cyclists.

People with no criminal history (note this may just mean never been caught before) do not randomly run people off the road, but they do obstruct cyclists frequently. The words were exchanged, I suspect it is the words that have led to the violent reaction.

People who attempt murder on the basis of words they recieve should recieve serious consequences in the court. People who use shotguns in this manner would not be allowed a shotgun licence at any point in the future, but in 12 months this angry man will be back behind the wheel putting the lives of others in danger for any percieved slight.

So, if the driver was unable to control his actions due to his situation, it would make sense to permanently ban him from driving until he can pass a psychological evaluation after the one year ban. However, this does not appear to be the case, so I question just how is public safety being addressed?

What is particularly troublesome is that he was 'triggered' by a law-abiding cyclist following the rules whereas everyday driving can include dealing with speeding and reckless behaviour by other drivers, so what assurance does the public have that he can cope with the stress of driving?

hawkinspeter wrote:

So, if the driver was unable to control his actions due to his situation, it would make sense to permanently ban him from driving until he can pass a psychological evaluation after the one year ban. However, this does not appear to be the case, so I question just how is public safety being addressed?

What is particularly troublesome is that he was 'triggered' by a law-abiding cyclist following the rules whereas everyday driving can include dealing with speeding and reckless behaviour by other drivers, so what assurance does the public have that he can cope with the stress of driving?

Agreed on all counts. Just pointing out that this is generally how sentencing works. I am curious as well -do you have plea deals over there? The light sentence may we'll be the fault of the prosecution, and not the judge.

The only deals (so to speak) is 1/3rd of the sentence if you plead guilty as early as possible. However I suspect there might be some discussion on "we will plead on Death by Careless Driving, but not on Death by Dangerous Driving" from the defence or "we will offer careless if you plead guilty" from the prosecution. If it wasn't it being public money, I would suspect high bonuses for saving money or having a high prosecution rate meaning more "lesser sentences" being pushed. 

So he may have also had his sentence reduced by plea? I'm a prosecutor in the states, and this happens regularly here.

So what happens when he is faced by external pressures in the future?

Is the claim that he wont get stressed and do something reckless or is the claim he won't face external pressures? Simply saying this particular external pressure won't re-occur does not take account of all the other things which can occur in the future.

Whatever was 'going on in this guy's life' only seemed to assert itself when he had a cyclist to bully/attack. He didn't randomly drive into any of the other cars  on the bridge because of a non-existent perceived slight. He must have passed plenty of pedestrians on his journey, yet they all escaped his ire. Notwithstanding any argument about cycle lanes, the fact that this cyclist (who the report states was behind him, not even impeding his progress) was such a trigger to his fragile psyche suggests that a permanent driving ban pending a psychiatric assessment would be the very minimum sanction.

If people decide that minor infractions or discourtesies warrant taking on the mantle of judge, jury and executioner (and I use the word 'executioner' advisedly) then they should have access to their chosen method of execution denied them, be it a machete, gun or motor vehicle.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

People with no prior criminal history don't just randomly try to run people off the road, it doesn't make any sense. Judges don't hand out sentences like that given in the article without mitigation.

If it doesn't make any sense it isn't true.

Yes they do. Many murderers, and attempted murderers have had no prior criminal history. A serial killer is likely to have no criminal history all the way through their murdering rampage else it would probably have stopped after the first murder. Judges do give out poor sentences all the time, especially when the victim is a cyclist. Many judges and law enforcement seem to have bigotry towards victims that ride bikes. If a cyclist injures a pedestrian, there is a raging mob demanding justice against the furious and wanton cyclists plaguing the streets. If a cyclist is injured by a driver, it is often referred to as an accident between the weapon and the victim and that cyclists need to be more careful or adhere to ficticious rules to keep them from being involved in such accidents (hi-viz, helmets, single file, road tax, etc.)

Nigel Garrage wrote:

People with no prior criminal history don't just randomly try to run people off the road, it doesn't make any sense. Judges don't hand out sentences like that given in the article without mitigation.

If it doesn't make any sense it isn't true.

I dare say it is normal behaviour for them. They just never got caught before

Muddy Ford wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Reading between the lines, there's clearly more to this case than has been reported.

You are an utter moron,.....

Flattering Nige will get you nowhere.

Which lines are you referring to?

Or is this just yet another trolling trip?

Are you suggesting that there is a clue to the lines we should read between in the road layout? Looking on google maps I see a shared path/cycle lane on one side(Cyclists dismount signs up when the googlemobile came through), a three lane carriageway wth prohibition signs for cyclists on the Western A38 approach (These probably only apply to the Saltash tunnel, as there are similar signs before the tunnel on the eastern end, but not before the bridge.), and a single lane carrageway going W - E from North Road. There is an advisory sign (blue) advising no cycles on the bridge, and directions to the cycle lane. I can't see any mandatory 'No Cycling' signs. As for the western approach from the A38, the mish mash of bus lanes, cycle paths and bizarre give way markings around the Bridge office and roundabout exits must be totally confusing to any out of towners.

I can see how it might be easy to end up on the single lane carriageway going W-E, and equally easy to miss the cycle path if you're approaching from the west on the A38.(Which, on reading the newspaper report may be what the victim did.)

 I certainly can't see any signs saying 'Cyclists who inadvertently end up on the bridge will be subject to summary justice meted out by drivers, ranging from shouted insults and thrown McDonalds milkshakes, to death or grievious bodily harm.'

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Reading between the lines, there's likely to be more to this case than has been reported, because a judge wouldn't hand out a sentence like this without mitigation.

Nige this is ridiculous even for you. There is no mitigation for this kind of premeditated action.

As for the idea no judge ever makes crass judgements - do you ever watch the news?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Reading between the lines, there's likely to be more to this case than has been reported, because a judge wouldn't hand out a sentence like this without mitigation.

You mean like the driver and the judge both being members of the same lodge or golf club?

ReCycling Dave wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Reading between the lines, there's likely to be more to this case than has been reported, because a judge wouldn't hand out a sentence like this without mitigation.

You mean like the driver and the judge both being members of the same lodge or golf club?

 

Aye, and does anyone remember the 8 year old girl who was "no angel'......

Clearly with his summing up,  the Judge is of the same opinion of most that the car is sentient and takes alot of the blame.

“You lost your temper and at some point your vehicle hit a cyclist."

Yes, while the defendent was busy losing his temper, the vehicle went and hit a cyclist. It feels unfair that it even went to court.

The CPS as well takes alot of culpability. They decided to prosecute against dangerous driving and not assault (not saying the latter would have got a prison sentence either with this judge though). Dangerous Driving by itself doesn't lead to alot unfortunately if you look at the sentencing guidelines. 

One plus point is it wasn't just under Careless which seems to be the norm charge from them. 

Although the aggravating factors should have been enough to see him into the sentencing thresholds for a jail term, he didn'ty even get that (although I'm sure it would have been suspended). 
 

Should have been on the cycle lane?

Why does he get to cross for free whilst I have to pay a toll? 

Another one of those lycra fiends with a war on the motorist, I think I will get my retaliatory attack in first?