[Closed] School Run driver runs into teacher

Re. the "sat on the bonnet" thing, if you watch closely, the car does move (slowly) into the back of his legs - you'll have all had someone kick the back of your knees out at some point in your lives and you know how that proceeds, simple physics at play. If you want to be overly critical of the teacher, at worst you might judge that when the car nudged his legs he might have been overly willing to let himself fall back onto the bonnet.

Personally that's not how it looks but I'll concede the possibility he didn't do his utmost to avoid falling backwards. Even if he did though, that's not unreasonable imho as in that situation, a car pressing into the back of his legs (I repeat, you can see the car move into him on the video BEFORE he "sits" on the car) what do you do? Let yourself fall backwards onto the bonnet as he might have, or try not to and then what? The car's still coming, if you're not on top of it there's a decent chance you're going under it...

Just for context and because I haven't seen it mentioned yet, the driver wasn't insured to drive the car and also it was sans MOT.

For further context there was previous between the protagonists, on a previous occasion the guy had ignored the teacher's instruction that he wasn't allowed into the (staff) car park and had driven past him. This is perhaps relevant to why the teacher physically stood blocking the driver's path.

In my view the appropriate charge for deliberately driving into a pedestrian and then intentionally accelerating with them sprawled on your bonnet is attempted murder.

stevextc - sounds to me like you own a black Golf with a dint on the bonnet.

stevextc - Member

and out of these people vilifying "car people" how many own cars and choose to drive to some trails???

Well that's a whole other issue - my nearest trail network is 25 miles away now. My point was that people become detached from themselves when you put them behind the wheel. All that matters is their journey and their car and quite often their sense of aggression or entitlement seems proportional to the size of their car/ inversely proportional to their own physical capabilities.

[quote=jimjam ]You're categorising "car people" in the same way others would do to "cyclists". That mk3 golf convertible makes me very dubious that the driver in the clip was any kind of car person. Same as the pensioner in the Vauxhaul Mokka who deliberately rammed me (on my bike) at the traffic lights.
Granted there is an over reliance on cars but people who like cars are no more or no less likely to use one aggressively. When I used to commute by bike the people who used to cut in or punishment pass were often mute when you caught up with them.

You're completely missing the point. There might not be a homogeneous group of "car people", but there are sufficient numbers of people driving cars with a sense of entitlement (I'm tempted to suggest a majority of drivers) to make it worth dealing with them as a group. Those who aren't an issue aren't an issue and such things wouldn't apply to them. In the context of wilburt's comment the bloke in the video and the pensioner who rammed you are "car people" - he's not referring to people who are into cars, but people who drive cars. Sure those who like cars are probably less of a problem (though possibly more likely to get aggressive at somebody sitting on their bonnet after they've nudged them), but there really is a pervasive general problem in our society regarding the attitudes to car use. It's so ingrained you don't even notice it and think things are normal.

It's nothing at all like the way cyclists are lumped together - that's used as an excuse to endanger cyclists because you once saw somebody completely different jump a red light on a bike.

edit: ah, seeing your latest post it looks like you agree with us. I don't think most of us are in huge disagreement on this point, there's just been a bit lost in translation.

No it's not attempted murder, there was pretty much no chance of killing the teacher and no indication that the driver was actually trying to do so. But given that the driver was already driving illegally, hardly any point just handing out the ban that some were suggesting.

I find it interesting how often these 'just a minor driving incident' people actually have a string of offences to their name. Normal, generally law-abiding, people don't do these things. Edit: even if they do sometimes exceed the speed limit when they think it's safe to do so 🙂

When I was my sons age I walked to school with my little brother... now that is forbidden and you'd find yourself in front of child protection before you could blink...

Bollocks. I often let my eldest daughter (7) cycle to school by herself while I walk her little sister.

Both parents working full time is a reality for most unless you live off handouts...

We don't.

Quite honestly my employer would simply put you on a redundancy list of you even mentioned flexi-time...

Then you'd live off the subsequent tribunal payments quite nicely.

You are entitled to ask your employer for flexible working and they must deal with such requests in a reasonable manner:
https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working

Last year we made a loss on OH actually working.

So.. quitting the job and/or moving to a part-time position would have been better?

and exactly what aracer is talking about here
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/never-read-the-comments-driving-idiots-content
Tax, Insurance and licensing along with can't I just run them over?

+1. The teacher made that situation a whole lot worse with his behaviour

By standing there and being hit by the car? Naughty teacher!

Maybe just get rid of the school entirely and turn it into a car park?

thecaptain - Member

No it's not attempted murder, there was pretty much no chance of killing the teacher and no indication that the driver was actually trying to do so.

He flies off the bonnet, cracks his skull and dies/has life changing injuries. Very real chance of death or brain trauma when your head meets tarmac.

edit: ah, seeing your latest post it looks like you agree with us. I don't think most of us are in huge disagreement on this point, there's just been a bit lost in translation.

Pretty much, I just don't see the label "car people" as being of any use when a huge number of people use cars and often act like dicks.

He flies off the bonnet, cracks his skull and dies/has life changing injuries. Very real chance of death or brain trauma when your head meets tarmac.

thecaptain - Member

No it's not attempted murder, there was pretty much no chance of killing the teacher and no indication that the driver was actually trying to do so.

Stop trying to defend someone who clearly doesn't deserve a licence if they have a tantrum when told they can't do something.
*edit* beaten by jondoh

johndoh - Member

You need to read up on the legal requirements to bring a murder charge. If the teacher was killed it would be manslaughter.

I'm sure that would be of great comfort to his loved ones 😆

Has anyone mentioned those two kids that almost had their faces ripped off as he whizzed past.

Shocking

Edit : D'ya know - I actually feel quite dirty having used a popular STW meme.

There doesn't have to be a "solution" to this as the roads are clearly hatched, marked, lined etc. Those are the traffic regulations, the fact they don't suit entitled parents is neither here nor there. Even if they did allocate money for a turning/drop off point parents would just abuse it, based on current experiences looking out my classroom window at a secondary.I am not impartial though as I am speaking as somebody who's 75yo (at the time)Dad got his hip broken by somebody who had parked in his drive,20m from a school. And anybody saying he jumped onto the bonnet needs to catch on to themselves, the car nudges him from behind.

Supposed the teacher was thrown off and smacked his head on a kerb (like that lady who walked in front of the cyclist in London was hit by the bike and hit her head before dying later) suffering massive head trauma?

Should've been wearing helmets shouldn't they?*

*Not really

I'd go for a copper in plain clothes, or make it law that people can be summarily fined for eg stopping on the zigzgs on the basis of photo evidence.

Great idea from jonv, I'd love to seen that.

As with Johndoh I normally park up in a nearby car park and then walk in from there, then back to the car to drive to work (Park'nStride they call it). Lots of other parents could do it, but they prefer to park on the zig-zags..... 👿

Currently not driving (broken collar bone) so its get up early and a 3/4 hour walk through the woods in their wellies to get to school, wouldn't want to do it in the pouring rain though..........

thecaptain is right though, it wouldn't be attempted murder as for that I'm fairly sure there has to be an intention to kill. I'm not seeing anybody here actually attempting to defend the driver, simply being realistic about the possible charges - from what I read he was convicted of an assault charge, and all the other appropriate offences. He doesn't appear to have committed any crimes he wasn't convicted for.

The comparison with Charlie Alliston is a good one - thanks for giving me the excuse to do the comparison! I agree that the different outcome in these two cases was purely down to luck. Yes, the teacher could have died in this case, I doubt his impact with the ground was any less severe than the pedestrian's in the other case. Which does make me ponder the difference in sentencing given that really sentencing should be based upon actions not outcomes and I don't see how this driving was in reality less of a crime than Charlie's riding.

Surprised that folk haven't gone semi-vigilante and setup "You park like a ****" Facebook pages for each school yet

I'm sure that would be of great comfort to his loved ones

Agree it's not "Attempted Murder" but the teacher could have easily have been killed or seriously injured. Looked like he was pretty close to going under the front wheel of the car at one point.

But we know it's largely okay to use a vehicle as a weapon in this country (except a fixie) and the social media comments show that plenty of people thought the driver was entirely justified (and some of those people may serve on a jury).

[quote=duckman ]based on current experiences looking out my classroom window at a secondary.

Teacher or pupil?

They should be walking by themselves. No kids do though

I cycled past a whole load of kids walking to school this morning.

By themselves.

Just saying.

OTOH ours wouldn't walk to school, too young, crap roadside walk with traffic. When they're at "big school" they get bussed in from where we are.

The sad thing is, as I've already said, there's so much parking within 100/200 metres. But the driver didn't want to know. All the parents are regularly told this, but some choose to ignore it.

crap roadside walk with traffic. When they're at "big school" they get bussed in from where we are.

Same here.

But good to hear there are kids are still getting to primary school by themselves. Presumably this was a less car-dominated environment?

[quote=GrahamS ]But we know it's largely okay to use a vehicle as a weapon in this country (except a fixie) and the social media comments show that plenty of people thought the driver was entirely justified (and some of those people may serve on a jury).

I do like to think that comments on social media usually show the views of a minority - even on drivers vs cyclists stories. However I'm not so sure in this case that there aren't a lot of otherwise well adjusted people thinking the teacher deserved it for sitting on the bonnet - there appear to be a few on here (even if some of those are usual suspects). And you're right, those are the people sitting on juries 😡

In a spectacularly atypical fit of accidental joined up thinking, our primary school was built right next to a Supermarket and a pedestrian gate knocked through from the car park to the school.

The school benefit massively from a massive car park which is usually empty at peak school times and the supermarket benefits from all the parents who just nip in and buy a few things whilst they're already parked in the car park.

legend - Member

Go on, try and hide your need to be offended just a little bit

🙄 I'm going to send a link to this thread to Rainer Schoeman's twitter account

I don't see how this driving was in reality less of a crime than Charlie's riding.

Worse I'd say. This was a very deliberate action with intent to harm.

From what I know of the Charlie Alliston case it was an unfortunate accident that was exacerbated by his illegal lack of brakes (and more so by being a cock).

So whilst driving your vehicle,

If you want to stop, but can't, that's really bad

If you don't want to stop but can, that's not so bad?

uselesshippy - Member

The sad thing is, as I've already said, there's so much parking within 100/200 metres. But the driver didn't want to know. All the parents are regularly told this, but some choose to ignore it.

My daughter's last school was such a massive shit show the PSNI were called by the school on several occasions. Generally the aggression, speeding and dodgy or illegal parking mellowed out for a day or two but as soon as the cops went away the behavior ratcheted back up again. I walked my daughter to the school every single day rain hail or shine but to my amazement the neighbours accross the road used to drive, and their neighbours too. More often than not I would be home and sitting on the sofa to watch them arrive home in their cars. People's behaviour sometimes defies logic.

However I'm not so sure in this case that there aren't a lot of otherwise well adjusted people thinking the teacher deserved it for sitting on the bonnet

I don't think they are otherwise well-adjusted at all. I think they are aggressive entitled ****wits. Like I said, a lot of people who do these sort of thing already have a string of offences to their name.

But we know it's largely okay to use a vehicle as a weapon in this country (except a fixie) and the social media comments show that plenty of people thought the driver was entirely justified (and some of those people may serve on a jury).

More optimistically, in this case, a jury convicted the driver. I know that some of us, when discussing the Charlie Alliston case, complained about unequal treatment. Perhaps if we see more juries willing to convict drivers and some harsher penalties applied, then we will be able to revise that opinion.

Presumably this was a less car-dominated environment?

Yes and no.

No in that the Schools are on a main road, lots of traffic, but with wide pavements and plenty pedestrian crossings and the odd lollipop lady/gentleman.

Yes in that nearby pedestrian access to various housing estates is all low volume low speed traffic.

The most dangerous bit is probably the school gate.

It certainly seemed pretty dangerous in that CCTV footage!

I know that some of us, when discussing the Charlie Alliston case, complained about unequal treatment.

Seems odd to do so, he was riding like an entitled dick in a not dissimilar entitled manner to this driver driving like an entitled dick.

Neither sentence seems unreasonable, which is nice.

@mrmonkfinger - sounds mostly alright then. I think I would be happy with that. Our is a journey that includes a stretch of very narrow pavement next to a busy 40mph (so lots at 50mph) road. Even the school entrance is on a 40mph road.

Sorry steve, I've ignored you before as I thought I needed to actually check the situation before commenting given you're clearly a local. So I'll attempt to answer lots of your points now. I'm not seeing huge amounts of wasted space at this school, where do you think there is some? Similarly the amount of parking looks just about sufficient for staff at a secondary school - there certainly isn't anywhere near enough spare to enable parents to use it, and nor do you want typical entitled driving parents mixing it on school property with kids cycling. The trouble with a drop off area is that it will just immediately become full of people parking, so unless it's big it won't do much good. As I wrote, typical schools don't have huge amounts of spare space, and if they do they don't have much money and land is valuable...

There does already appear to be parking on Inkerman way? What is the problem with that (apart from that the drivers presumably find it inconvenient to get to given it's dead ended)? The crematorium is an interesting suggestion, but I'm sure it's not all that simple to take land from there, and if it was land is valuable and councils don't have much money... What's wrong with the parking at the tennis courts?

Inkerman is now residents only I think (from memory being a dead end I don't go down it) after the locals presumably complained about parents parking .. it doesn't NEED to be a dead end... [b]it's just lack of joined up thinking...[/b]

As I said none would allow a supermarket to be built without provision for parking...
Our local big Sainsbury's (other side of that school) for example has to provide parking.. it's also on bus routes but the planners insist on provision of parking.
The new school currently being built on the A320 to Guildford is being built WITHOUT but also on the premise that everyone lives in central woking and will be able to walk down the nice green space they are creating...

The actual parking at our kids school just down the road is designated residents only from 8AM to 9AM ... specifically preventing it being used... the local pub used to let parents park but then got all HSSE ... but really they need a drop-off not parking... if you look in satellite view there is loads of space that is trees... regrettable to cut them down but better than a kid being killed.

Though all this is a load of whataboutery. Generally the reason problems occur isn't because it's not possible for drivers to do the right thing, but because they can't be bothered. We don't have a bad parking problem at our local school, but where people are idiots it's because they can't be bothered walking another 200m from the designated parking at the local Chinese restaurant which always has space.

Last year was a nightmare... OH was working as a supply teacher ... and the most stressful part of our lives was constantly working out how Jnr got to/from school.. Neither of our families are from anywhere close... but we had a terrible week to week existance and it cost us more than OH earned.

Anyway... the point is [b]they don't need parking they need a drop off zone... [/b]if they make it first 5 minutes free then charge by the minute after I'm sure it would encourage people to just drop off...
There are doubtless some parents who saunter in in Range Rovers then drive back to let the cleaner in... but that wouldn't be the typical profile for this school, rather most of the parents are dropping off the kids then have to drive to work.

What's more, the school in question is a secondary school. Kids don't need escorting into the school (I no longer escort my Y6 son). Either they can make their own way so avoiding driving altogether (how far are people coming from - our local high schools have kids walking/cycling from several miles away, it's 5 miles for us and there is a bus?), or there are plenty of places where parents can drop them off within easy walking distance, no need for a specific drop off spot.

This is a specialist school for depending on your take the academically challenged or athletically gifted.
Based on current athletic performance there is no reason Jnr couldn't go except he won't because its a non academic school... however the catchment is pretty large for kids who are gifted at sports but challenged academically... it is however in a bit of a nightmare location for anyone to get to.

I've driven much further than you to go to Swinley (far enough it really was impractical to cycle). I also often enough drive places that are within cycling distance. However it's not specifically the driving I have an issue with - it's the being an arse with driving there and parking when you get somewhere. I'm sure you're not going to be an arse so I don't see what you think the problem is.

I don't have a problem paying my £2 or £4 at Swinley... but though we could cycle it is far from simple and we'd lose half a day's cycling... but we are [b]choosing[/b] to go to Swinley (or elsewhere) ... We don't *need* to... but imagine the chaos if Swinley had no parking? (It can be bad enough as it is but at least they planned it)

As NickC said... (and this doesn't need to be applied to the specific driver in the post) the combination makes for normally reasonable people acting unreasonably and like dicks...

Its all about perspective... to me the idiots walking their dog along designated cycling trails are acting like dicks.. to them we are acting like dicks going round as fast as we can...why don't we just ride round at a leisurely and safe pace? I had a terrifying near incident on the bottom of red 25 with a fluffy terrier thing attacking my bike... I bunny hopped the thing but realistically I should have actually just ploughed through it from my own safety perspective... the landing was not as bad as it could have been but it was also pretty close to serious injury... I was pretty shocked at the time and stopped only to be verily assaulted by the dogs owner calling me a "dick" (and plenty of other choice words)
From yours or my perspectivce I can't think of a more stupid place to let a dog that attacks bikes run free... the fact there has only been one death on red 25 is quite possibly more luck than anything... as its got a lot of potential for bad things to happen. You and I both know that my ability to change direction in mid-air is very limited... from the dog owners perspective why are we going so fast we leave the ground...??? if we must cycle then why can't we do it at <5mph....

I'm no expert on ground nesting birds but I really don't think bikers sticking to trails will actually make much difference... presumably they just nest further from the actual trail... however I also think we are incredibly lucky Crown Estates even let us cycle, let alone let the pixies build trails...so I class those ignoring the closed trails as "dicks"... I tend to agree it won't have a impact on ground nesting birds but regardless it could see us all banned.

Was the dog owner being a "dick" ..?? IMHO yes... but outside this stressful (and self created IMHO) situation she might be a lovely person... she just doesn't understand why we want to not only cycle fast but do it off roads... though I suspect on her DRIVE home the dog sits on the front seat and barks at the selfish cyclists on the roads.... 👿

to my amazement the neighbours accross the road used to drive, and their neighbours too. More often than not I would be home and sitting on the sofa to watch them arrive home in their cars.

Yup. We pass one of my daughter's friends houses on our walk to school and regularly say hello as she is being bundled into the car, only to say hello again at the school as she is being bundled back out the car.

Just checked on Google Maps, from her house to the school gate is a distance of 321 metres by foot!

(and yes, they are able-bodied)

aracer - Member

duckman » based on current experiences looking out my classroom window at a secondary.

Teacher or pupil?

Posted 33 minutes ago # Report-Post

Chapeau...knob! 🙂

However I'm not so sure in this case that there aren't a lot of otherwise well adjusted people thinking the teacher deserved it for sitting on the bonnet

I don't think its so binary ....
The driver was certainly in the wrong but the teacher sitting on the bonnet (which is what I see in the video) was never going to end well.

In many ways this is similar to the people who deliberately try and incite cars who they decide are breaking the speed limit passing them. Just because the other person is in the wrong is not a reason to make the situation worse.

You don't need to excuse the drive to have an opinion that the teacher inflamed the situation and as a teacher should be better at conflict resolution,

Nice chop down the schools nature area to make a car park..... I live down raglan road, the parents turn up very early, so you need a car park, not a picking up place.
Alternatively, you could use raglan road, Inkerman way, neither have parking restrictions, or, use the pub car park 200 metre away.
If we carry on in this car obsessed manner, we will have no fields, only car parks.

When I was my sons age I walked to school with my little brother... now that is forbidden and you'd find yourself in front of child protection before you could blink...

I appreciate it is potentially worse in Englandshire where people tend not to go to the nearest school, and instead fight to get into the "best" school, then spend their mornings rushing through busy traffic to get the darlings there..

How far away do you live from school that little Jonny simply HAS to be driven there and dropped off? Most primary schools aren't more than a mile away, walk it! A girl at my primary school moved further away but wanted to stay at the school so caught two trains and a bus each day, and in the early 80's when the dangers were higher despite what you read in the daily rags and on social media.

In this case it was a secondary school, what's wrong with kids getting themselves to school these days!? The best part of the school day was gooning about with my mates on the way to and from school. I'd wager there are very few instances where driving is the only option.

Before you put too much effort into defending idiot drivers, perhaps you should see the memorial just up the road to the young child run over by a speeding driver.

[i]You don't need to excuse the drive to have an opinion that the teacher inflamed the situation and as a teacher should be better at conflict resolution[/i]

Ah balls, I wasn't gonna join in. The teacher did all they needed to do.
Watch the video again and see at which point he "sits on the bonnet". It should never have got to that situation and conflict resolution should never have been required. I drive up to school gates. A CHILD is there saying "You can't come in this way, you have to park elsewhere", I drive away. (This has happened).

GrahamS - Member

Yup. We pass one of my daughter's friends houses on our walk to school and regularly say hello as she is being bundled into the car, only to say hello again at the school as she is being bundled back out the car.

Just checked on Google Maps, from her house to the school gate is a distance of 321 metres by foot!

(and yes, they are able-bodied)

wiganer - Member

How far away do you live from school that little Jonny simply HAS to be driven there and dropped off?

We were in the 4-500m range. There was one other parent who seemed to walk a similar distance but that's about it. If I had to guess I would say 200 metres is about the upper limit of what people will walk. Even if that means a few minutes loading the kids into the car, 5-10 minutes of fighting traffic to park as close as possible to the door, unloading the kids, the 5-10 minutes (at least) fighting traffic then driving home.

Inkerman is now residents only I think (from memory being a dead end I don't go down it) after the locals presumably complained about parents parking .. it doesn't NEED to be a dead end... it's just lack of joined up thinking...

You don't need to excuse the drive to have an opinion that the teacher inflamed the situation and as a teacher should be better at conflict resolution,

Watch the shadow of the car's front left corner, comparative to the painted white arrow - the car is nudging forward, the teacher only "sits" on the bonnet because the car is pushing the back of his legs.

You don't need to excuse the drive to have an opinion that the teacher inflamed the situation and as a teacher should be better at conflict resolution,

The judge says you're wrong. Try reading the thread.

Yup. We pass one of my daughter's friends houses on our walk to school and regularly say hello as she is being bundled into the car, only to say hello again at the school as she is being bundled back out the car.

Does that parent then go back to the house or carry on to work?

In our case, the parent then carries on to work. It takes him the same amount of time as walking, and costs him £10 to park his car all day. Utter madness.

Nice chop down the schools nature area to make a car park..... I live down raglan road, the parents turn up very early, so you need a car park, not a picking up place.

Alternatively, you could use raglan road, Inkerman way, neither have parking restrictions, or, use the pub car park 200 metre away.

If we carry on in this car obsessed manner, we will have no fields, only car parks.

A bit of planning and joined up thinking would go a long way.
They are building the new Hoe Valley school on a complete greenfield site... but from the planning they have made no provision for drop offs...

Parking takes no extra space really... that is parked cars take up the ams space wherever they are...
I live on Westfield Av and every weekend we have the football parking... which is now enforced non-parking .. and results in loads of people double parked and wandering dangerously down the road.

Personally I can't stand football... but I can't see why they can't create parking over by the leisure centre ..
It could easily have been part of the millions spent on the flood defences.
We are actually blessed with a lot of free space round Woking... however its mostly difficult to access.

Last weekend we DROVE to Horsell to do some XC laps... and we drive to Goldsworth park once a term for the kids XC... because its next to impossible to get from Westfield to Horsell safely with a 8yr old on a bike! If I was alone I wouldn't dream of driving to go to Horsell... but with the roads and a kid it's a different matter.

We have lots of common .. but the parking is terrible and they just closed one car park except for "friends of the common"... a few small car parks isn't going to materially impact how much common we have but it is going to make them more accessible.

You think you can't use it but haven't checked, for a reason you're not sure about. I'd have a look into that, if I were you, might be a great place to drop your little one off.

I very much hope my kid will not be so academically challenged as to have to attend that school.

Wow. What would you have done to resolve the conflict?
Watch the shadow of the car's front left corner, comparative to the painted white arrow - the car is nudging forward, the teacher only "sits" on the bonnet because the car is pushing the back of his legs.

That's not what I saw in the video...

Just checked on Google Maps, from her house to the school gate is a distance of 321 metres by foot!

I can beat that. Our local school has someone who drives from under 200m away. And then parks at the shop which is half way to let their kids out. At which point they are finally unglued from the ipad/pod/phone.

Yes, dicks, if I may adopt the colloquialisms of this thread.

edit {nearly got sucked in}

I might have done the same thing, in the driver's position. If someone sits on my car, I take it they're looking for a ride.

Knob by name, knob by nature?

That's not what I saw in the video...

I refer you to the judge's remarks.

In our case, the parent then carries on to work. It takes him the same amount of time as walking, and costs him £10 to park his car all day. Utter madness.

That's not what I saw in the video..

Me neither - But it's irrelevant!

Some people (ie those in company cars) have to have their car onsite during the day though (ie, if someone else needs to use it even if the keeper doesn't need it).

It's not a company car.

[quote=ransos]I refer you to the judge's remarks.

Irrelevant I have a pair of eyes and I can watch the video and the teacher deliberately sits on the bonnet.
On the EDITED BBC version this is at 18.5-19 seconds, the car isn't moving and the bonnet goes down when he sits on it...

I have no idea what the judge decided happened but from the video he very clearly sat on a stationary car.

That doesn't excuse the driver then setting off... but it is not the headline that was reported.

It's not a company car.

It's not a company car.

Car allowance innit.

Does that parent then go back to the house or carry on to work?

Varies.

But they work at the pub which is only ~700 metres from their house by road. So...

Irrelevant I have a pair of eyes and I can watch the video and the teacher deliberately sits on the bonnet.

It was established in court that you are wrong.

Nah, just watched it full screen on my 27" monitor, rather than my phone.

The car does inch forward, but the teacher isn't nudged onto the bonnet. He chooses to sit on it as his response. (Presumably because he has had trouble with this guy before, who apparently went around him last time this happened).

That said: I'm firmly of the belief that even if the teacher had decided to smash the guys headlights in, driving at him is not a reasonable sane response. But some folk clearly seem to believe that merely touching a car is justifiable grounds for assault.

[quote=stevextc ]Irrelevant I have a pair of eyes and I can watch the video and the teacher deliberately sits on the bonnet.
On the EDITED BBC version this is at 18.5-19 seconds, the car isn't moving and the bonnet goes down when he sits on it...

I suggest you watch again very carefully. I had similar thoughts to you when I first posted this, before I'd read the reports of what had been said in court, though it was clear to me even at that stage that the teacher had been nudged by the car before he sat down. However I've now watched it a few times more - if you look at the movement of the car and of the teacher's legs, there is continuous motion from when the car nudges him until he ends up on the bonnet. Not only that, but it's his left leg (the one which the car hits) which goes first. It's arguably ambiguous whether he sat because the car knocked his legs away or he deliberately sat, but certainly far from sufficient evidence in that video that the judge was wrong.

Not that it makes the slightest difference - in the circumstances nothing the teacher did was at all unreasonable.

edit @graham - watch really closely looking at the movement of the car and the legs - the car is clearly moving at the point the teacher's left leg starts to bend.

On the EDITED BBC version this is at 18.5-19 seconds, the car isn't moving...

Oh ffs! From what I saw "sit on the bonnet" was about the 5th thing he tried to get rid of the tosser in the car! I said it before - it should never have bloody got that far - any semi-reasonable person would've been gone.

The unedited video:

go full screen, FFWD to 30s and watch the movement of the car and the legs

edit @graham - watch really closely looking at the movement of the car and the legs - the car is clearly moving at the point the teacher's left leg starts to bend.

Yeah I'd say the car probably touches his left leg.

And in response to that he looks left toward the driver, then turns to his right and sits down.

He's not knocked onto the bonnet. He makes a choice. Not a very wise one in my book, in terms of deescalating the situation, but I can understand where it comes from.

it should never have bloody got that far - any semi-reasonable person would've been gone.

Quite.

go full screen, FFWD to 30s and watch the movement of the car and the legs

And use the cog to drop to x0.25 speed

[quote=GrahamS ]And use the cog to drop to x0.25 speed

I did wonder about suggesting that, but I reckon going that slow is deceptive as it makes the motion less obvious (I had thought about capturing stills, but I don't think that would help at all!) What you might be missing is that the car nudges forwards twice first at 30-31s on that video and appears to contact the teacher's legs as there is a slight movement but he stays standing. Then again a second or so later it nudges forwards again slightly, which is when the left leg bends as the car is moving. It honestly is very hard to see, so I can understand why people are missing it.

I'm quite happy to take the judges word on this one - I'm sure if it was possible to say for sure that sitting on the bonnet was intentional the defence would have provided the evidence for that. Though I think most of the sensible people on here also agree that it's utterly irrelevant whether or not he deliberately sat.

I see the leg contact, but watching it at x0.25 you also see him turn his head slightly to left in the direction of the car before turning to his right and sitting down.

It's those turns, plus the little pause before the car moves off, and keeping his hands in his pockets, that suggest to me that he deliberately sat down.

Be interesting to see a court transcript on that I think.

think most of the sensible people on here also agree that it's utterly irrelevant whether or not he deliberately sat.

Totally.

As I posted a couple of pages ago I'm in the driven into, legs buckled camp but I'd concede a possibility that he MIGHT not have tried terribly hard to not let that cause him to fall onto the bonnet - kinda like one of those dodgy tackles in football that the player might have managed to stay on his feet if he didn't think the ref. was looking.

On my "attempted murder" suggestion, IANAL but my understanding of what would constitute this is a bit different from what others have suggested regarding intent - based on reports of previous convictions, I believe that for example, going out with a knife, and then getting into a fight and the resultant stabbing causing death would be sufficient - you don't have to prove that the culprit went out with a knife with the premeditated intention of killing someone with it.

And furthermore, the "joint enterprise" thing - if you go out looking for trouble, and one of your mates brought a knife along and they use it to stab someone to death in the trouble, you're culpable too for that murder (yes, I know that this is a contentious area, but that's been the situation and people have been convicted on that basis).

The guy flew off the bonnet and needed the back of his head gluing - given that the accelerating-into-the-carpark-with-teacher-on-bonnet bit was undeniably an intentional act, if that had resulted in death, which it easily could have, I would think a murder charge would have been distinctly possible?

Although you might not intend to cause death, deliberately driving a car into someone is something that you could reasonably foresee would be likely to cause death or serious harm, no?

Like I say, IANAL, I'd be really interested if any lawyers here could clarify the position on that one?

[quote=GrahamS ]I see the leg contact, but watching it at x0.25 you also see him turn his head slightly to left in the direction of the car before turning to his right and sitting down.

I still reckon watching it on slow is deceptive, because I'm struggling to see the second nudge at that speed - yes he does turn his head to the left after the first nudge (hadn't spotted that before, was watching the legs) which suggests very strongly that it had made contact at that point. But there's a very small second nudge after he turned his head. The second nudge is very hard to spot and if you've not yet spotted it you need to watch again as it changes everything IMHO.

He does look like he's not trying very hard not to sit down, but that's not quite the same thing.

plus the little pause before the car moves off, and keeping his hands in his pockets

Try it: put your hands in your pockets and get someone to kick the backs of your knees so your legs buckle, without telling you exactly when they're going to do it. How easy is it to quickly get your hands out of your pockets while your legs are buckling? A bit tricky I reckon, and that's when you're expecting it..

Might depend on the type of trousers I suppose...

despite being asked nicely, then being told in no uncertain terms to not drive into the school staff car park, he drives an uninsured, untaxed, unMOTd car and uses it as a weapon to assault a teacher, and a judge decides that there was no fault of the teacher in any of this - and you still argue about sitting on a bonnet????

[u]be more worried that this bloke will be back on the road at some point[/u]

also, no a school should not be building a drop-off point, why should we further enable car drivers to do something that is not good for the environment or the safety of any of the kids who go to that school ? every junction within a mile of any school should be built in such a way that is effectively biased in favour of those who walk or cycle

[quote=edlong ]On my "attempted murder" suggestion, IANAL but my understanding of what would constitute this is a bit different from what others have suggested regarding intent - based on reports of previous convictions, I believe that for example, going out with a knife, and then getting into a fight and the resultant stabbing causing death would be sufficient - you don't have to prove that the culprit went out with a knife with the premeditated intention of killing someone with it.

IANAL either, but I'm fairly sure there's a distinction regarding intent between murder and attempted murder. You're spot on for the case of somebody being killed - intent to cause injury is sufficient (maybe intent to cause serious injury, I'm not quite sure). For attempted murder there has to be intent to kill.

Arguably if the teacher had died then there might have been a case for a murder charge, but I still doubt it would have survived reasonable doubt over intent in a courtroom.

[quote=edhornby ]you still argue about sitting on a bonnet????

To be fair me and Graham are in complete agreement (and with you) on the substance of the case and just having a little unimportant side discussion on video analysis.

every junction within a mile of any school should be built in such a way that is effectively biased in favour of those who walk or cycle

Good point well made - maybe we also need to do something specific to facilitate walking and cycling though given Steve's experiences.