[Closed] School Run driver runs into teacher

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.

I disagree with life time bans ,many forms of employment need or prefer to employ drivers. Much of social life is easier with a driving licence. Work and happy stable social lives are massive stabilising influences that enable reintegration of offenders into society and prevent reoffeThe 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.re-offending . life time pans place a pressure to drive illegally which ups the risk of further offending . Two primary causes of dangerous police chases are not having insurance or behind disqualified from driving.

He has a duty first and foremost to his own health and safety and [b]that of others on the school site[/b], as we all do in our place of work.

but in this case it was of no use and only served to escalate the situation and put peoples health and safety at risk

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

Must have missed that?? Mind you, I am new!

@crankboy - so how do we keep dangerous drivers off the roads? Presumably this chap will have to retake his driving test with that length ban, but that won't prove anything about his attitude and until he changes that he's always likely to be a danger to others. I understand what you're saying, but you mention "easier" - plenty of people manage to hold down a job and have a social life without needing to drive, I certainly could if I had to, and I personally know several people who do, including one who works somewhere most people would think it impossible to get to without one (before anybody gets any ideas, she's not a "keen cyclist" at all, just an ordinary person who owns a bike).

[quote=crazyjenkins01 ]

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

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/forum-contributer-awards

(sorry, you're not on the list, but then looking at some people who are it's quite an ancient list!)

life time bans place a pressure to drive illegally which ups the risk of further offending

+1 lifetime bans sound great but in reality are not

Aracer in my view Better and harsher road traffic policing ie officers in cars not cameras and anprs .the two year minimum ban for dangerous driving also carries with it further disqualification until enhanced retest past . hopefully his time in prison will impose a degree of attitude readjustment.
I agree with you a good life can be had without a car, many indeed the vast majority don't agree with us and if you disqualify offenders for life some will go on to be tempted to drive unlawfully with adverse consequences when with light at the end of the tunnel they would not.

Thanks for that aracer, looks like a fun thread to kill some time with!

if you disqualify offenders for life some will go on to be tempted to drive unlawfully with adverse consequences when with light at the end of the tunnel they would not

I see your point but this guy was [i]already[/i] driving illegally with no insurance or MOT.

I suspect you're right that if he was also banned on top of that he'd still drive.

Seems to me that the real issue is that it is very difficult to enforce driving bans.

I disagree with life time bans ,many forms of employment need or prefer to employ drivers. Much of social life is easier with a driving licence

Again I see your point, but FWIW I didn't learn to drive till I was in my 30s. Till then I had managed a social life and a job just fine without it.

Graham - the claim made in mitigation was that it was his partners car and he had mistakenly believed he was insured.

Crankboy - the other think to bear in mind with lifetime bans is it suggests rehabilitation is not possible. Are we really saying we all behave and react the same way now as 10,20,30,40 years ago? He's 22 after his ban he will be at least 25. Would it be reasonable to stop him driving at 55 for a "moment of rage" 30+ yrs before? You can murder someone and be rehabilitated in that time.

Graham - the claim made in mitigation was that it was his partners car and he had mistakenly believed he was insured.

Okay, not much of an excuse but sure that can happen. Did he also mistakenly believe his partner had MOT'ed the car?

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

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

See both of these are examples of gross exaggeration out of hundreds so nothing about these 2...

He didn't use the car as a weapon.... he didn't RAM, RUN OVER as the press reported ..
If he was using the car [b]as a weapon[/b] he'd have backed up and took a good run...

injury is subjective ... what I class as injury seems different to nurses and doctors.. when I broke my arm I also scratched myself... no differently to 101 other times.. but the nurse was convinced this was an "injury"... I'd stick it in the shower and wash the grit out and stick some antiseptic on... having a bit of glue on a head cut is pushing the bounds... would he have even bothered doing [u]anything[/u] if he's done it playing rugby?

The kids moving FASTER ... by FASTER you mean moving at all.... "nearly hit" etc.

Non of that excuses the driver .... however it is about intent and to an extent none was actually hurt.

I've watched the video numerous times at different speeds and I can't see the car moving WHEN he sits on it... from the resolution I can't say (and don't think anyone could say from that video) if it touched HIM or touched his trousers first...

The main point to this ...

Did the driver in a premeditated way set out to injure the teacher?
This is the implication from the reporting ... the guy was a dick but was that a moment of insanity or pre-meditated. All this talk of running over, narrowly missing, thrown over the bonnet ... essentially tries to establish pre-meditation... and conjure up exaggerated visions...

I have a lot of experience of being thrown off moving vehicles from decades ago when we used to "surf the minibus"... I would not expect any serious injury based on what the driver did - just a few bumps... the only time we had serious injuries was going way faster and the roof rack came off the minibus...

The driver should not have driven off HOWEVER him driving off is not in my experience a intent to cause serious injury

What I also think is that the driver was pushed into one stupid action or another.
If you either see the driver deliberately sits on the bonnet (or if you disagree just go with me) then from this point the teacher has created a situation that is likely to end badly.

The option of the driver to simply accept defeat and reverse has been taken away and the teacher has made in plain either accede or use physical force.

The reasonable thing to do would be to get out and plead with the teacher to get off the car and accede to his demands... which of course the driver should have done but IF the driver sat on the bonnet deliberately then he increased the risk of this ending physically many times.

that doesn't then excuse the driver but it does for me change the equation ... just the same as someone saying "you can't ride down here unless you are willing to fight me"... or "I'm pushing in the queue ahead of you what are you going to do?" or give me your wallet or I'll beat the shit out of you.

If you are going to do that then you should be expecting violence one way or another.
It amazes me that people who do this never seem to expect violence ... even when you tell them that's fine by you.

It's still not the correct response but then what is the correct response to someone sitting on your bonnet?

Taking away options for a non-violent ending is always a bad idea unless you actually WANT a violent ending. This is just basic conflict resolution and should be well within the bounds of a teacher.

Driving bans are enforced in the same way as other laws catch the offender and punish them . When I started Drive Disqualified mostly led to immediate custody normally a couple of months . the current guideline suggests custody only for cases that combine high culpability and greater harm eg driving shortly after ban imposed and going a significant distance or driving badly.
The usual outcome is now a community order ie unpaid work or some course.

I don't see it as a rehabilitation issue, more of you've lost your privilege, because that's what it is at the end of the day. It probably wouldn't work, but might make people realise that they need to be more responsible behind the wheel. Perhaps longer bans with a mandatory tracker would work. Like an ankle bracelet for shit drivers 🙂

It's still not the correct response but then what is the correct response to someone sitting on your bonnet?

Hi could you please get off my car bonnet, thanks.

What I also think is that the driver was pushed into one stupid action or another.

It is amazing people are making excuses for this lunatic.

Sorry Steve, but you appear to be on the drivers side. Whether you are or not is immaterial as that is how it appears. Much like 'driven into' in the video evidence (which was the judges take on it) whether the car DID or DIDNT drive into the teacher is difficult to tell but it APPEARS that way, so that is how it is handled.
Sitting on the bonnet of the car, if that's what happened, does not take away every non-violent action the driver could take.if the driver was reasonable he could have got out and [i]discussed[/i] it with the teacher like a grown up.
Also, as i have already said in a previous post above, the teacher had no other choice than to do all in his power to prevent the driver from entering the school grounds or face prosecution if the HSE had seen/heard about it. The HSE can prosecute even without an incident happening.
"...reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts and omissions at work." Does not say it has to result in injury, only may be effected.

[quote=stevextc ]See both of these are examples of gross exaggeration out of hundreds so nothing about these 2...

I'm not sure I was trying to make the point you think I was (and yes, I know you weren't trying to pick on me), but to suggest it's a gross exaggeration is, well, a gross exaggeration. You might want to make light of things (I am starting to get an uncomfortable feeling that you're defending the driver) but the teacher was injured in any normal terms - from the sounds of things that involved at least a trip to A&E - how else would you describe it? Yes I'm sure he would also have got it fixed if done playing rugby - head injuries aren't a trivial thing 🙄

Non of that excuses the driver .... however it is about intent and to an extent none was actually hurt.

That is a ridiculous statement - quite clearly somebody was hurt.

I've watched the video numerous times at different speeds and I can't see the car moving WHEN he sits on it... from the resolution I can't say (and don't think anyone could say from that video) if it touched HIM or touched his trousers first...

It is incredibly hard to tell, but I've downloaded the video and zoomed in and it is quite clear to me from winding backwards and forwards that there are two movements of the car before he "sits" on the bonnet, the second coming immediately before and continuously followed by movement of the leg and the "sit". I've given up trying to convince anybody else who can't see this, but even if you can't you have to accept that's just because it's really hard to tell from the video, not because it doesn't happen. You can't actually prove the car doesn't contact him and that isn't what causes him to end up on the bonnet. Meanwhile it was an accepted fact in court that he was knocked onto the bonnet by the car's movement. Therefore that makes any argument about the teacher "provoking" the driver moot.

I wouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not the teacher chooses to sit on the bonnet any more - having downloaded the video I decided the argument wasn't important enough to bother extracting frames and showing differences to prove the point. However unlike almost everybody else on her (and in the court) you still seem to think it an important point and that it somehow mitigates the driver's actions.

What I also think is that the driver was pushed into one stupid action or another.

No - the driver had complete choice in all of his actions, you're using victim blaming terminology there.

If you either see the driver deliberately sits on the bonnet (or if you disagree just go with me) then from this point the teacher has created a situation that is likely to end badly.

I disagree with you, because you're wrong (as accepted fact in court, and because the video does show you're wrong - I no longer care if you can't see it), hence the rest of your discussion is irrelevant.

He didn't use the car as a weapon.... he didn't RAM, RUN OVER as the press reported ..
If he was using the car as a weapon he'd have backed up and took a good run...

No, deliberately shoving someone with a car [i]is[/i] using it as a weapon. Driving off with them on the bonnet is also using it as a weapon.

Backing up and taking a good run would be using it as a weapon [i]with intent to kill[/i].

injury is subjective ...

He was charged with actual bodily harm.

would he have even bothered doing anything if he's done it playing rugby?

Even in rugby they take bleeding head wounds with concussion/memory loss fairly seriously.

.

Anyways, been looking for a a more detailed report and remarkably the good ol Daily Mail has provided one. Including these tidbits:

Schoeman was described as being 'immature' and having behaved 'outrageously' by his own defence barrister in court.

Charlotte Morrish, prosecuting, said Schoeman had on a previous occasion driven past Mr McCarthy.

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.

Ms Morrish said: 'Mr McCarthy turns his back on the car and feels the bumper on the back of his legs, making him sit down on the bonnet.

Judge Jonathan Davies said: 'One line stood out to me from Mr McCarthy's statement: 'I am appalled by this man's actions'.

'It stood out to me because that is the word that came to my mind. Appalled. Your defence used the word outrageous.

'It troubles me to hear from Probation that some how you seek to blame Gareth McCarthy for what happened. He was going about his work and the school had every right to restrict access to this car park.

'You took matters into your own hands by nudging him. it's horrific watching the video with his head banging on the concrete.

'These offences in my judgement are so serious that you should go to prison.
'It was one moment of madness. Of rage. You really need to examine yourself and ask why you behaved in that way.

'In his statement, Gareth McCarthy describes you as 'a selfish, brutish bully'. And in that moment, you were.'

The judge sentenced Schoeman to 10 months in prison, with a two year and five month disqualification from driving, followed by an extended test. He ordered Schoeman to pay a victim surcharge of £140.

-- http://www.****/news/article-4918424/Father-mowed-teacher-fit-rage.html

Even if we take the claim that the teacher sat down (which isnt clear with the quality of the video) the driver couldnt have apologised and then said "I am about to reverse and so you need to get off the bonnet?"

Yes he could but sitting on the bonnet that just got less likely.....

Sorry Steve, but you appear to be on the drivers side.

I'm just pointing out that the whole incident was exaggerated.
None actually got really hurt, or was thrown OVER a bonnet or Run over..... and the action the driver took wasn't meant to kill or seriously hurt him...

I'm not arguing with the actual sentencing.... in fact if the driver did what the press claims then he should have been given 10 years..... but the reporting and inaccurate and deliberately emotional statements do not match the video.

The same thing happens to cyclists.... because they are a group it is PC to attack cyclists.
This guy comes from a hated group.. "parents that drive kids to school".... so I find it disturbing that media can distort the truth and no-one cares.

Even a half blind person can see that he isn't thrown over the car or run over... but this sells papers/clicks and so long as we can lie about a hated group then it's OK???

Actual news is becoming indistinguishable from those adds where some person near you made 100,000 a year by filling out surveys or companies approach you saying they have data saying you have an outstanding PPI claim or a no fault accident

Trump can delete tweets that are recorded and then claim "I never said it" .. however many billion for the NHS can be "We didn't mean that" ...

"...reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts and omissions at work."

All it did was enflame the situation .....

I'm speaking from experience based on sitting on the bonnet being the sort of thing I would have done when younger .... the sort of thing I hope I've realised will often tip the balance towards a situation ending up physical.

Hi could you please get off my car bonnet, thanks.

From experience the person making it a physical is most likely to refuse and issue a "make me" challenge which then becomes even less likely to be backed away from.

the best end would be for the parent to have just backed up and driven off... which he can no longer do

He could have easily reversed.

Even if we accept that, counter to the case presented in court, the teacher did sit on the bonnet of his own accord then reversing would have just caused him to slide off onto his feet again. At the very worst he might have landed on his arse.

Which is unlikely to happen between 2 hot headed people seeing red mist....

Despite what you and deviant have said, I still don't see any evidence to suggest that the teacher was "hot headed" or "seeing red mist".

He looked pretty calm to me. Hands in his pockets. Back turned.

He could have said I'm going at any stage, he chose not too. There was only one hot headed person in that incident, it's been accepted by the court that the teacher did not sit down on the car and was hurt.

I'm sure you aren't defending him (much 😆 ) Steve but as I said it [i]appears[/i] you are defending him. I do however, agree with your 'hated group' point, and the fact the media will twist everything to get the sales.

From my perspective sitting on the bonnet increased the risk of the safety of themselves significantly and did nothing to prevent the car entering...

That I cant agree with. To expect a legally licensed driver (I know, don't assume anything) to believe, whether in a fit of rage or not, it is acceptable to drive forward into/with someone on the bonnet is not a rational thought. And while as was shown, it didn't prevent the driver entering the school, how many people faced with this would do as this driver did? I would hazard a guess at not many. Exit the vehicle and hurl abuse and profanities, yes. Exit and assault the teacher, yes some would but not as many.
But the overall point is this teacher was doing as he was instructed, and if somebody is willing to do this, or assault the person trying to prevent their vehicle from moving, they should not be allowed a driving license for a period of time, and should also be given a custodial sentence. Heavily publicized, this would help prevent re-occurrence.

[quote=stevextc ]I'm just pointing out that the whole incident was exaggerated.
None actually got really hurt

If you ignore the head injury which he attended hospital to get fixed.

You do also know that the driver had committed assault as soon as the car contacted the teacher's legs (ie before he "sat" on the bonnet).

This guy comes from a hated group.. "parents that drive kids to school".... so I find it disturbing that media can distort the truth and no-one cares.

You're accusing others of exaggerating! The guy comes from the "dickhead entitled drivers" group. I don't even personally have anything against parents who drive kids to school - I have friends who do every day, and I sometimes do myself. I do dislike entitled drivers who park badly and endanger others, but you know what, being part of that "group" does make "hate" legitimate. The comparison with cyclist hatred is ridiculous.

From my perspective sitting on the bonnet increased the risk of the safety of themselves significantly and did nothing to prevent the car entering...
All it did was enflame the situation .....

Which is all still predicated on your incorrect assumption that the teacher chose to sit on the bonnet.

I have a lot of experience of being thrown off moving vehicles from decades ago when we used to "surf the minibus"... I would not expect any serious injury based on what the driver did - just a few bumps...

I realised I missed this one from before. Presumably you also wouldn't expect any serious injury from being hit by a bike at 10mph? The car is going considerably faster than that when the teacher is thrown off it, he's lucky his head injuries weren't more catastrophic...

aracer - Member

If you ignore the head injury which he attended hospital to get fixed.

he's lucky his head injuries weren't more catastrophic...

Serious complications from that head injury could manifest themselves months or years down the line.

[quote=GrahamS ]He looked pretty calm to me. Hands in his pockets. Back turned.

Indeed - I've seen criticism on here of the teacher casually having his hands in his pockets, but he's actually deliberately trying to show how nonchalant he is and not getting involved in any argument. He's pretty much doing the opposite of what he's been accused of. TBH he can't win - I can't think of a single thing he could have done which wouldn't have resulted in some people criticising him.

Wow. Just wow. Reading through this and I am struggling to believe that anyone is putting any blame whatsoever on the teacher. Unauthorised cars are not allowed on school grounds. End of. The teacher bears absolutely no responsibility for what happened. The fault is 100% with the driver.

There are some real ****puffins on here escalating the "rights" of the driver and his precious car. I am stunned.

Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver. 🙁

You need to adjust your thinking.

Thanks, Coyote. Was gonna have a read but your post tells me all I need to know.

🙂