I saw the appeal to concentrate on the legal and entitled driver aspects of the story but didn’t see much after that. It’s a shame the mods couldn’t find a way to moderate rather than expunge the thread. It’s come to something if road use can’t be mentioned on a cycling forum.
The modding, typically, is a bit muddled.
It appears some news may be allowed if it relates to cycling, so had Range Rover woman clouted a cyclist it would be allowed in advocacy over there, although presumably background to why she did it would still be disallowed.
As I said, muddled thinking.
Similarly to the recently reported case involving the Land Rover driver deliberately running over the cyclist, I don't see it as a driving offence. By the time the offender has got into the mindset which has led them to commit the offence, they've stopped 'driving' and are doing something else. It's difficult to define exactly what since strictly speaking they are driving the vehicle, but they're no longer using it as a tool to get from A to B. In both cases the driver has got out of the car and then got back in in order to intentionally use the vehicle as a weapon to commit assault. There may be similar cases where the driver has remained inside the vehicle for the duration of the incident but to me the getting out and getting back in again sort of seals it.
If you see what I mean.
The charging looks right to me, and I think agrees with your view.
Shoving someone a couple of feet along a road, even with a weapon, is no more than common assault.
However, common assault on its own does not take sufficient account of the use of the car as a weapon, so dangerous driving is added.
Conviction for that offence is a minimum ban of a year.
It's tactics, as usual, so come the trial what I expect will happen is the driver will offer common assault in exchange for dangerous driving being dropped.
She will do this in the knowledge common assault will only be a small fine, and she will get to keep her precious licence.
)
