Adrian George jailed over crash on the Cooper Dean flyover which left cyclist with life changing injuries

Bournemouth Echo: CRIME SITE: Police at the scene CRIME SITE: Police at the scene

A DRIVER who left a cyclist with life-changing injuries has been jailed.

Adrian George of Robert Louis Stevenson Avenue, Bournemouth, was found guilty of two charges at Weymouth Magistrates Court last month.

Yesterday, George, 39, returned to the same court and was jailed for failing to stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report the collision.

He was told to serve a four-month sentence for each charge, which will run concurrently.

Earlier, the court had been told that the charges referred to a collision on the A338 Wessex Way at the Cooper Dean flyover on April 27 last year.

Sarah Faulkner was knocked off her bicycle by George's Renault Master van at around 7.45am.

She received life-changing injuries, including several fractures and a head injury that led to a subdural haemorrhage.

Police seized George’s van a day after the incident.

Forensics matched it to glass taken from the scene of the incident.

George had already admitted to the charge of careless driving on October 15.

He accepted he had been in a collision with the bicycle but denied knowing about it at the time.

Patrick Goodings, prosecuting, read Miss Faulkner’s victim statement to the court, which was recorded in June last year.

In her statement, Miss Faulkner said: “The injuries I have sustained mean my life will never be the same again.

“I’m concerned about my future financial situation as I won’t be able to return to work in the near future.”

Brendan Allen, representing George, said the bench wasn’t dealing with someone who was a bad person.

He said: “It’s not surprising in his pre-sentence report he maintains what he said in his evidence.”

Mr Allen added George was “horrified and deeply ashamed” by his actions, which had left him unable to concentrate and engage with others.

The bench heard George’s previous convictions, which span across an 18-year period.

Those included charges of driving while disqualified and without insurance and two separate drink/driving related offences.

Mike Owen, chairman of the bench, said they accepted George had shown remorse for his actions but this was a very serious case and incident.

He added that only a custodial sentence was appropriate in view of the bench’s findings.

George will also be disqualified from driving for 12 months and will remain so thereafter until he passes a test.

Mr Owen said there would be no separate penalty imposed for the charge of careless driving.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:51am Fri 25 Apr 14

justsayithowitis says...

What is the point of banning him from driving. It hasn't stopped him in the past.. Defence says he is not a bad person but obviously he is not a good person going by his past crimes
What is the point of banning him from driving. It hasn't stopped him in the past.. Defence says he is not a bad person but obviously he is not a good person going by his past crimes justsayithowitis
  • Score: 59

7:25am Fri 25 Apr 14

Bournemouth Ohec says...

Quote; Brendan Allen, representing George, said the bench wasn’t dealing with someone who was a bad person.

Yet here is someone who was driving whilst disqualified, without insurance, had a history drink/driving related offences and failed to stop at the scene of a serious accident.

Stretching the truth I reckon.
Quote; Brendan Allen, representing George, said the bench wasn’t dealing with someone who was a bad person. Yet here is someone who was driving whilst disqualified, without insurance, had a history drink/driving related offences and failed to stop at the scene of a serious accident. Stretching the truth I reckon. Bournemouth Ohec
  • Score: 55

8:00am Fri 25 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

There can be no excuse for hitting a cyclist on a dual carriageway. There's plenty of space to overtake, even if you've got to wait for a gap to pull over into.

Of course the defence tried to present him as a person of good character. It's their job to defend him. He patently wasn't (and isn't). Fortunately the magistrates aren't fools (hopefully). They can see through the adversorial BS.

What I don't really understand is why this trial is being heard in a magistrates court. The man has previous driving related offences and was driving while disqualified. The incident wouldn't have happened if he hadn't shown contempt for the current driving ban. He's had his opportunity to prove himself - and failed. IMHO it should be in front of a judge and jury in a crown court so that an appropriate sentence can be given, not the slap on a wrist that a magistrate can hand down.
There can be no excuse for hitting a cyclist on a dual carriageway. There's plenty of space to overtake, even if you've got to wait for a gap to pull over into. Of course the defence tried to present him as a person of good character. It's their job to defend him. He patently wasn't (and isn't). Fortunately the magistrates aren't fools (hopefully). They can see through the adversorial BS. What I don't really understand is why this trial is being heard in a magistrates court. The man has previous driving related offences and was driving while disqualified. The incident wouldn't have happened if he hadn't shown contempt for the current driving ban. He's had his opportunity to prove himself - and failed. IMHO it should be in front of a judge and jury in a crown court so that an appropriate sentence can be given, not the slap on a wrist that a magistrate can hand down. JackJohnson
  • Score: 43

8:01am Fri 25 Apr 14

Moro99 says...

He could be back driving in a year?
He could be back driving in a year? Moro99
  • Score: 11

8:06am Fri 25 Apr 14

djd says...

JackJohnson wrote:
There can be no excuse for hitting a cyclist on a dual carriageway. There's plenty of space to overtake, even if you've got to wait for a gap to pull over into.

Of course the defence tried to present him as a person of good character. It's their job to defend him. He patently wasn't (and isn't). Fortunately the magistrates aren't fools (hopefully). They can see through the adversorial BS.

What I don't really understand is why this trial is being heard in a magistrates court. The man has previous driving related offences and was driving while disqualified. The incident wouldn't have happened if he hadn't shown contempt for the current driving ban. He's had his opportunity to prove himself - and failed. IMHO it should be in front of a judge and jury in a crown court so that an appropriate sentence can be given, not the slap on a wrist that a magistrate can hand down.
At least he got four months. Had he gone to Crown Court and got the likes of Judge Wiggs, he would have been given a slap on the wrist and told to go away and not to be a naughty boy in the future.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: There can be no excuse for hitting a cyclist on a dual carriageway. There's plenty of space to overtake, even if you've got to wait for a gap to pull over into. Of course the defence tried to present him as a person of good character. It's their job to defend him. He patently wasn't (and isn't). Fortunately the magistrates aren't fools (hopefully). They can see through the adversorial BS. What I don't really understand is why this trial is being heard in a magistrates court. The man has previous driving related offences and was driving while disqualified. The incident wouldn't have happened if he hadn't shown contempt for the current driving ban. He's had his opportunity to prove himself - and failed. IMHO it should be in front of a judge and jury in a crown court so that an appropriate sentence can be given, not the slap on a wrist that a magistrate can hand down.[/p][/quote]At least he got four months. Had he gone to Crown Court and got the likes of Judge Wiggs, he would have been given a slap on the wrist and told to go away and not to be a naughty boy in the future. djd
  • Score: 20

8:29am Fri 25 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

djd wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
There can be no excuse for hitting a cyclist on a dual carriageway. There's plenty of space to overtake, even if you've got to wait for a gap to pull over into.

Of course the defence tried to present him as a person of good character. It's their job to defend him. He patently wasn't (and isn't). Fortunately the magistrates aren't fools (hopefully). They can see through the adversorial BS.

What I don't really understand is why this trial is being heard in a magistrates court. The man has previous driving related offences and was driving while disqualified. The incident wouldn't have happened if he hadn't shown contempt for the current driving ban. He's had his opportunity to prove himself - and failed. IMHO it should be in front of a judge and jury in a crown court so that an appropriate sentence can be given, not the slap on a wrist that a magistrate can hand down.
At least he got four months. Had he gone to Crown Court and got the likes of Judge Wiggs, he would have been given a slap on the wrist and told to go away and not to be a naughty boy in the future.
The cyclist he hit had life-changing injuries. She's got a life sentence.

Adrian George deserved much, much more than a 4-month slap on the wrist.

Unfortunately, as you point out, he could have been tried by Wiggs. Given his habit of handing out inappropriate sentences is he really fit to be a judge?
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: There can be no excuse for hitting a cyclist on a dual carriageway. There's plenty of space to overtake, even if you've got to wait for a gap to pull over into. Of course the defence tried to present him as a person of good character. It's their job to defend him. He patently wasn't (and isn't). Fortunately the magistrates aren't fools (hopefully). They can see through the adversorial BS. What I don't really understand is why this trial is being heard in a magistrates court. The man has previous driving related offences and was driving while disqualified. The incident wouldn't have happened if he hadn't shown contempt for the current driving ban. He's had his opportunity to prove himself - and failed. IMHO it should be in front of a judge and jury in a crown court so that an appropriate sentence can be given, not the slap on a wrist that a magistrate can hand down.[/p][/quote]At least he got four months. Had he gone to Crown Court and got the likes of Judge Wiggs, he would have been given a slap on the wrist and told to go away and not to be a naughty boy in the future.[/p][/quote]The cyclist he hit had life-changing injuries. She's got a life sentence. Adrian George deserved much, much more than a 4-month slap on the wrist. Unfortunately, as you point out, he could have been tried by Wiggs. Given his habit of handing out inappropriate sentences is he really fit to be a judge? JackJohnson
  • Score: 29

8:38am Fri 25 Apr 14

billy bumble says...

He is clearly NOT of good character and should have been remitted to the Crown Court - for all the good that would do

I am not trying to minimize anything here - but should the unfortunate lady have been cycling on the 338?
He is clearly NOT of good character and should have been remitted to the Crown Court - for all the good that would do I am not trying to minimize anything here - but should the unfortunate lady have been cycling on the 338? billy bumble
  • Score: -32

9:18am Fri 25 Apr 14

Bournemouth87 says...

8 months with all those previous convictions. This man has not learnt has changed someones life forever, and now in 4 months time he will be out of prison. What is England coming too these sentancing is shownig no detterent not to commit a crime.
8 months with all those previous convictions. This man has not learnt has changed someones life forever, and now in 4 months time he will be out of prison. What is England coming too these sentancing is shownig no detterent not to commit a crime. Bournemouth87
  • Score: 16

9:27am Fri 25 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Only 4 months.... disgusting!
Only 4 months.... disgusting! Franks Tank
  • Score: 23

9:48am Fri 25 Apr 14

BackinPoole says...

Should have been at least four years and then a lot of compensation from his pocket for his victim.
Should have been at least four years and then a lot of compensation from his pocket for his victim. BackinPoole
  • Score: 19

10:03am Fri 25 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Unfortunately that is the tariff - the idiot that left my son on the road dying and drove off and left him got three months......... I do enjoy seeing his smirking face in his van........what goes around comes around and let us hope it is soon!
Unfortunately that is the tariff - the idiot that left my son on the road dying and drove off and left him got three months......... I do enjoy seeing his smirking face in his van........what goes around comes around and let us hope it is soon! suzigirl
  • Score: 15

10:07am Fri 25 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

Banned for driving for 12 months (albeit with a requirement to pass a new test)? Considering his previous offences, he should be banned for life. He is clearly a serious danger to other road users.
Banned for driving for 12 months (albeit with a requirement to pass a new test)? Considering his previous offences, he should be banned for life. He is clearly a serious danger to other road users. The Liberal
  • Score: 16

10:49am Fri 25 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

This needs to be referred for inadequate sentencing.

It's no wonder people drive dangerously whenm they know they won't be punished.
This needs to be referred for inadequate sentencing. It's no wonder people drive dangerously whenm they know they won't be punished. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 10

11:07am Fri 25 Apr 14

joeinpoole says...

His 4 month sentences will run concurrently ... therefore he'll probably be out in 2 months or less.

From reading the report he wasn't driving whilst disqualified on this occasion, apparently that was a previous conviction.

I'd have given him 4 years in jail, not 4 months and banned him for a minimum of 5 years thereafter.
His 4 month sentences will run concurrently ... therefore he'll probably be out in 2 months or less. From reading the report he wasn't driving whilst disqualified on this occasion, apparently that was a previous conviction. I'd have given him 4 years in jail, not 4 months and banned him for a minimum of 5 years thereafter. joeinpoole
  • Score: 10

11:21am Fri 25 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

billy bumble wrote:
He is clearly NOT of good character and should have been remitted to the Crown Court - for all the good that would do

I am not trying to minimize anything here - but should the unfortunate lady have been cycling on the 338?
It was where she was legally entitled to be.

I can see the cyclists' complaint that they should be using pavements and footpaths because the roads are no longer safe enough for them. It's a valid argument but until byelaws are passed and suitable signage is fitted the road is exactly where she should have been. The purpose of the signage is to tell cyclists that there is a cycle route and tell pedestrians that they are likely to encounter cyclists on the footpath.

Arguing that an MP said it's ok, so it is legal, is an invalid argument. MPs are not entitled to encourage citizens to break the law. They are entitled to negotiate changes in the law, where appropriate, on behalf of citizens.

There is, of course, another solution. Improve standards for all road users, and hand out more appropriate fines/sentencing for the bad ones. It won't stop all cyclist vs motorist incidents, but neither will letting cyclists use pavements.
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: He is clearly NOT of good character and should have been remitted to the Crown Court - for all the good that would do I am not trying to minimize anything here - but should the unfortunate lady have been cycling on the 338?[/p][/quote]It was where she was legally entitled to be. I can see the cyclists' complaint that they should be using pavements and footpaths because the roads are no longer safe enough for them. It's a valid argument but until byelaws are passed and suitable signage is fitted the road is exactly where she should have been. The purpose of the signage is to tell cyclists that there is a cycle route and tell pedestrians that they are likely to encounter cyclists on the footpath. Arguing that an MP said it's ok, so it is legal, is an invalid argument. MPs are not entitled to encourage citizens to break the law. They are entitled to negotiate changes in the law, where appropriate, on behalf of citizens. There is, of course, another solution. Improve standards for all road users, and hand out more appropriate fines/sentencing for the bad ones. It won't stop all cyclist vs motorist incidents, but neither will letting cyclists use pavements. JackJohnson
  • Score: 9

11:24am Fri 25 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

So why was there a cyclist on the Dorset Way the other morning with a perfectly good cycle lane there? I just don't get it!
So why was there a cyclist on the Dorset Way the other morning with a perfectly good cycle lane there? I just don't get it! suzigirl
  • Score: -15

11:25am Fri 25 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

"perfectly good cycle lane " ha ha
"perfectly good cycle lane " ha ha anotherfatslob
  • Score: 15

11:55am Fri 25 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

suzigirl wrote:
So why was there a cyclist on the Dorset Way the other morning with a perfectly good cycle lane there? I just don't get it!
Couldn't agree more. Cycle lanes, where provided, should be compulsory - not optional.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So why was there a cyclist on the Dorset Way the other morning with a perfectly good cycle lane there? I just don't get it![/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. Cycle lanes, where provided, should be compulsory - not optional. JackJohnson
  • Score: -16

12:29pm Fri 25 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
"perfectly good cycle lane " ha ha
and you are laughing because? What is wrong with that cycle lane? Surely safer than cycling on the Dorset Way!
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: "perfectly good cycle lane " ha ha[/p][/quote]and you are laughing because? What is wrong with that cycle lane? Surely safer than cycling on the Dorset Way! suzigirl
  • Score: -9

1:05pm Fri 25 Apr 14

PokesdownMark says...

4 months seems incredibly lenient. Scope for it to be appealed and made many months more I'd hope?
4 months seems incredibly lenient. Scope for it to be appealed and made many months more I'd hope? PokesdownMark
  • Score: 4

1:52pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Arthur Maureen says...

I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on..

Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely.

This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.
I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 15

2:05pm Fri 25 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

The ignorance of the "use the cycle path" brigade is understandable.

A cyclist makes a reasonable decision that at the speed they are traveling, a shared use path is inappropriate and using the adjacent road is correct

Motorists would just ignore common sense, put their foot down regardless and speed.

The concept of respect for others is beyond them.
The ignorance of the "use the cycle path" brigade is understandable. A cyclist makes a reasonable decision that at the speed they are traveling, a shared use path is inappropriate and using the adjacent road is correct Motorists would just ignore common sense, put their foot down regardless and speed. The concept of respect for others is beyond them. DanWeston
  • Score: 7

3:34pm Fri 25 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

DanWeston wrote:
The ignorance of the "use the cycle path" brigade is understandable.

A cyclist makes a reasonable decision that at the speed they are traveling, a shared use path is inappropriate and using the adjacent road is correct

Motorists would just ignore common sense, put their foot down regardless and speed.

The concept of respect for others is beyond them.
I think, perhaps, you generalise too much.

There are more motorists with respect for other road users than there are motorists without respect for other road users. Sadly, the number of motorists without respect for other road users is falling. Adrian George clearly had no respect for others or he would not have been driving and would not have left the scene of the incident.

Speaking of common sense, perhaps the answer is that perhaps cyclists should use common sense and slow down when using cycle lanes, rather than use the road and put their safety at risk? After all, we're talkiing about urban cycling where cyclists are more likely to come into conflict with other road users and pedestrians. Save speed for rural/out-of-town rides (if you claim to respect others - something I'm beginning to doubt).

This works in Munich, where (IIRC) use of cycle lanes is obligatory. Sadly, Bavarian pedestrians do get in the way from time to time. One advantage of the cycle lanes there is that at road junctions, cyclists crossing the junction on the cycle lane have priority over motorists crossing the cycle lane. If this rule were to be applied in the UK it might encourage more cyclists to stay safe(r) and use the cycle lane. As a motorist I certainly wouldn't mind waiting for a cyclist to cross, though I imagine many others would object. I was there for six months (as both a cyclist and a motorist) and saw only one car vs cycle incident where the driver had turned right and hit a cyclist. They were giving the cyclist first aid for her head injury (driving lessons have a first aid component - which I believe should be introduced in the UK).
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: The ignorance of the "use the cycle path" brigade is understandable. A cyclist makes a reasonable decision that at the speed they are traveling, a shared use path is inappropriate and using the adjacent road is correct Motorists would just ignore common sense, put their foot down regardless and speed. The concept of respect for others is beyond them.[/p][/quote]I think, perhaps, you generalise too much. There are more motorists with respect for other road users than there are motorists without respect for other road users. Sadly, the number of motorists without respect for other road users is falling. Adrian George clearly had no respect for others or he would not have been driving and would not have left the scene of the incident. Speaking of common sense, perhaps the answer is that perhaps cyclists should use common sense and slow down when using cycle lanes, rather than use the road and put their safety at risk? After all, we're talkiing about urban cycling where cyclists are more likely to come into conflict with other road users and pedestrians. Save speed for rural/out-of-town rides (if you claim to respect others - something I'm beginning to doubt). This works in Munich, where (IIRC) use of cycle lanes is obligatory. Sadly, Bavarian pedestrians do get in the way from time to time. One advantage of the cycle lanes there is that at road junctions, cyclists crossing the junction on the cycle lane have priority over motorists crossing the cycle lane. If this rule were to be applied in the UK it might encourage more cyclists to stay safe(r) and use the cycle lane. As a motorist I certainly wouldn't mind waiting for a cyclist to cross, though I imagine many others would object. I was there for six months (as both a cyclist and a motorist) and saw only one car vs cycle incident where the driver had turned right and hit a cyclist. They were giving the cyclist first aid for her head injury (driving lessons have a first aid component - which I believe should be introduced in the UK). JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Fri 25 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

billy bumble wrote:
He is clearly NOT of good character and should have been remitted to the Crown Court - for all the good that would do

I am not trying to minimize anything here - but should the unfortunate lady have been cycling on the 338?
It's a road, where should she have been cycling, on the pavement?
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: He is clearly NOT of good character and should have been remitted to the Crown Court - for all the good that would do I am not trying to minimize anything here - but should the unfortunate lady have been cycling on the 338?[/p][/quote]It's a road, where should she have been cycling, on the pavement? breamoreboy
  • Score: 5

4:45pm Fri 25 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.
Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches!
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.[/p][/quote]Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches! suzigirl
  • Score: -12

4:55pm Fri 25 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

suzigirl wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.
Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches!
They certainly should be reminding whoever is supposed to keep them reasonably clean, tidy and in good repair that they're not doing their jobs properly, and putting cyclists at risk by forcing them to use the roads.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.[/p][/quote]Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches![/p][/quote]They certainly should be reminding whoever is supposed to keep them reasonably clean, tidy and in good repair that they're not doing their jobs properly, and putting cyclists at risk by forcing them to use the roads. JackJohnson
  • Score: 5

5:21pm Fri 25 Apr 14

downfader says...

suzigirl wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.
Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches!
I take it you go around fixing potholes in your car then?
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.[/p][/quote]Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches![/p][/quote]I take it you go around fixing potholes in your car then? downfader
  • Score: 12

6:09pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Yankee1 says...

The civil lawsuit to come will leave this man penniless for life.

Slam dunk. The jail sentence will seem to be a doddle.
The civil lawsuit to come will leave this man penniless for life. Slam dunk. The jail sentence will seem to be a doddle. Yankee1
  • Score: 2

8:01pm Fri 25 Apr 14

sallyjonesdorset says...

What an awful thing and I truly hope she is better.. But has anyone considered as you personally dont know this man that this may may of truly been a unfortunate accident? Convictions over 18 years....this doesnt say he was actually on a ban just that this was in his 'past'.
What an awful thing and I truly hope she is better.. But has anyone considered as you personally dont know this man that this may may of truly been a unfortunate accident? Convictions over 18 years....this doesnt say he was actually on a ban just that this was in his 'past'. sallyjonesdorset
  • Score: -7

9:10pm Fri 25 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

sallyjonesdorset wrote:
What an awful thing and I truly hope she is better.. But has anyone considered as you personally dont know this man that this may may of truly been a unfortunate accident? Convictions over 18 years....this doesnt say he was actually on a ban just that this was in his 'past'.
Are you real?

He clearly has been an inconsiderate bar steward and reckless driver for most if not all of his driving years and not even prosecution deemed to be sufficient or enough of a reason for him to change at the huge expensive of others.

Still, a good shag is he Ms Jones?
[quote][p][bold]sallyjonesdorset[/bold] wrote: What an awful thing and I truly hope she is better.. But has anyone considered as you personally dont know this man that this may may of truly been a unfortunate accident? Convictions over 18 years....this doesnt say he was actually on a ban just that this was in his 'past'.[/p][/quote]Are you real? He clearly has been an inconsiderate bar steward and reckless driver for most if not all of his driving years and not even prosecution deemed to be sufficient or enough of a reason for him to change at the huge expensive of others. Still, a good shag is he Ms Jones? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 11

9:16pm Fri 25 Apr 14

sallyjonesdorset says...

It was merely a freedom of speech..I hope the lady is better.
It was merely a freedom of speech..I hope the lady is better. sallyjonesdorset
  • Score: -2

10:30pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Arthur Maureen says...

suzigirl wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.
Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches!
I and I am sure others know what the appropriate use of that brush you mention would be oh hilarious one - you'd walk all the better for it :P
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: I guess my friend is referring to the cycle lanes that are covered in road debris, end abruptly, often have a surface akin to a back street in Delhi and so on.. Riding on the 338 - I personally wouldn't, but she had the right to, and its a dual carriageway so plenty of space to overtake safely. This scum should not be driving ever again, he is a menace to all road users.[/p][/quote]Maybe you and your "considerate cyclists" friends should arrange an event where you travel all the cycle paths in Dorset with a brush strapped to the back of your bicycles so that you can clean all the terrible cycle lanes that you come across - it would be akin to clearing up the beaches![/p][/quote]I and I am sure others know what the appropriate use of that brush you mention would be oh hilarious one - you'd walk all the better for it :P Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 7

10:26pm Sat 26 Apr 14

tim m says...

sallyjonesdorset wrote:
It was merely a freedom of speech..I hope the lady is better.
A freedom of speech?
[quote][p][bold]sallyjonesdorset[/bold] wrote: It was merely a freedom of speech..I hope the lady is better.[/p][/quote]A freedom of speech? tim m
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Muddy8 says...

It would seem that most of the above comments are in ignorance of the FACTS!! So before making or passing comments GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!!
It would seem that most of the above comments are in ignorance of the FACTS!! So before making or passing comments GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!! Muddy8
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree