Electric bike rider run down by fashion designer

[4bound]

Not exactly what I would call "careless driving" more like dangerous driving since she admits she deliberately knocked him off his bike.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/stars-fashion-designer-knocked-cyclist-off-bike-after-he-kicked-her-audi-tt-10145932.html

 

[flecc]

I'm not surprised the dangerous driving charge was dropped, since she had been provoked by the cyclist stupidly kicking and damaging her car. That provocation, the slowness of the incident and her entirely clean record made it understandable.

But I strongly disagree on the finding that it wasn't road rage, it clearly was on the part of both of them, since both of them acted in unnecessarily aggressive ways.
.

 

[Nealh]

Origanally she must have done something to cause the cyclist to lash out in the fist place and I don't think her penalty was harsh enough there is no way that you should deliberately go and persue and then knock a cyclist to the ground. If it had been me she knocked off every panel would need repairing.

 

[Croxden]

Audi driver says it all.

 

[flecc]

Origanally she must have done something to cause the cyclist to lash out in the fist place and I don't think her penalty was harsh enough there is no way that you should deliberately go and persue and then knock a cyclist to the ground. If it had been me she knocked off every panel would need repairing.

Whatever the original disagreement, there's no excuse for kicking and denting a car panel. That's criminal damage, a charge which the cyclist hasn't apparently had brought against him.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" as the saying goes, both treated lightly for their offences, and I see nothing unfair in that.
.

 

[Nealh]

Whatever the original disagreement, there's no excuse for kicking and denting a car panel. That's criminal damage, a charge which the cyclist hasn't apparently had brought against him.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" as the saying goes, both treated lightly for their offences, and I see nothing unfair in that.
.

She got away very lightly indeed for attempted manslaughter esp as she did it deliberately.

 

[jonathan75]

Whatever the original disagreement, there's no excuse for kicking and denting a car panel. That's criminal damage, a charge which the cyclist hasn't apparently had brought against him.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" as the saying goes, both treated lightly for their offences, and I see nothing unfair in that.
.

I agree it's not excusable. I just think knocking a cyclist over deliberately is a worse wrong, something even more deserving of society's anger. Although yes I suppose that anger ought to be expressed in an appropriate sentence rather than further damage to the car.

 

[jonathan75]

She got away very lightly indeed for attempted manslaughter esp as she did it deliberately.

Ah I'm going to be a pedant (for a change lol) and point out that attempted manslaughter isn't an offence known to law - manslaughter is made out where death is caused *without* the intention to cause death or GBH. So there isn't a crime called attempted manslaughter, because that would mean "intending to unintentionally cause death". I think you're not wrong though, that a greater offence could be made out on the facts than was charged.

 

[4bound]

I think you're not wrong though, that a greater offence could be made out on the facts than was charged.

It appears from the article that she was originally charged with dangerous driving, and it was only when it reached Crown Court that the charge was reduced to Careless Driving. No doubt this was a deal with the defence in return for a guilty plea.

 

[johnc461165]

Two stupid adolescent people acting stupidly.

 

[tillson]

Ah I'm going to be a pedant (for a change lol) and point out that attempted manslaughter isn't an offence known to law - manslaughter is made out where death is caused *without* the intention to cause death or GBH.

Volutary Manslaughter requires the defendant to have intended to kill or to have had an intention to cause GBH. The usual procedure is to charge murder / attempted murder. The jury may then have the opportunity to convict of manslaughter if a statutory defence is satisfied, one of which can be Diminished Responsibility. Diminished Responsibility must be an abnormality of mind at the time of killing. I suppose that extreme provocation could cause an abnormality of mind, but I doubt that a jury would consider some pillock on a bike twatting your TT to be sufficient provocation.

 

[jonathan75]

Volutary Manslaughter requires the defendant to have intended to kill or to have had an intention to cause GBH. The usual procedure is to charge murder / attempted murder. The jury may then have the opportunity to convict of manslaughter if a statutory defence is satisfied, one of which can be Diminished Responsibility. Diminished Responsibility must be an abnormality of mind at the time of killing. I suppose that extreme provocation could cause an abnormality of mind, but I doubt that a jury would consider some pillock on a bike twatting your TT to be sufficient provocation.

Quite right, not sufficient. Kudos to you for knowing the requirements for voluntary manslaughter, I didn't know that.

The loss of control defence is basically for the tragic situation known as 'battered wife syndrome', where the battered partner snaps unexpectedly, and for parents whose children are in imminent danger, that sort of thing. 'Considered desire for revenge' not allowed. Must be circumstances of extremely grave character, and causes defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Has to be a response which an ordinary person in that situation would have.

The abnormality of mind defence isn't to be confused with provocation/loss of control, which is a separate defence. I didn't learn my criminal black letter properly, it's very interesting though.

 

[flecc]

She got away very lightly indeed for attempted manslaughter esp as she did it deliberately.

Your cyclist bias shows too obviously Neal. You diminished the cyclist criminal damage by referring to it as "lashing out", but when it came to the driver you expanded her culpability to "attempted manslaughter". In this cycling forum that bias shows all the time when such incidents are discussed.

I avoided that bias and made reference to fairness in my last post.
.

 

[Nealh]

I make no apologies for my cyclist bias as I feel it is within reason as a meeting of bike v car or car v bike will only result in one party walking away without getting hurt, cocooned up in a nice little car you have to be a complete twat to want to ram a cyclist to make them stop.. The cyclist may have been done for criminal damage originally except for the over reaction and stupid behaviour in which that twatty women tried to deal with it.
In a year on average I drive about 17k and ride about 2-4 k, the cyclist in me always gives bikes a wide berth when driving.

 

[oldtom]

Audi driver says it all.

Agreed!

Everybody remembers the Audi strapline, 'Vorsprung durch technik' although few know what it means, (any search engine will provide the explanation.)

The literal translation of 'Audi driver' in English is 'Complete c**t' but strangely, everyone seems to know that one!

Tom

 

[oldtom]

As this matter was dealt with not in a magistrates' court but in a Crown court, I'm afraid the judge has failed in his duty by failing to recognise this was nothing less than 'Road rage' and completely missing or ignoring the point that it can never be acceptable or understandable IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to deliberately drive a motor vehicle AT ANY SPEED into a bicycle with rider aboard.

I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines are for an offence of this nature but my own view is that in a crown court, the absolute minimum of the scale should require a custodial sentence.

The next time something like this crops up, as it will, the defence will be delighted to refer to this particular case as precedent.

Tom

 

[Nealh]

With a guilty plea she got off lightly with just 6 points and a fine, to say she should have got a custodial sentence I think is a bit harsh but do believe that she should have got a ban for 6-12 months.

 

[Croxden]

With a guilty plea she got off lightly with just 6 points and a fine, to say she should have got a custodial sentence I think is a bit harsh but do believe that she should have got a ban for 6-12 months.

And the car crushed.

 

[D8ve]

Right that's it I'm NEVER going to buy any of her stuff again.
I suggest we all boycot this designer and get our stuff elsewhere.
That will teach her.

 

[jonathan75]

Right that's it I'm NEVER going to buy any of her stuff again.
I suggest we all boycot this designer and get our stuff elsewhere.
That will teach her.

Bingo. I think you've hit upon the mystery of why she got off. She's an artiste-cum-fashionista, a successful one, and a heavy sentence could have hurt her professionally. I think we can assume she was extremely remorseful, which would have affected the sentence. But above all the magistrate would have seen her big hair and felt overcome with pity! Well it's my theory anyway.