[Closed] School Run driver runs into teacher

Sitting or not ... Hmm

If I got nudged or pushed or indeed threatened Im not sure I'd be as relaxed as to keep my hand in my pockets ?

My reaction would be much more like the teachers once the car starts moving... hands out of pockets arms outstretched ready for whatever's about to happen next.

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?

I think America has "Reckless Endangerment" which would seem about right here. Not sure if there is a comparable equivalent under English law. Scots Law has [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_and_reckless_conduct ]Culpable and Reckless Conduct[/url].

What was the driver actually charged with and what stuck till the prosecution?

yeah junctions are the starting point, we need proper cycle paths like the Netherlands and the review of Road traffic offences (that was started in 2014 and still hasn't been done!) needs to happen, get rid of the term 'careless'

I used to live in Fleet when I was a lad so I can empathise with SteveXTC some of the roads round there are a nightmare if you're on a bike or a ped

at 30-31s on that video and appears to contact the teacher's legs as there is a slight movement but he stays standing.

I agree on the whole slo-mo/stills... it is very hard to be 100% certain and perhaps each of us will see what we expect???

To me I see the car bonnet move down before the car moves... and I don't see any movement from the car in the preceding 2-3 seconds

I want to make clear that is not a reason for the driver to do as they did... but it does change the headline and thread title ...

"Teacher sits on bonnet of car and car drives off"

[quote=edlong]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?

But he doesn't as far as i can tell drive into the teacher, he sets off with the teacher sat on his bonnet.

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

That is your biased opinion ....but it is based on what assumptions?
Are you assuming people CHOOSE to drive their kids to school?
Nearly everyone i know that drives their kids to school does so out of necessity.
My pretty much last resort mode of transport is driving...
Do you think we should do the same at trail centres and but a 15mile exclusion zone for drivers ?? After all we can cycle the last 15 miles..?

It's a complete choice... QE Park, Swinley, FOD, Guisburn Forest, Surrey Hills, Bedgebury ... all have parking used largely at times by people going to ride on single track... and its purely our choice... we don't HAVE to ride and we don't have to ride single track...

Going to work and dropping the kid at school are not real choices. Sure i could ask for flex-time and then go on benefits when I'm made redundant .. or my partner could not work... (but then they'd need to find another teacher)

This is something most of us do to pay the rent/mortgage and bills... it's what we do day after day... week in/out until we get to ride.

Those lucky enough to be able to return home after dropping the kid off or lucky enough to be able to walk to work from the school before they are late and get another warning for being late to count towards getting fired... should recognise that's not what most of us have to do.

I used to work for a nice company... the sort where you could take time off when your kid was ill... be late because you were dropping them off etc. but unsurprisingly the company doesn't exist anymore.

Now I work in an environment where I would receive a written warning being 1 minute late and asking for flexitime would put me silently onto the "redundancy at the end of the quarter list".

Most of the parents I know drop there kids at school because they have to be in work 30 minutes later and it's miles away... at my kids school we all wait until we are officially allowed to leave the kids and they open the inner gate then a whole bunch of us sprint for the cars in an effort not to be late for work.

On the few occasions I know I can also pick the kid up we cycle in.. that is by far the preferred method for both of us... otherwise he has to hang around and wait for his mum to finish to get a lift home.

Having been through 2 years of trying to get 2 parents to work and 1 kid to school prior to this academic year its sheer hell...

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

I have a strong preference on cycling... I'd welcome making it easier for me... but it's just not possible in much of todays UK. Most of the parents I know don't drive because they want to drive, they drive so they can get to work.

The pre and after school clubs are full and lucky for us parents who are teachers get preference... we spent 3 years on a waiting list for pre-school nd it was only because OH took the job at the same school he got a place this year..

I'm all for facilitating walking and cycling ... but we need to acknowledge not everyone can.

But he doesn't as far as i can tell drive into the teacher, he sets off with the teacher sat on his bonnet.

But that still qualifies as [i]"something that you could reasonably foresee would be likely to cause death or serious harm"[/i]

I used to work for a nice company... the sort where you could take time off when your kid was ill... be late because you were dropping them off etc. but unsurprisingly the company doesn't exist anymore.

Not sure why you think that is "unsurprising" Steve. Most companies are like that.

I worked compressed hours (4 days a week instead of 5) with a bit of flex as well which allows me to drop off or pickup kids as required. And I wouldn't hesitate to take time off if one of my children was ill.

The company I work for has been going for 30 years and shows no signs of failing due to the burden of being a "nice" reasonable employer.

Now I work in an environment where I would receive a written warning being 1 minute late and asking for flexitime would put me silently onto the "redundancy at the end of the quarter list".

They sound like arses who don't give a shit about your employment rights.

Personally I'd brush up the CV and put in that flexitime request. 😆

But that still qualifies as "something that you could reasonably foresee would be likely to cause death or serious harm"

It does but it doesn't have the same divisive ring to it as "School run driver runs into teacher" etc.
"Parent drives off when teacher sits on his bonnet...." doesn't generate the same arguments that the media thrive on. I'm sure they'd love to be able to say how we was in immigrant on benefits... but the article doesn't start off with "Woking man born and raised in the UK...." but had he been Polish etc. the headline would have been "Polish immigrants drives teacher down" ....

Not sure why you think that is "unsurprising" Steve. Most companies are like that.

I worked compressed hours (4 days a week instead of 5) with a bit of flex as well which allows me to drop off or pickup kids as required. And I wouldn't hesitate to take time off if one of my children was ill.

The company I work for has been going for 30 years and shows no signs of failing due to the burden of being a "nice" reasonable employer.

Most companies used to be like that ... well a good deal of them but most of them are not anymore in my experience.

They sound like arses who don't give a shit about your employment rights.

Personally I'd brush up the CV and put in that flexitime request.

Oh they give a shit about employment rights but their efforts are in finding ways around them.

I'm really glad at least you have a reasonable employer if for no other reason than it shows some still exist. 😉 I'll keep applying but the last year hasn't found anything BETTER.... every offer I had was just as bad.

[quote=stevextc ]It does but it doesn't have the same divisive ring to it as "School run driver runs into teacher" etc.

That is a completely accurate description of what happened though.

Your posting on this thread suggests that you are already on flexi-time Steve 😆

go to 30s

The car does nudge forward, but stops, and the man is still standing.

In response, the man sits on the bonnet, and then pretends to act nonchalant by looking around him.

Then the car moves forward, taking the man on the bonnet with it.

Didn't run into the teacher at all.

I still don't understand why they didn't just stick him with a huge fine and a ban for a year. I'm pretty sure that would have the same effect and be a net income rather than a burden to the taxpayer.

Regarding drop offs, a school I pass on my ride to work came up with the brilliant solution of having a small posse of mums and dads whose job it was to open the doors of the cars as they drove up, get the children out and escort them to the gate. Worked and still works really smoothly as long as you can keep the rota of door openers filled. I love a pragmatic solution

[quote=Dorset_Knob ]The car does nudge forward, but stops, and the man is still standing.
In response, the man sits on the bonnet, and then pretends to act nonchalant by looking around him.

Did you bother to watch the legs and see how they moved before he "sat down" as the car contacted him? It's quite clear that the car contacts his legs, and also from his reaction. There's also a slight second nudge which is what knocks him down.

Though presumably you know better than what was described in court?

The car does nudge forward, but stops, and the man is still standing.

In response, the man sits on the bonnet, and then pretends to act nonchalant by looking around him.

Then the car moves forward, taking the man on the bonnet with it.

Didn't run into the teacher at all.

That's what I see ....

That is a completely accurate description of what happened though.

again, sorry I don't see the driver run into the teacher ... the only positive contact I can say from the video is when the teacher sits on the bonnet.... and at whatever resolution and speed the car isn't moving.

Of course driving off at speed is not the correct approach to that but media reporting makes it sound like the parent set off his day with a mission to run over a teacher...

Telegraph: Shocking video captures moment parent ploughs into teacher in school run road rage - except he didn't plough into the teacher...

The Sun: Furious dad runs over teacher in front of kids after parking ban row - except he didn't run over the teacher he set off with him on his bonnet

Mirror: Parent who mowed down a teacher in a fit of rage when he was told he couldn't use the staff car park for the school run is jailed for 10 months - Slightly better but mowed down ???

then continues "Rainier Schoeman, 22, saw the teacher and drove straight into him by the school gates in Woking" ..."The teacher was thrown off the side of the bonnet after Schoeman rammed into him in Woking" yes he was thrown off... but he wasn't rammed...

This is sensationalising the event for people to click... and for sales but it's not accurate and deliberately misleading.

[quote=stevextc ]and at whatever resolution and speed the car isn't moving.

It is, you're just not watching closely enough. It's quite subtle but clearly the car does move slightly immediately before he sits on it (I didn't spot it at first, and it's only obvious to me when full screen at full speed, but then the video quality isn't very good). Though as I keep saying watch the legs - there's clear movement indicating contact from the first nudge forwards by the car, before he turns his head.

I'll grab some stills later which should hopefully make it more obvious.

It's quite clear that the car contacts his legs

When he sits on it, yes.

the car does move slightly immediately before he sits on it

Indeed, it is that slight movement that provokes the man to sit on the car, is what I see. The car is stationary when it 'comes into contact' with the man's legs.

Then the driver moves forward again, in response to the man having sat on the bonnet.

On further watches, you can tell from his balance and posture that the car doesn't knock him onto the bonnet.

As he sits, his upper torso remains upright, his lower legs perpendicular with the ground and his hands 'nonchalantly' still in pocket. He wouldn't be able to do that if there was forward momentum in the vehicle.

He sits in that balanced state for half a second, then the car driver moves forward and you can see physics acting on the man; his torso moves involuntarily back towards the windscreen, his legs come up, and now his hands come out of his pockets, less nonchalant now.

Watched repeatedly on a 36" monitor the car udges forward and contact is made with his left leg. The light between passing between the teacher's leg and the car that lights the bumper disappears and the teacher sits back. Contact before sitting.

Oh hang on, let me just measure my monitor.

Maybe get a friend and experiment, stand facing away from their car while they drive slowly up to you and see how long you can avoid sitting on the bonnet as they nudge the back of your knees.

leffeboy, he was already driving illegally, what would the point of a ban be?

Maybe get a friend and experiment, stand facing away from their car while they drive slowly up to you and see how long you can avoid sitting on the bonnet as they nudge the back of your knees.

Don't need to experiment. I know what I would do if a car nudged the back of my knees at a speed so slow it makes other people argue about whether it was moving or not. I would nonchalantly take my hands out of my pockets, and move out of the way.

How fast does a car have to be moving not to push a man forward, but to sweep him up and collect him on the bonnet? Much faster than 0.01 mph, I would offer.

But it's not a relevant experiment, because that's not what happened 🙂

This is all getting close to conveyor belt territory. I am out. (But right.)

It is, you're just not watching closely enough. It's quite subtle but clearly the car does move slightly immediately before he sits on it (I didn't spot it at first, and it's only obvious to me when full screen at full speed, but then the video quality isn't very good). Though as I keep saying watch the legs - there's clear movement indicating contact from the first nudge forwards by the car, before he turns his head.

I'll grab some stills later which should hopefully make it more obvious.

I watched it again (a few times) and I see exactly what Dorset man sea's.
Did it or did it not touch him ... it's impossible to be sure... but the car nudges forwards (hardly ramming) ... does or does not touch him .. and then there is 1/2 sec before he sits down when the car doesn't move at all... then as he sits down the only movement is the car bonnet going down and another 1/2 second then the car sets off

At no point does the car run over him (as claimed by press) and at no point is he flung over the car (as claimed by press) ..or he is mown down....

He doesn't really narrowly miss the kids either... still stupid even without a teacher on the bonnet but he actually seems to have the presence of mind to go round them wide...

What this I suppose means to me is the description of "mows down" and "runs over" is going for a 10/10 malicious act ... setting off with a teacher on the bonnet is stupid but he really shouldn't have sat on the bonnet. We can speculate but I don't think he was SO stupid he would have "rammed" and "mown down" the teacher had the teacher NOT sat on the bonnet...

It's still incredibly STUPID but it's not like he set out to do it... more a stupid reaction than setting out with malicious intent. I'm not excusing the driver... I'm pointing out the difference between someone sitting on your bonnet and having a mad moment and setting out to mow down a teacher.

Has there really been 6 pages of debate as to whether the teacher sits on the car before [and this next bit is what I think is the import part] the man driving the car tries to run him over?

Surely none of standing in front of the car/leaning on the car/sitting on the car should result in having a massive lump of metal smashed in to you and are therefore irrelevant

It was a provocative act by the teacher, personally I like the idea of reversing away from him once he sits on the bonnet and watching him plop onto the ground...i wonder if that's defendable in court?...you could say you were retreating from the situation I suppose...good comedy value in that too.

I think reversing would probably have been okay, as it is what the teacher wanted. I doubt it would have needed defending in court.

Likewise leaning out the window and shouting "Get the * off my ***** car" would also have been effective if a little crass with kids about.

Driving forward put the teachers life at risk though and that's just not on.

Teacher was clearly at fault, he wasn't wearing a high visibility vest, so the driver could not have possibly have known he was stood there.

More seriously, I think the sentence should have been longer, there's clear intent to use the car as a weapon there.

Surely none of standing in front of the car/leaning on the car/sitting on the car should result in having a massive lump of metal smashed in to you and are therefore irrelevant

Not to car zombies, they love a bit of whataboutery.

It was a provocative act by the teacher

Get a grip, he told the guy he wasn't allowed in a place the guy wasn't allowed. That's not provocation, that's doing a job that shouldn't need to be done but does because some (a tiny minority) drivers are selfish, dangerous, disrepsectful, law breaking, road rage...

Has there really been 6 pages of debate

You got to love the argumenteers on here!!

You can't defend the driver, he deserves punishment. Standing in front of a car whilst escalating an argument is just plain darwinism though.

We can speculate but I don't think he was SO stupid he would have "rammed" and "mown down" the teacher had the teacher NOT sat on the bonnet...

The sitting on the car was provocative not the instruction to park elsewhere...for most people a car is the second most expensive thing they buy after a house...naturally people don't like others sitting on it...did the driver do the right thing?...of course not, he flipped his lid and lost control...was the teacher being a tit?...yep, if he feels that strongly about parking there call the police or get bollards put up that teachers have passes for...he went all Billy big bo##ocks and didn't expect a more aggressive person to be up against him...lesson for everyone; don't get into spats with people you know nothing about, if you fancy yourself as some kind of enforcer get to the local boxing/martial arts gym and let it out that way instead.

Jesus, some threads on here are baying for blood when a mountain bike returns from a service with a slight scratch or if it's delivered with less than perfect paint...i can almost understand getting angry at someone sitting on my car... if iI didn't drive a shed of a vehicle.

Just indulge in a keyboard rant rather than do your job eh, deviant.

The main lesson here is:

Use your car as weapon: expect 10 months in jail even if you don't hurt anyone (much).

That's good.

if you fancy yourself as some kind of enforcer get to the local boxing/martial arts gym and let it out that way instead

Lots of us enforce rules for safety where children , or others, are concerned or basically we just do our job.
DO we all have to head off down the dojo now?As for go all billy big whatever all he did was stop someone from parking illegally in an illegal place in an illegal car and potentially endangering children in the process. I mean who wants teachers like that eh....****ers the lot of them. You are correct on one thing this thread is full of incredible over reactions to things. I dont think your post redressed this.
I once had someone jump on my bonnet then scream through the windscreen i will give you pain.On exciting he was simply restrained till the police arrived. He ended up crying for his mum - he was about 45 and I was in my twenties.I guess i should have shown him thing or two about violence rather than compassion FOrgive me STW I know not what i do. Its just a car. Its replaceable people are not.

Only a ****ing idiot would give a toss about the car.

deviant - Member

The sitting on the car was provocative not the instruction to park elsewhere...for most people a car is the second most expensive thing they buy after a house...naturally people don't like others sitting on it...

However if someone sits on your wall you don't assault them with a deadly weapon. It's not about the value of the thing, it's about the power the driver wields or rather the sense of entitlement / empowerment the car gives them which is relevant to the next part of your post

he went all Billy big bo##ocks and didn't expect a more aggressive person to be up against him...lesson for everyone; don't get into spats with people you know nothing about, if you fancy yourself as some kind of enforcer get to the local boxing/martial arts gym and let it out that way instead.

I don't think he went for "billy big bollocks" I think he was taking the highground/ doing his job/the right thing but didn't expect anyone would be so unreasonable.

Just indulge in a keyboard rant rather than do your job eh, deviant.

Eh, what's that got to do with anything you retard!?... i work shifts and I'm a day off today...and even if i was at work do you think I'd be allowed to ignore 999 calls to post on STW?

🙄

I think he was taking the highground/ doing his job/the right thing but didn't expect anyone would be so unreasonable

....and that's kind of my point, don't get into spats like this, just call the police, if he's illegally parking then it's a police matter, film it, take photographs as evidence etc...taking the high ground/being right really isn't worth getting into a confrontation for...body vs car, he could've ended up dead, just for trying to enforce a parking rule.. I think it was nobbish behavior from both parties.

if he feels that strongly about parking there call the police or get bollards put up that teachers have passes for.

He really shouldn't have to! It's the schools private land and they have responsibility for the safety of children on it so they are more than entitled to say that randoms can't drive their cars in.

Reading the story, the parents had been told they were not allowed to park their by letter and this particular driver had also been told in person before, but last time he just drove around the teacher and parked anyway.

if you fancy yourself as some kind of enforcer get to the local boxing/martial arts gym

Really? No one should enforce rules unless they can back them up with violence? 😕

deviant - Member

....and that's kind of my point, don't get into spats like this, just call the police, if he's illegally parking then it's a police matter, film it, take photographs as evidence etc...taking the high ground/being right really isn't worth getting into a confrontation for...body vs car, he could've ended up dead, just for trying to enforce a parking rule.. I think it was nobbish behavior from both parties.

I do see your point and it has been discussed on here before. The problem is that particularly in cities people have become a race of entitled self obsessed pricks. People should stand up to them, morally. And if you are going to go out of your way to potentially antagonise a stranger you should be able to deal with the potential violence that arrises.

But I don't believe that's the case here because the teacher was to some extent just doing his job or some aspect of his broader responsibilities.

Really? No one should enforce rules unless they can back them up with violence?

You've watched the video, it could've been much worse, is it worth it?...there are some nutters out there and a healthy amount of caution when entering into an argument is sensible...don't put yourself in front of a car when you're arguing with the driver...im not victim blaming, from what we now know about the driver he seems to have a total disregard for the law...im just saying I wouldn't have put myself in front of the car, it's stupid and smacks of vigilantism.

you retard!?

Try reading again with "ones" job, i.e., the teacher was doing his job, pretty well I thought.

im not victim blaming

You are.

don't put yourself in front of a car when you're arguing with the driver..

Okay. It last time he tried that the driver just drove round him, potentially endangering kids which the teacher has a duty of care to.

So this time he (rightly IMO) took a more direct approach and completely blocked him. As most rational people wouldn't risk ten months in jail over a parking place.

Where he went wrong was sitting on the bonnet (if he did) and not getting out the way when the guy made it clear he would ram him. (Though I can understand why a teacher wouldn't want to back down to a bully in front of the pupils).

it's stupid and smacks of vigilantism.

What? You're the one saying the teacher should have martial arts training so he can dish out a beating to those who don't follow the rules. That sounds a lot more like vigilantism than just standing in the way, doing his job.

What? You're the one saying the teacher should have martial arts training so he can dish out a beating to those who don't follow the rules.

That's not really what he said though.

We had some mad shoot at our Primary. Ended up with cops on a small cul de sac stopping drivers - the guy that caused it was an unemployed layabout (being nice here) that lived less than 2 minutes walk away - he insisted on driving his kids in his beat up car to the school gate.

Most folk would park some distance away or walk. He thought it as some victory when the police had turned up early to stop folk driving down a small street.

Don't under estimate the village idiot !

That's not really what he said though.

He said [i]"if you fancy yourself as some kind of enforcer get to the local boxing/martial arts gym"[/i]

Am I misunderstanding that?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure how effective boxing or martial arts are against cars.

GrahamS - Member

That's not really what he said though.

He said "if you fancy yourself as some kind of enforcer get to the local boxing/martial arts gym"

Am I misunderstanding that?

I'm not sure it's worth pondering deviant's words too deeply when he can just speak for himself but the part I took to be operative or relevant was

he .... didn't expect a more aggressive person to be up against him...lesson for everyone; don't get into spats with people you know nothing about,

and that much I agree with. So he's not saying learn martial arts to beat people up - he's saying if you are going to take a stand against a stranger be prepared for violent consequences.

He really shouldn't have to! It's the schools private land and they have responsibility for the safety of children on it so they are more than entitled to say that randoms can't drive their cars in.

Agree completely, the driver narrowly missed a few kids on bikes on the school property in the midst of the red mist. The teacher was obviously standing there for a reason. Reason being twits driving wherever they like.. If those kids had have been riding a bit faster the driver would have taken them out too.

Then they'd probably get blamed for not wearing helmets and high visibility and having flashing beacons.

You're the one saying the teacher should have martial arts training so he can dish out a beating

No I'm not.

I'm saying if this is the teacher's nature maybe he should go to a gym and let off some steam so he doesn't feel the need to get into a physical confrontation with people he knows nothing about or how they will react.
It's a safety thing, I'm not advocating beating anyone up.

arguments in public

Nah. It's a staff car park. Driver had no right to bully in and run people over.

Teacher had every right to try to get the driver to back off.

Not sure I saw anything from the teacher that suggested he particularly needed to let of steam but okay... so he goes to the gym become a black belt ninja and then what?

His new Zen-self sees the futility of conflict and allows people to break whatever rules they like, even if it means potentially endangering the children under his care?

Or... he now has the skills to launch three shurikens and a Hadouken through the windscreen when the driver gets a bit arsey?

[img] [/img]

GrahamS...yeah that's exactly how it turns out
🙄

I can't speak for everyone but if I haven't done some kind of exercise for a few days I become slightly snappy and easily agitated...if I let off some steam I come home a nicer person, more relaxed and more inclined to let things slide rather than irritate me.

It was just a suggestion on how the teacher could conduct himself because standing in front of cars arguing with the driver is a pretty stupid thing to do.

It was just a suggestion on how the teacher could conduct himself because standing in front of cars arguing with the driver is a pretty stupid thing to do.

It's not like the teacher was standing in the middle of a main road causing a nuisance, let's keep this in context.

Reading between the lines I'd hazard a crazy guess that they've had idiots steaming through the car park previously, hence he felt the need to present a human barrier.

He then got run over for his efforts.

Have a word with yourself, and get some counseling.

leffeboy, he was already driving illegally, what would the point of a ban be?

Edit: but we may be missing info. Like with singlespeed man who appears to have got a jail sentence partly because he was so unrepentant, the same may also be the case here

Its exceedingly likely he got a ban as well as his prison sentence extended by half the prison term so it impacts from the point he is released on licence.

According to the story in The Telegraph he plead guilty to causing actual bodily harm, dangerous driving, driving without insurance and having no MOT.

As it was a guilty plea I wonder what else he might have been on the hook for that got dropped in the plea bargain.

Any thoughts crankboy?

Nah I think he got the full selection of what is made out on the video . I also think the teacher was posted there to stop parents driving in both from the video where he appears to be stood in the middle of the entrance looking the other way when the golf arrives and this :-"The teacher was told to stand in the car park entrance and stop vehicles after a letter was sent out to parents by the head teacher citing it a risk to the children coming out of the school."
Which appears to be a quote from the prosecution opening. So far from an interfering busy body being confrontational just a bloke doing his job.

[quote=mattyfez ]Teacher was clearly at fault, he wasn't wearing a high visibility vest, so the driver could not have possibly have known he was stood there.

Or a helmet, head injury is his own fault.

Edukator » Those accusing the teacher of sitting on the bonnet need to watch more closely. The driver nudged the legs of the teacher before he sat down

I watched it carefully before my original post and have now watched the unedited clip several times too. I still think the teacher sits down through choice. I’m prepared to be wrong though...

However, driving dangerously in the vicinity of a school at start or finish times is inexcusable. It can’t be justified. Lack of parking or not, school rules on child accompaniment, need to get to work is no justification.

When I take my boys to school, I get sick of the parents blocking drives, parking on pavements and other selfish, inconsiderate and often high-risk driving. I refuse to engage in it.

Its exceedingly likely he got a ban as well as his prison sentence extended by half the prison term so it impacts from the point he is released on licence.

I still think the teacher sits down through choice. I’m prepared to be wrong though...

I don't think that's relevant.
What is relevant is that the driver saw fit to bulldozer thier way through into an area where there are kids running about.

All because the driver had some sense of entitlement to do whatever the hell they please.

I don't think that's relevant.

I think it’s relevant as obviously otherwise, I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I’m not looking for an argument - just saying as I see it.

What is relevant is that the driver saw fit to bulldozer thier way through into an area where there are kids running about.

I think it’s obvious that we agree on that. Doesn’t everyone on this thread think it’s reckless beyond belief.

All because the driver had some sense of entitlement to do whatever the hell they please.

Again, we seem to agree completely - so I’m not sure why it was worth making your first point?

We know the guy behaved dangerously and that he thought he could behave like that is indicative of a lack of respect for others, wilful disregard of the consequences of his actions and a total absence of any good judgement.

 I still think the teacher sits down through choice. I’m prepared to be wrong though...

the teacher is guilty of not wanting to move, of having the option of conceding, but choosing not to as that was what he was there to do.

If the teacher sat on the bonnet that’s idiotic - but it doesn’t make him ‘guilty’ of anything. The driver had no excuse to progress into the school premises and especially to progress with a person on his bonnet. The driver is the guilty one.

The driver (and it stuns me that this point still needs to be made) knowingly drove his car into the person standing in front of said car.

As I’ve said, my observation is that the teacher sits on the car. We see a piece of video and interpret it differently - I don’t see why this is an issue.

Regardless of the video. We know the driver has brought about the original situation and then acted in a dangerous way to exacerbate and escalate - what more needs to be said? The driver got off lightly IMHO.

Nobody comes out of this well. It is irrelevant if the teacher sat on the bonnet or not.

The teacher shouldn't have tried to stop the car by standing in front of it especially if the driver was showing signs of being agitated. There are other ways the school can ban or stop people from entering the grounds. If they want to physically stop cars from entering the grounds then they need to close the gate and have someone manning the gate.

However that doesn't excuse the driver and they got everything they deserve. If the teacher sat on the bonnet there is no excuse for continuing to drive with him sat on it.

Some parents are a disgrace. I see some shocking behaviour from parents at my kids school. They're a shocking role model for their kids - a real bad attitude.

[quote=wobbliscott ]Nobody comes out of this well.

The teacher only didn't come out of it well because he got injured - he did nothing wrong.

If they want to physically stop cars from entering the grounds then they need to close the gate and have someone manning the gate.

The teacher should not have held his ground when the driver was being so irate and such a dick. He should have exercised better judgement. He has a duty first and foremost to his own health and safety and that of others on the school site, as we all do in our place of work. Teachers having open arguments with parents in front of kids is not a good thing, not part of their job and I would expect teachers to take the moral high ground, let the irate parent do what they want to do and not risk anyone's health and safety by stoking the flames, then get them later via more formal means. - a stern letter from the school headteacher formerly banning the driver's car from the site.

Don't misunderstand me - the teacher acted in a way most of us probably would have done, but he probably allowed emotions and a bit of personal anger take over (not a great trait for a teacher having said that) and sometimes you need to be the bigger person and pick your battles and live to fight another day. All that has happened at the end of the day is the teacher narrowly avoided serious injury, an angry and irate driver stormed onto school car park at speed with someone sat on their bonnet obscuring their view, potentially hazarding the safety of kids or other teachers/parents and the driver still accessed the site with their car, so it was all for nothing, and peoples health and safety was risked because the teacher chose to escalate the situation. It's just poor judgement - but we're all human and subject to poor judgement from time to time. Easy for us to judge from our armchairs.

Instead the teacher should have diffused the situation by explaining that if the driver proceeded onto the site then they would be reported and would lead to further consequences, the driver would have probably ignored this warning, but would have proceeded at a more sensible speed not hazarding other people on site.

No excuse for the driver, they got what they deserved, but it could have been a whole lot worse for the teacher or others on site.

The teacher should not have held his ground when the driver was being so irate

I totally disagree. It's worrying that anyone could think otherwise.

Instead the teacher should have diffused the situation by explaining that if the driver proceeded...

You know there is some times no reasoning with people like this.

It takes a brave person to make a stand in that situation.

Yes the teacher was brave, I'm not disputing that - but in this case it was of no use and only served to escalate the situation and put peoples health and safety at risk. Of course this was not the intended outcome of the teacher, but the situation was out of their control, they just didn't realise it. But in any case, teachers are not paid to be brave and I wouldn't expect them to be - certainly not put themselves in front of a car driven by an angry idiotic driver. Some parents are dicks. I see that every time I step foot on the school grounds myself. Teachers are not going to change that and it is not their job to educate kids parents. It's a hard enough job to educate the kids without taking responsibility for their parents too.

You are right - there is no reasoning with some people and the fault in this situation is 100% the drivers, but the actions of the teacher in trying to deal with the driver in the way they did, though done with the best intensions, only served to escalate the situation.

What happens next time, maybe with a different parent at a different school? The teacher does the same thing but this time ends up getting injured? Or a kid is run over? Something different has to happen next time for the protection of everyone.

Mum "how did my child get run over in the school grounds"
Head " well we tried to stop the driver coming in , but he really wanted to so the teacher I'd posted to stop this sort of thing let him in , we are going to write the driver a stiff letter though !"
The teacher was doing his job some times its wrong to give ground to bullies.

Sorry wobbliescot, you're wrong and bordering on victim blaming.

standing in front of cars arguing with the driver is a pretty stupid thing to do.

He didn't, he informed the driver of the rules and then turned his back on the driver rather than engage in a gesticulation battle through the windscreen.

I can't speak for everyone but if I haven't done some kind of exercise for a few days I become slightly snappy and easily agitated.

So that's why you got all ranty and called me a "retard" yesterday. When you've had your dose of exercise think about apologising.

The teacher shouldn't have tried to stop the car by standing in front of it especially if the driver was showing signs of being agitated. There are other ways the school can ban or stop people from entering the grounds. If they want to physically stop cars from entering the grounds then they need to close the gate and have someone manning the gate.

Really, I have tried to avoid posting but wt a f?
The teacher was tasked by his boss to stop cars coming in as they are a risk to the kids under his responsibility. If they closed the gate how would the kids go home and finally there was someone manning the gate?
Is this a how ****ing stupid can we all be on the interwebs thread?

Without this forum I would have no idea people could think like this.

peoples health and safety was risked because the teacher chose to escalate the situation. It's just poor judgement

Easy for us to judge from our armchairs.

Guilty of driving dangerously, no MOT and no insurance yet can drive again in a few years time.

They should never be allowed to drive again, driving is not a human right. Would you want someone who acts like this towards driving ever driving again?

Also agree that teacher was 100% in the right on this.

How the **** did this even get to seven pages? Driver was s disgraceful areshole and got what he deserved. The teacher was just doing his job and remained calm whilst dealing with an idiot.

Also agree with kerley. A lifetime ban for the stupid driver

That recently revealed spreadsheet of STW forum member categorisations needs a good old update. This thread would provide some useful reference material.

What happens next time, maybe with a different parent at a different school?

Hopefully next time they will think twice before being an entitled dick given the prospect of prison time. Which won't happen if people meekly back down and just threaten to report the entitled idiots (not while the world has no balls and being reported for "minor" driving offences has no real consequences).

Driving without insurance is a vastly under punished crime imo, the consequences can be devastating and long lasting for victims and their families. Motoring offences and the law, grrrrr....

Teacher stands blocking entrance to prevent self-entitled pricks using staff car park (which has led to pupil safety concerns)
Self-entitled prick arrives and tries to use car park
Teacher explains he can't and must park elsewhere, argument ensues due to driver's sense of entitlement
Teacher decides it's a stalemate, turns back on driver to indicate he's done arguing, teacher then nonchalantly sits/leans back on front of car
Self-entitled prick gets enraged (probably as much from teacher turning his back as him sitting on the car) and switches to enraged self-entitled prick mode and drives forward, scooping up teacher on the bonnet

To be honest if he hadn't been so rage-filled and had stopped whilst still driving straight he could have deposited the teacher gracefully further into the car park (OK would still have been dangerous and he should still have been punished but it would have been fairly amusing to watch). As it was he accelerated and turned causing the poor guy to fall off and bounce on the tarmac.