Electric bike rider run down by fashion designer

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

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.

.

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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

Edited April 1, 201511 yr by 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

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.

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.

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.

Audi driver says it all.

Explain?

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.

And that is exactly what did happen. The cyclist wasn't charged with his criminal damage that provoked what she did, whilst she was fined £600 and had six penalty points applied.

The prosecution and court applied your reasonable view that she should have the harsher outcome, and I see nothing wrong with that result. Fair to both and well on the side of leniency to both.

.

And that is exactly what did happen. The cyclist wasn't charged with his criminal damage that provoked what she did, whilst she was fined £600 and had six penalty points applied.

 

The prosecution and court applied your reasonable view that she should have the harsher outcome, and I see nothing wrong with that result. Fair to both and well on the side of leniency to both.

.

Good point re lesser charges overall and the greater sentence for the driver.

Re 'provoked', I personally have a problem with the idea anyone who merely does something which someone else feels angry about, provokes criminal behaviour which follows. The anger seems provoked but the person still has a choice of how to respond. They are free, and morally responsible for their actions, which break the chain of causation. It is just mixing things up to say 'but the annoying person deserves a smack'. (which I accept may not be what you're saying). They may do, but that's for the law, not for vigilantes. Vigilantism is a choice, not something persons in non-extreme situations are forced into. Surely only if a person has no choice or no faculties to choose, can one say that an action by someone else was the cause of their act. Vengefulness isn't a mitigating but surely properly an aggravating factor, in a political society where feuding must be suppressed. Whereas calling an act 'provoked' seems to try to mitigate its wrongfulness.

Edited April 2, 201511 yr by jonathan75

I fully agree that provocation shouldn't result in retribution Jonathan, but where a driver is involved a different factor comes into play.

We all know of the existence of "road rage" and many of us have witnessed it's reality. The phenomenon has the effect that otherwise civilised persons can when driving behave in an out of control completely unreasonable way. That outcome being wrong is irrelevant in the presence of the fact, given what out of control means.

It follows from that knowledge that retaliating aganst a driver could provoke an out of control response, therefore making retaliation unwise.

Remember that in this case the cyclist had evidently also been provoked enough to cause the criminal damage to her car, so the desirability of breaking the chain of causation applied equally to him.

That then takes us back to my contention, that given all the circumstances, both were treated in an entirely fair and lenient manner with an equitable outcome.

.

I agree that there was a good outcome. But I don't agree with some of that explanation for it. I think it's difficult for me to understand how being in charge of a one-ton weapon can of itself make someone less morally responsible for their actions because they might be subject to a phenomenon called road rage. I think being in charge of a car should make them subject to even more stringent moral duties than the norm. This second idea that drivers are especially weak, I think should be rejected. The criminal law surely properly allows a partial defence on moral grounds (or other partial moral exculpation, e.g. at the sentencing or charging phase) only for the most extreme cases i.e. insanity, automatism, loss of control from appalling physical abuse over a long period of time, but not for the everyday matter of driving a car around strangers.

I am not going to unpick this too carefully but I got the rough sense that maybe you felt that the purpose of sentencing and charging in this instance was to make reparation to each of the victims - so that having two victims (each being the victim of the other) meant that a lesser charge/sentence was required to do justice. I have to disagree. I'm in the camp that thinks the criminal law is properly concerned with wrongs or potential harms against society. It claims a monopoly on retaliation partly so people don't feel driven to that themselves, but that doesn't mean it's doing it for their benefit, but instead society's (imho). That said, by my own argument, you may have a point - if the means by which feuds start is a blow to someone's honour, then if each of the parties have hurt the other's honour, then maybe the criminal law has less danger of a feud to prevent. But there is still their harmful action to make an example of generally, as well as its intrinsic wrongful content to punish.

I think you're right there is something oddly fair about reducing charges for both participants in this particular instance - bu mainly because in this case it preserves their careers, not because they already made each other suffer a lot. But I reckon you're right that honour harmed equally, could be a reason why it would be permissible to press lesser charges (albeit ultimately for the career reason, it's not a good enough freestanding reason on its own imo).

Edited April 2, 201511 yr by jonathan75