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.
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).
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.
Fair play then. Petrol bomb it.
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...
It IS moving and not because that's how the BBC edited it
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.
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?
