Discussion of Range Rover woman being charged .... as formerly seen on CC

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

FishFright

Well-Known Member
As those who must exercise power have decreed that this subject is not suitable for minors I thought that maybe the adults of of that parish might like to carry on over here.....

Hopefully her public boasting will be taken into account when and if it comes to sentencing.
 
Do you know why the thread was disappeared? Did it risk being prejudicial to a trial or did it simply upset the (small c, obviously) conservatives who think that layabout protestors deserve to be crushed by the wheels of an urban tank?
 

swansonj

Regular
I presume that there was the risk of some people pointing out that the balance of power on our roads favours motorists over cyclists and pedestrians, and the suggestion that motorists might need to surrender some power (or even acknowledge that they have power in the first place) would have gone badly with the cycling-by-SUV brigade, and any debate about power in our society and whether it needs to change is deemed political?
 
The evidence so far in the public domain appears to support the charge brought against her. I wonder whether she will offer a legal defence, and if convicted what penalty she will suffer at the hands of the magistrate.

A few years ago I was assaulted by a motorist that got out of his car to punch me. He too was charged with assault by beating, pleaded not guilty but offered no defence, and was sentenced to sixteen weeks in prison and a twelve month driving ban. He appealed against the ban and was successful. His prison sentence was reduced to eight weeks, but that is less relevant here. It seems that since assault is not against any traffic regulation there is no power to endorse or remove a driving licence on conviction.

This case may be different to mine as there is video of a driver apparently using a car rather than a fist as a weapon.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
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.
 

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
Given the inconsistent and generally poor moderation over there, I did anticipate this. Despite me politely rebuffing attempts to drag politics into it, a mod couldn’t be arsed to help and instead nuked the thread.

For those who missed it I will paste the opening post here:

=============================================================​
I'm relieved to read that Essex police, after two whole months, have finally charged the woman who struck a protestor with her Range Rover.
I think it's important that drivers do not labour under the misapprehension that their vehicles are legitimate weapons. It's a pity these follow-ups don't get the same prominence in the news as the original event.

Sherrilyn Speid, 34, of North Road, Purfleet, has been charged with dangerous driving and assault by beating by Essex Police.
It follows an incident on October 13, where a woman was filmed storming out of her car and shouting at the protesters who were blocking the road near the Dartford Crossing.


=================================================================
 
Here's Fararse's well balanced take on the matter ( Insulate Britain terrorists :rolleyes: )

 

Pale Rider

Veteran
Do you know why the thread was disappeared? Did it risk being prejudicial to a trial or did it simply upset the (small c, obviously) conservatives who think that layabout protestors deserve to be crushed by the wheels of an urban tank?

It was removed, as the CC mod explained, purely because news is more or less banned on the main CC site.

There is no deeper meaning or conspiracy to it than that, although I'm not surprised some on here are scrabbling around to find one.

Yet another example of being unable to see the woods for the trees.
 
It was removed, as the CC mod explained, purely because news is more or less banned on the main CC site.
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.
 

Pale Rider

Veteran
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.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Here's Fararse's well balanced take on the matter ( Insulate Britain terrorists :rolleyes: )



Haven't read the piece, and, not supporting the actions of "Land Rover woman", but, it is said "one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist". Depends if you agree with the "cause" I suppose. I did wonder how long it would be before someone used the "terrorist/protester" phrase. I was expecting it from more right learning source. Wrong again, must try harder ;)
 
Top Bottom