[Closed] London Taxi Driver vs Cyclist. In court...

Daniel Wentworth, 52, is accused of deliberately driving into cyclist James Williams, using his car 'as a weapon' as they crossed Southwark Bridge in central London..... Wentworth said after he accidentally pulled out in front of the cyclist, Mr Williams launched a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse, screaming: 'What do you think you are f***ing doing?'

Is it possible that both of those things are true?

Edit: And I bet that's what it will come down to. The defence will try to convince the jury that the cyclist swore/threatened the taxi driver. That will be enough to distract from the "using his car 'as a weapon'" accusation and the driver will go free because the cyclist wasn't a meek little angel who took nearly being run over in the good homour that the cabbie intended it. Whether or not he actually did use the car as a weapon will end up as an irrelevance.

Bloody cyclists...

I think this case is a perfect example of why the law tends to frown on

"Sticks and stones"

more than

"words"

One will break your bones, the other never hurt you.

I had a random 'you fuuuucking caaaaaaant', from a cabbie outside Euston just b4 Xmas as he had to wait an extra 10 seconds for me to pass so he could turn into the taxi rank

I suspect all that sitting on their arses and red faced ranting does wonders for their blood pressure

One will break your bones, the other never hurt you.

Unless you make an ill-advised joke about blowing up Robin Hood Airport.

Whereas I had a cyclist blast through the red lights at Bank today just in front of me as I was crossing...

Is it possible that both of those things are true?

Maybe, but someone swore at me the other day too, however I didn't then assault them with a weapon to teach them a lesson.

The cyclist my have been the biggest prick in the world, hurling abuse and insulting his mother for all we know, but that doesn't excuse the response does it?

If this had been a drink-spilling queue bump in a pup and the now thirsty party had let some choice words out you wouldn't expect the other guy to come at you with a knife would you?

The fact he's a cyclist is irrelevant, could jsut have easily been a pedestrian, or another car driver.

One person drove his car at another person, this is not acceptable behaviour.

Whereas I had a cyclist blast through the red lights at Bank today just in front of me as I was crossing...

Right. And...?

Is it possible that both of those things are true?

Maybe, but someone swore at me the other day too, however I didn't then assault them with a weapon to teach them a lesson.

The cyclist my have been the biggest prick in the world, hurling abuse and insulting his mother for all we know, but that doesn't excuse the response does it?

Sadly, I think that's where the trial will go, but it shouldn't. It's like the Helen Measures case. Driving at speed, on the wrong side of the road, round a blind bend. Hit an oncoming cyclist so hard she was thrown into an adjacent field. And the defence turned it into the cyclist's fault because she was 'inexperienced'.

@bails, apologies if it didn't come across right, I was using a portion of your comments to respond to the others.

I get what you're saying and I'm (optimistically) hoping you're wrong, I just wanted to clarify why it's so bad that it even comes into the discussion, hence my comments agreeing with you about it being irrelevant

Ah, I'm with you now. I didn't want anyone to think I was a STW cyclist hater 😉

For the sake of balance, the vast majority of taxi drivers I've encountered on my London cycle commutes have been brilliant. As a rule, they've given me adequate room, they've let me out of junctions and I cannot recall a single incident whereby one has ever put me at risk.

However, a significant proportion of London bus drivers appear to harbor murderous tendencies.

Some depressing court cases on there!
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?name=cyclist&sa=Search#results

"... delivery driver deliberately knocked a woman cyclist off her bike after she flicked two fingers at him, a court heard today (MON). Dennis Baker, 67, was captured on his own onboard CCTV beeping his horn at Alison Kempster and groaning 'Come on get out of the bloody way.' Annoyed by her V-sign response, Baker then pulled up alongside the cyclist and edged closer and closer to her until she fell off into the road"

I have to go through red lights every morning on my way to work on my bike as they only turn green when a car approaches!!!

I have to go through red lights every morning on my way to work on my bike as they only turn green when a car approaches!!!

Are you referring to the ones that sense the cars approaching using magnetic strips? My bike triggers those on the bus/cycle lanes around here, just take primary position so you ride over the strips.

Right. And...?

just saying, resentment against cyclists isn't going to reduce when halfwits do this - he was going full pelt.

If the walk light is green I expect to be able to walk across in reasonable safety.

just saying, resentment against cyclists isn't going to reduce when halfwits do this - he was going full pelt.

Do you honestly think that if all cyclists obeyed the law, resentment would disappear?

He doesn't say disappear does he ? He says reduce.

light is green I expect to be able to walk across in reasonable safety.

just saying, resentment against cyclists isn't going to reduce when halfwits do this - he was going full pelt.

Would you reply on that thread about a forumer's stolen land rover saying "well, the other day I saw a driver breaking the speed limit. Just saying"? It's an irrelevance, and some kind of weird attempt at victim blaming and collective punishment rolled into one.

[quote=postierich ]I have to go through red lights every morning on my way to work on my bike as they only turn green when a car approaches!!!

Report them to the council as being faulty. I do that and it does eventually work - got an e-mail update yesterday:

https://e-services.worcestershire.gov.uk/OnlineReporting/QuickStatusCheckqs.aspx?id=6688407&Type=HIGHREPORT

(can anybody else see that?)

It is weird when people do that isn't it, reflect a prejudice against an entire group based on the behaviour of individuals who nobody else in the group has any control over.

I mean I saw a pedestrian drop a piece of litter the other day, it's no wonder cyclists want to run them down on crossings, until they stop behaving like that it's not goin to get any better is it?

How ridiculous does that sound? ^

[quote=HoratioHufnagel ]Some depressing court cases on there!

Indeed - I should know better than to read that. A larger fine for damaging the bodywork of a car than for nearly killing somebody and permanently crippling her.

I have to go through red lights every morning on my way to work on my bike as they only turn green when a car approaches!!!

That's quite legal actually, since the lights aren't at that point in time operating in accordance with the relevant blah blah, they're technically not traffic lights at all, just a red bulb on a stick and you aren't committing any offence by riding past them.

IANAL if you hadn't guessed.

I mean I saw a pedestrian drop a piece of litter the other day, it's no wonder cyclists want to run them down on crossings, until they stop behaving like that it's not goin to get any better is it?

If a significant number of pedestrians were chucking litter around then resentment towards them would increase.

Every time a cyclist jumps a light they are contributing to the overall number of RLJs and helping to screw it up for all the non-RLJers. Same with pavement riding and lack of lights.

If a significant number of pedestrians were chucking litter around then resentment towards them would increase.

Read that back and think about what you've just written.

I know it's hard for some of us to admit when we've made pillocks of ourselves, but I'd stop digging if I were you.

a significant proportion of London bus drivers appear to harbor murderous tendencies

Yep, I'd have to agree with that

Get yourself into a good visible position, make eye contact with the driver and they still steer towards you intent on squeezing you out of the way / to death

I see cyclists ride stupidly and jump red lights
I see drivers drive dangerously and run red lights
I see pedestrians cross without looking and drop litter

You know what I resent? The people that do those things!

I do not resent other people that don't do those things but happen to have chosen a similar mode of transport

I certainly don't use past poor behaviour of other people to try and justify unacceptable behaviour to entirely different people.

I have to go through red lights every morning on my way to work on my bike as they only turn green when a car approaches!!!

don't see many cars though do you? what about the horses and carts they have round them thar parts marra?

Cycling and cyclists do seem to bring out the absolute worst in angry and irrational people...

I daren't read any of the comments in newspaper articles that appear about this story - it's depressing.

The only time I'm abused and have total strangers deliberately try and harm me is when I'm on my bike.

As someone in the comments of a cycling story in the Guardian said last week, cyclists have become the general dumping ground for all kinds of general resentments and hatreds that people have... hence the utter irrationality and bonkersness of the anti-cycling arguments like the one up there ^^

My experience in recent months is that the great British public are, overall, beginning to get there and basically be a bit more grown up about it, but I really am looking forward to the day when I can go for a bike ride without someone at some point either shouting abuse or coming close to putting me in hospital

I do not resent other people that don't do those things but happen to have chosen a similar mode of transport

You'll not get far on this here t'internet thingy with that kind of level headed attitude.

Whereas I had a cyclist blast through the red lights at Bank today just in front of me as I was crossing...

If only he'd gone a touch slower...

If only he'd gone a touch slower...

And run Turnerguy over I presume. Your point being anybody who suggests cyclists can be bell ends deserves to be physically harmed ?

No. Just Turnerguy.

harrumph

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=43127

A cyclist-hating delivery driver who knocked a woman off her bike after she flicked two fingers at him has been ordered to pay £1,000 compensation to his victim. - See more at: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=43127#sthash.6BddqYfD.dpuf

A cyclist-hating delivery driver who knocked a woman off her bike after she flicked two fingers at him has been ordered to pay £1,000 compensation to his victim. - See more at: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=43127#sthash.6BddqYfD.dpuf

Good job his driving wasn't dangerous though, he could have hurt someone!

Wow, even with video it seems impossible to convict for dangerous driving. Is there something specific about that charge that makes it difficult to stick?

I see cyclists ride stupidly and jump red lights
I see drivers drive dangerously and run red lights
I see pedestrians cross without looking and drop litter

You know what I resent? The people that do those things!

Me too, but only one of those three groups has ever put me in mortal danger...

I wasn't even going to touch on that aspect of it ransos, reminding people that when driving cars/vans/lorries that they have a higher duty of care to more vulnerable road users never seems to go down well, normally met with irrelevant frothing about some bloke they saw once who jumped a red light...

Me too, but only one of those three groups has ever put me in mortal danger...

most cars I see going through a red light are just after the light change whereas I often see cyclists going through lights that have been changed for a period of time.

In other words I don't see cars going through lights whilst the green walk sign is lit, but often do for cyclists.

If a cyclist has slowed down and picks his way through so as not to endanger pedestrians then that's not quite so bad, but when aggressive idiots just carry on at full speed then that is a big issue. If they hit someone elderly and caused them to fall and break a hip then that is almost a fatal injury - the stats for survival of old people after such a break are not good.

most [s]cars [/s] [b]people driving cars[/b] I see going through a red light are just after the light change whereas I often see cyclists going through lights that have been changed for a period of time.

please try not to distract from the fact it is people doing this, not a 'car' or a non-personified group, it is people. It may only seem like a subtle change of words to you but the subconcious effect of referring to 'cars' doing bad things or having accidents is very damaging.

Not to mention that the vast majority of people who ride bikes also drive cars, the inverse is not true. That kind of behaviour is more to do with the person than their mode of travel at the time you witness it.

If they hit someone elderly and caused them to fall and break a hip then that is almost a fatal injury - the stats for survival of old people after such a break are not good.

You really don't want to get into a stats war about injuries caused by people driving cars vs people riding bikes, or even people punching/knocking down other people, it will not come out in your
favour.

but when aggressive idiots just carry on at full speed then that is a big issue

And nobody would disagree with you, it is an issue, it should be addressed, and I have been known to have words with people when I've seen them doing stuff like that, but it has absolutely no relevance to this case at all, it is not justification to tar other people with that brush.

You seem to want all other cyclists to somehow be responsible for the behaviour of people like this and use it as a mitigating factor for animosity towards the whole perceived group.
Do you feel responsible for drunk drivers? do you feel responsible for the behaviour or this taxi driver? Should I hold some animosity towards you because this taxi driver deliberately drove his car at someone?

most cars I see going through a red light are just after the light change whereas I often see cyclists going through lights that have been changed for a period of time.

In other words I don't see cars going through lights whilst the green walk sign is lit, but often do for cyclists.

If a cyclist has slowed down and picks his way through so as not to endanger pedestrians then that's not quite so bad, but when aggressive idiots just carry on at full speed then that is a big issue. If they hit someone elderly and caused them to fall and break a hip then that is almost a fatal injury - the stats for survival of old people after such a break are not good.

It's overwhelmingly the case that pedestrians are injured and killed by cars, not cyclists.

Do you feel responsible for drunk drivers? do you feel responsible for the behaviour or this taxi driver?

Wow, even with video it seems impossible to convict for dangerous driving. Is there something specific about that charge that makes it difficult to stick?

The distinction between dangerous and careless isn't how bad the driving is, dangerous is IIRC doing the same thing repeatedly, whereas a one off is careless. So if a driver runs a cyclist off the road it's careless, unless the video shows them repeatedly doing it.

Unfortunately it doesn't cover crap driving (despite it being 'dangerous').

And unfortunately assault with a car seems to be considered 'normal'. I do wonder how many drivers who try to edge bikes off the road or got for punishment passes would go upto someone on the pavement with a knife and expect them to move out their way.

Good job his driving wasn't dangerous though, he could have hurt someone!

The distinction between dangerous and careless isn't how bad the driving is, dangerous is IIRC doing the same thing repeatedly, whereas a one off is careless

It's not as basic as that.

I couldn't deliberately gun it down the highstreet scattering pedestrians off the bonnet and then get away with it only being careless because it's only my first time.

from here:

[url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/ ]http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/[/url]

[b]What is 'Dangerous driving'?[/b]
A person drives dangerously when:

the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard 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.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:

racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.

[b]What is 'Careless or inconsiderate driving'?[/b]
A person drives carelessly or inconsiderately when the way they drive falls below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

Some examples of careless driving are:

overtaking on the inside;
driving too close to another vehicle;
driving through a red light by mistake;
turning into the path of another vehicle;
the driver being avoidably distracted by tuning the radio, lighting a cigarette etc.
Examples of inconsiderate driving include:

flashing lights to force other drivers to give way;
misusing lanes to gain advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily staying in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking;
dazzling other drivers with un-dipped headlights.

with this added distinction

The driver's behaviour is what is important, not what the driver believes. Someone may be committing a dangerous driving offence even though they believe they are driving safely

so driving your vehicle into someone and knocking them off even if you 'thought you were only going to scare them*' is still dangerous by definition (as well as by common sense)

* or some other b0ll0cks excuse like 'she swore at me so it was OK', or 'it's OK because I saw another guy on a bike jump a red light once and I was paying him back by proxy'

But this shouldn't even have been treated as a motoring offence. It was an assault.

If they hit someone elderly and caused them to fall and break a hip then that is almost a fatal injury - the stats for survival of old people after such a break are not good.

The statistics would indicate that this doesn't happen very often at all. So much so it makes the news when it does every other year. Elderly people get run down and killed on a regular basis by cars, without any media fanfare.

Unfortunately, that sort of driving is not far below the standards that most motorists hold themselves to.

most motorists hold themselves to.

I know what you're getting at, but the law says below the standards of a careful and competent driver, it doesn't say below the standard you hold yourself to.

So technically that means the standards for careful and competent should be defined. I guess that means falling back on 'can pass the test' which he wouldn't have done driving like that, so it's still clearly far below the standards.

The problem is when we expect other people to make the judgement and they compare to their own standards, that's where the careless bit is so easily subverted as people can see themselves making the same mistake, but there should never be any question that deliberately driving your car at someone and knocking them down is dangerous, not careless.

Frankly, its appalling that this continues to not get the uproar it deserves, things are changing but soooo slowly.

@amadias Any idea why judges aren't setting this out when directing juries ?

Unfortunately, that sort of driving is not far below the standards that most motorists hold themselves to.

But 'we' (society/juries) excuse bad driving that probably should be (at best) 'careless' by thinking "oo, that could be me in the dock. He only looked at his sat nav for a few seconds before he hit that cyclist. And you know what they're like, always weaving about with no lights". And so "the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver" gets a bit lower. And so the standard of driving necessary to be charged with careless driving gets lower as well. And people get away with stuff like this: https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wrong-here/
(Long read, but well worth it)

edit:

I know what you're getting at, but the law says below the standards of a careful and competent driver, it doesn't say below the standard you hold yourself to

I know what you're getting at, but the law says below the standards of a careful and competent driver, it doesn't say below the standard you hold yourself to.

No, but you're being tried by a jury of your peers - 12 people, the vast majority of whom will drive and the vast majority who will think "hmm, I've exceeded the speed limit / used a phone/ not looked / blahblah and I was fine so this driver must also be fine and it's just bad luck (or the cyclists fault)"

So because they are also shit drivers themselves, they are (however unintentionally) comparing the accused to themselves and obviously everyone considers their own driving to be exemplary. So you end up in a situation where shit driving is considered the norm and doesn't ever register as being shit.

/edit: bugger, 'bails beat me to it by seconds ^^

^ posts above

I get it, what I'm suggesting is that the definition should be, you know, [i]defined[/i], rather than allowed to continue sliding downwards by being based on how people behave now rather than how they should behave.

A good starting place at they very least would be the driving test. If that is by definition the minimum standard to which we hold people to before allowing them to drive a car on the road unsupervised then it's a good starting point for the level of a careful and competent driver. Would you pass the test driving like that?

No = instant careless
Hell No! = dangerous

The distinction between dangerous and careless isn't how bad the driving is

yes, it is.

Careless - below the standard of a careful and competent driver
dangerous - [i]far[/i] below the standard of a careful and competent driver

As amedias has posted, 'below' and 'far below' are not defined in law. Successfully prosecuted cases have provided examples of the types of activity that can be considered but it's for the court to decide on an individual basis, it's not as simple as You did X and X is dangerous.

The wording is dreadful.
You can do something intentional (like speed or RLJ) that might be classed as careless whereas it's not in fact careless at all, it's quite intentional. You are intentionally jumping the light - you might even be taking a great deal of care in how/when/where you jump the light! It's amazing how if it's a set of lights with a camera on it how careful people are not to jump it...

Careless is losing your car keys or forgetting to put your multi tool into your camelbak.

If I ever get pulled by the rozzers for "driving without due care and attention" I've always wanted to use the rebuttal: "do you know how much care and attention taking the racing line requires?!"

I've been thinking similar things to bails/amedias/crazy-legs as well.

It seems to be a case of circular reasoning going on here.

[quote=amedias ]so driving your vehicle into someone and knocking them off even if you 'thought you were only going to scare them*' is still [s]dangerous[/s] assault by definition (as well as by common sense)

(yeah I know it's bindun, but for emphasis)

The definition of the law regarding careless and dangerous driving seriously needs revision, for all the reasons discussed above - current definitions give so much room for dodgy* defence solicitors to introduce reasonable doubt. Though in this particular case where from the reporting it appears that it was "proved" to be a deliberate action by the driver, I have to wonder whether the jury might have actually been more willing to convict the driver if he had been charged with some form of assault (ABH would seem to apply) - the wording for that doesn't have all this woolly stuff about careful drivers, it just requires an injury to be caused by a deliberate act of applying force. It would certainly have set a useful precedent.

*sadly you'll find that solicitors are legally obliged to provide their clients the best defence possible even apparently if that involves suggesting doubt where they have none themselves

[quote=Stoner ]If I ever get pulled by the rozzers for "driving without due care and attention" I've always wanted to use the rebuttal: "do you know how much care and attention taking the racing line requires?!"

The quite correct rebuttal is "everybody drives like that", and if they get upset, simply point out that defence has a long history in case law.

BTW can you see the link I gave up there from WCC - not sure whether you need to be logged in - location is somewhat closer to you than me!

why would you stop for those lights anyway? 😀

My point is that in a jury of peers (ie drivers), if the drivers don't think that the standard of driving displayed is well below what they expect of themselves and other drivers, then they (rightfully) won't convict. Even if the driving is appalling.

i've said it before on my 'falling down' style commuting rant, there is no back up, you ride a bike on the road - you are on your own. The TDF/Tour of Britain positivity is finished with, there is no legislation to protect you, courts/judges/sentences are useless, everyone in anything other than 2 wheels hates you.
Its war and ****ing bring it on.

aracer - Member
current definitions give so much room for dodgy* defence solicitors to introduce reasonable doubt. ...

*sadly you'll find that solicitors are legally obliged to provide their clients the best defence possible even apparently if that involves suggesting doubt where they have none themselves

I think your suggestion is rather unkind. Defence solicitors serve a very valuable function in the effective trial of the accused, without which people who are genuinely not guilty would run the risk of unfair conviction. It is for the Crown to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, if the Crown fail to do so that is not the fault of the defence; it may be the fault of an individual Crown prosecutor, it may be the fault of the prosecution system for lack of preparation or training but if we blame the defence we are saying it is OK to convict with ropey cases. It may also be that what you believe constitutes a crime is not, or is interpreted as not being a crime, either intentionally or accidentally through the quality of the legislation that parliament passed. You can't blame defence lawyers for the failings of parliament. It is however a fundamental right to a fair trial that the defence should be allowed to challenge and cross examine the evidence, to suggest that defence solicitors doing so are "dodgy" is unreasonable and unfair on people who we all assume we will never need (good people don't do they?).

No, but you're being tried by a jury of your peers - 12 people, the vast majority of whom will drive and the vast majority who will think "hmm, I've exceeded the speed limit / used a phone/ not looked / blahblah and I was fine so this driver must also be fine and it's just bad luck (or the cyclists fault)"

Also if you think about 12 random people. They will include some quieter and some "more vocal / assertive" types. If you want to generalise massively the aggressive drivers who dislike cyclists are more likely to be vocal about it than the reasonably competent driver who generally avoids confrontation (and perhaps being really stereotypical here would be a little softer on "sentence"). Now put those 12 people into a room and ask them to agree on a verdict of Dangerous, Careless or not-guilty. Just my guess, and it is only a guess as we can never know what goes on in the Jury room - but I can see many scenarios where even the vocal singletrack big hitter might be willing after three hours in a jury room with 11 strangers to plump for Careless to ensure that at least they were convicted of something.

[quote=poly ]I think your suggestion is rather unkind.
...
It is however a fundamental right to a fair trial that the defence should be allowed to challenge and cross examine the evidence, to suggest that defence solicitors doing so are "dodgy" is unreasonable and unfair on people who we all assume we will never need (good people don't do they?).

My bit at the end was supposed to clarify that it was what they were legally required to do, and therefore not actually dodgy, though clearly it doesn't read like that, for which I apologise. I have no objection at all to challenging and cross examining the evidence, clearly that is the correct thing to happen, it's the sort of thing the chap in the Helen Measures case came out with I'm not so happy about.

Clearly the big problem here is the legal definitions of motoring offences - we need to get more specific definitions of what constitutes dangerous driving which jurors can work with - IMHO hitting a vulnerable road user in the absence of any genuine mitigating circumstances should be dangerous driving by definition (based on the amount of space the HC says you're supposed to give them - if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did nothing wrong, I don't see how there can be a problem with that). Though I'd also suggest there is a problem with the judiciary not properly following the guidelines - not taking proper care around vulnerable road users is supposed to be an aggravating factor when sentencing, but that doesn't appear to be applied in reality.

Surprise, surprise
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-black-taxi-driver-cleared-of-ramming-cyclist-with-car-a3151971.html