Not sure if we’ve done this one?

I have no words. Other than I hope the douchebag driver gets/got caught.

https://www.facebook.com/CyclingHubTV/videos/2165503270349945/?hc_ref=ARTKnZtzjW-BIJ7093KsFF7MiZHU-Xq1q6ar9yvGOon3BWPL_6Wg_iNpX9jCCUs9kus&fref=nf

Please tell me they got his reg. Number. That is horrific and the kind of incident I worry about on my commute.

Absolute dick. Hope both riders are okay.

Was in Yeovil last year.

Michael Tarrant, 81, of Thornwell Way, Wincanton, admitted dangerous driving at Taunton Crown Court. on Monday (July 9).

He denied a more serious charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which was dropped.

Looks horrific.

Awful 🙁

WTF? How could it be dropped with footage like that?

Was on one of the FB news pages and the usual Daily Mail types turned up with bike hate blaming the cyclists for moving into the road, not having enough hi-vis (WTF!) and just being on the road at all. And of course all the stuff about insurance etc came out.

How the serious injury charge was dropped is beyond me considering there were cracked ribs, broken finger, head injury, someone lost part of their ear and one was unconscious.

£20 victim surcharge, 18 month conditional discharge, two year driving ban. Pathetic.

Sure you can argue age was a factor but it’s clear this was an attempt to overtake with not enough room and oncoming traffic.

81.  Any indication this was deliberate?  Or just someone that is no longer capable (perhaps he never was, who knows) of driving safely?  Was his licence taken away?  Either way, horrific.

Edit…..just too late, answers above

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/shocking-video-shows-moment-car-1773856

How can you admit dangerous driving, but deny / drop charges of causing serious injury when there were clearly serious injuries caused?

What am I missing? What would the penalty have been for the serious injury charge?

Can a civil case be brought against him?

I’d happily crowd fund one.

How can you admit dangerous driving, but deny / drop charges of causing serious injury when there were clearly serious injuries caused?

Presumably the prosecution decided that it didn’t meet the criterion of grievous bodily harm.

Dangerous driving and the law
The CPS explains the difference between dangerous driving charges on its website.

It says: “The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when a person’s standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

“Dangerous driving is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or six months’ custody in the magistrates’ court.

“In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

“Wherever the case is dealt with, the court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least a year and order an extended retest.”

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving
The CPS says: “The offence is committed when the manner of the defendant’s driving is dangerous and results in another person suffering a serious physical injury.

“Serious injury is defined as…physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”

“The offence carries a level five fine and/or six months’ custody in the magistrates’ court with a mandatory disqualification period of at least two years (unless special reasons are found not to disqualify) and endorsement. An extended retest is also mandatory.”

The offence was introduced in 2012.

What is grievous bodily harm?
The CPS says: “The words ‘grievous bodily harm’ bear their ordinary meaning of really serious.

“Ultimately, the assessment of harm done is a matter for the jury, applying contemporary social standards.”

and broken ribs / head injury / loss of part of an ear doesn’t fit the definition of serious?

Beggars belief.

and broken ribs / head injury / loss of part of an ear doesn’t fit the definition of serious?

I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand the above, the legal requirement is grievous bodily harm. My guess is that the prosecutor has been to lawyer school and knows what the legal requirements are.

Edit

Or in this case the cps didn’t think a jury would convict so took what they could get

My guess is that the prosecutor has been to lawyer school and knows what the legal requirements are.

To be fair that’s not the only factor they’ll consider. They’ve secured a conviction without trial for the lesser offence, and they may feel that the resources required to go to trial for the greater offence are too great for the additional sentencing it may (or may not) result in. Sadly the CPS is under-resourced so it’s quite common that pleading guilty to a lesser charge will result in the greater being dropped altogether.

I can envisage him, “getting a visit” one dark night!

Holy sh!t!!!

And this is why annual driving competency tests must be introduced.

the assessment of harm done is a matter for the jury, applying contemporary social standards

– which, of course, is **** madness.  Identical injuries might be “assessed” differently by virtue of jury selection in the same building on the same day.

(in this case, my guess is that the driver offered to hand in his licence and so they dropped the charge – which serves to reinforce the apparent triviality of the original offence)

It’s ok guy’s , he was rushing home to tweet something about trump.

81.  Any indication this was deliberate?  Or just someone that is no longer capable (perhaps he never was, who knows) of driving safely?

Was going to post this up in the My kids just got side swiped by an old boy. What to do? thread (until I saw that there was already a thread) as age may well be a factor here; looks like a badly misjudged overtake rather than deliberate.

The sentence of course was a complete joke (although he will need to take an extended re-test before regaining his license – something I think should be compulsory for anyone losing a license) and looking at the video I’d have thought he should also have been charged for failing to stop at the scene of an accident!

To be fair that’s not the only factor they’ll consider. They’ve secured a conviction without trial for the lesser offence, and they may feel that the resources required to go to trial for the greater offence are too great for the additional sentencing it may (or may not) result in. Sadly the CPS is under-resourced so it’s quite common that pleading guilty to a lesser charge will result in the greater being dropped altogether.

Indeed along with the fact that the injured parties, other members of the public, police officers, likely medical experts (if the seriousness of the injuries was being contested) etc all have to appear in court and give evidence – its a huge financial cost both to the state and some of the individuals as well as being fairly traumatic for the riders who would have to relive it in the witness box including being cross examined by a defence barrister probably asking them stupid questions.

Add to that the possibility that a Jury may actually acquit on all charges, especially given the Crown’s ability to screw up cases, e.g. by not having the right witness present, losing evidence, failing to disclose evidence, not being able to get that format of video to play on the court system etc. and that the likely penalty may not have been massively different for an 81 yr old possibly first offender.  Why bother with the more serious charge?  Its possible the sentence may not have been suspended, or a community order imposed society would be paying the cost of enforcing the punishment but you’d all still be up in arms, and the next 81 yr old is not going to be deterred.

Its quite possible the injured parties were even consulted before a plea was agreed.  One of them commented they were satisfied that he’d be off the road (he’ll be 83 before he can apply to retake his extended driving test – which with two years not practicing, I’d suspect he will struggle to pass without some serious effort / training).

Can a civil case be brought against him?

I’d happily crowd fund one.

To what ends?  His insurers will almost certainly pay out for the damage to the bikes, clothing and injury to the cyclists. They may already have done so, if the injuries are as serious as suggested the total claim will be at least 5 figures.  Do you mean a private prosecution?  Almost certainly not – he’s been successfully prosecuted by the state for the same set of circumstances.  Interested parties can appeal against unduly lenient sentences but without looking up the guidelines I suspect that was within the expected parameters.  One thing to be aware of though, and which the accused’s lawyers will have had front of mind, is the judge will often not see a video clip like that when sentencing on a guilty plea and so will be relying on a very brief summary described by the prosecutor (and the person delivering that summary may well not have viewed the video footage either as (s)he’ll have picked up the files that morning).  So the judge is probably basing his decision on something as brief as this:

At XX on the XX of XX, witness Smith was cycling on the Axxx with a group of six friends, including witnesses Jones, and Davies.  Witness Smith reported being aware of a vehicle approaching from behind which proceeded to overtake.  In doing so it struck Smith on the right hand side causing him to fall from his bicycle, into the Witness Jones who was riding alongside him, who in turn also fell off into the path of Witness Davies.  Motorists at the scene stopped to assist the cyclists.  One of those, Witness Adams, reported to police that a dark green colour Mazda had attempted to overtake the cyclists but not provided sufficient space striking one of he cyclists with the near side of his vehicle.  The defendant identified himself to police officers when they arrived at the scene and in response to a verbal s172 request confirmed that he had been the driver of the green Mazda which he had parked off the road nearby before returning to the scene.  Police officers examined the vehicle and identified recent minor damage to the near side of the vehicle. Officers have noted that the weather was fine and the traffic moderate at the time. In reply to caution and charge the defendant stated, “I thought there was sufficient room to overtake, they must have wobbled into me”.  Witnesses Smith, Jones and Davies were all conveyed to hospital, where Smith and Jones were discharged later that day and Davies was discharged the following morning after being kept in for observation.”

Those facts are completely fictitious but are the sort of level of detail the judge gets.  The defence will give a similar length of description about the defendant’s great character, the lasting effect it has had on him, how he accepts the error of judgement, and how he has never driven again since the incident and has no intention to do so, and that they were asked to convey their sincere sympathies to those affected by the unfortunate accident.  Only if one or other party says something the other outrageously disagrees with will any great detail be considered.