- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgJail for driver who used car to ram teenager off bike and punched him
A company director who deliberately rammed a teenage cyclist, writing off his £2,500 bike, and then told him, “Little shit, you’ve done this,” has been jailed for six months.
Michael Hanley, aged 69, was also banned from driving for 15 months at Minshull Street Crown Court, reports the Manchester Evening News.
He had been found guilty of dangerous driving and common assault at Manchester Magistrates’ Court last month.
Hanley had been waiting at a set of traffic lights in Bury at around 1.45pm on 15 October last year when the 17-year-old cyclist moved ahead of him just as the lights turned green, with a witness describing how the driver had been “bumper hugging” the rider.
He then beeped his horn and flashed his lights, hitting the cyclist as he tried to turn onto a dirt track to get away from Hanley.
After knocking the youth from his bike, Hanley stood over him and said, “Little shit, you’ve done this,” before asking another motorist who had stopped, “Did you see what he was doing? He was weaving all over the road.”
Hanley then grabbed the cyclist by the shirt and punched him in the face. Before driving off, he smashed the wing mirror of his own vehicle.
During last month’s trial, the teenage victim, giving evidence by video link, said: “The bike is irreparable. I went round several bike shops and they said it’s worth practically nothing now.
“The incident has affected me quite badly and I wasn’t fully myself for weeks following it. I lost my confidence and from now on I’ll feel more cautious on the roads if I get another bike.”
Hanley had claimed that the cyclist “must have gone into a pothole and came off his bike” and that “I couldn’t use my vehicle as a weapon because the braking mechanism would stop it.”
He also insisted that it had been the cyclist who had broken his vehicle’s wing mirror.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 0 sec ago
But it does alert you to incompetent and dgaf drivers giving you 2-3 seconds to escape being a KSI.
- lonpfrb 17 min 20 sec ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 43 min 19 sec ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 1 hour 29 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 57 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 38 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 3 hours 17 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 4 hours 14 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 30 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
18 comments
I find it unacceptable when road users attempt to mitigate their actions by blaming a pre-existing condition - whether or not declared to the DVLA.
Anyone using the roads needs to drive to the conditions - not just of the road, but the vehicle, the weather - and the person behind the wheel/handlebars. And if your condition changes too quickly to adjust your driving - then you shouldn't be driving.
Heart attacks and strokes of course are another story ...
Kind of 'roll my eyes' at people being described as Company Directors and supposed 'pillars of society'; have friends who set themselves up as Sole Traders (consultants) and next thing they're Company Directors and Owners.
They are a company director if and only if they are a director of a limited company. They aren't a company director if they are a sole trader. In any case, it doesn't mean they're pillars of society...
Good to see some custodial punishment.
Whilst a lifetime driving ban would be good. If they are to get behind the wheel again, perhaps other road users need warning for the first year. We have ‘L’ plates and ‘P’ plates, so what about a ‘B’ plate for the first year after a driving ban, with a ‘how’s my driving’ number to call.
Even better, they have to prove their worth for that first year in a government supplied, rubber foam covered, yellow Robin Reliant adorned with hazard markings (that they need to pay an extortionate monthly amount for the pleasure of driving).
Also from the Guardian:
Hanley’s lawyer, Stephanie Varle, said her client had type 2 diabetes and experienced a sugar low during the incident, which could make his behaviour “unpredictable”. It was a “moment of madness”, she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/11/man-69-jailed-for-knocki...
Clearly lawyers learn off each other, diabetes is now a defence. I have sympathy for sufferers, but that does not extend to giving a free pass for driving while unfit, nor from the consequences of doing so.
According to the NHS, type 2 causes a sugar high
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/type-2-diabetes/
Type 2 diabetes is a common condition that causes the level of sugar (glucose) in the blood to become too high.
Not mentioned as a symptom
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/type-2-diabetes/symptoms/
And had he reported his illness and its affects on his driving to the DVLA? I supect not as it only became relevant in trying to avoid jail.
It sickens me (no pun intended) when people use illness or disability, that they haven't declared to the DVLA when required, as some sort of mitigation for the harm they cause others.
I used to know someone who in a fit of road rage killed another motorist. She claimed in her defence that her mental health meds had affected her judgement but when it became clear she hadn't informed the DVLA about her illness or meds then the judge showed her no leniency in sentencing.
double post
There is no question in my mind that someone who deliberately uses a vehicle as a weapon should never again be allowed to hold driving licence. Do you imagine that someone with a firearms licence would be allowed to keep their licence if they used their gun to deliberately shoot somebody against whom they felt agrieved? I don't think so.
The license revocation is actually a pretty stern punishment in itself for an older driver. Chances are that the last time he passed his test it was based on a gentlemen's chat about the driving characteristics of an Austin Healey, a quick guffaw about women driving and then a simple eye sight check. This time round will be a very different affair and having to sit and study (in some detail) for the theory, before getting extensive tutoring for the follow up extended test, will give him quite some time to reflect on his actions. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
From the Grauniad's article about this at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/11/man-69-jailed-for-knocking-teenager-off-bike-in-road-rage-row
I really hope Hanley learns something from this...
...and not just him either, but a lot of other twunts who you have to ask whether they should be allowed behind the wheel of a motor vehicle either.
It's good that this thug has been given a proper sentence. There are others who get away with it sadly.
Should surely have been charge for what looks like perverting the course of justice too, as he appears to have deliberately knocked off his own mirror and tried to make it look like the young lad had done it.
He's clearly a nasty piece of work and I hope he enjoys his spell at HMP.
Whilst he will get his licence back, presumably the bit when the insurance company asks "any claims or convictions in the last 5 years?" would result in a ludicrous premium or refuse cover.
From my experience of being a very naughty boy about 20 years ago and losing my licence I only got hammered with high insurance for about a year. First year was £500 to insure a 125cc and then it dropped to £130. A couple of years later and I was insured on a 600 supersport for £100.
I guess I wasn't deliberately trying to injure people though so maybe he won't get insured. He will have to pass his test first and extended one at that. It's pretty hard to drive a test standard for 70 minutes so he'll probably fail being 70 and most likely stuck in his running-over-ways.
6 months for the assualt... or 6 months for the assualt with a deadly vehicle?
It's worth stating the usual complaint about the refusal of courts to consider long-term revocation of driving licenses: despite the fact that this man used his car as a two-tonne weapon to assault an unprotected road user, he will be legally entitled to sit behind the wheel of his car in one and a quarter years' time.
Thank goodness for the independent witness.
Exactly. If it had simply been "he said / he said" then I suspect the police would have taken his word for it and no charges would have been pressed.
Depressing that he thought he would get away with it, and depressing that the kid has expressed concern about riding again.