this cyclist's helmet saved him

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765

On 24/12/2010 16:09, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765

QUOTE:
A teenager who attacked a cyclist with a steering wheel lock has had a
three-year driving ban overturned – so he can pursue a career as a lorry
driving instructor. Zain Cornell-Gallardo, 19, of Pettits Lane North,
Romford, was jailed for 15 months and banned from driving for three years at
Basildon Crown Court in September, after being convicted of assault causing
actual bodily harm...

The judge said the incident began when Cornell-Gallardo, driving a Vauxhall
Corsa, passed very close to Mr Baldwin, causing him to crash.
ENDQUOTE

Says who, though?

And corroborated by whom?

QUOTE:
The cyclist caught up with the car as it was stopped at traffic lights and
banged on the passenger window.
ENDQUOTE

So there was no significant damage or injury caused by this "close pass"
which "caused the cyclist to crash". Certainly not enough (after hitting
something or falling off, or both) to stop him catching up with a car.

[SNIP: Stuff about an altercation involving the cyclist, a passenger in the
car and the driver.]

Sounds pretty much as these two deserved each other when they met on that
Essex road. Neither of them come out of it well.

QUOTE:
Cornell-Gallardo's barrister ... argued his sentence was too long, saying the
crown court judge didn't take enough account of his youth or the fact it was
his first offence. She also said the driving ban was "wrong in principle",
because there was no link between the assault and his skills behind the
wheel. [ ... ]

Lord Justice Leveston said 15 months was in fact lower than the sentencing
guidelines suggest for a premeditated attack, where a weapon is used.
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but by
the subsequent assault. He added: "In the circumstances, and particularly
bearing in mind his anticipated future career, we quash the disqualification
from driving."
ENDQUOTE

The only "bad driving" even hinted at in the report is the claim (presumably
by the uninjured cyclist on the roadworthy bike and presumably
uncorroborated) that the car had passed "too close" (a matter of opinion at
best) and that this caused him (the cyclist) to crash.

If such a claim (not a collision, mind, just an assertion that a car passed
"too close") were all that were necessary to justify a 3-year driving
disqualification, then truly no driver or family in the UK would be safe from
"mission cyclists" (especially the sort who go around seeking and provoking
trouble with a camera strapped to the top of their heads).

All in all, from start to finish, a very unhappy case, with none of the
parties emerging as an upright citizen (except perhaps the passenger). But at
least an important principle has been upheld. "Your word against mine" is no
basis for draconian penalties like a three-year driving ban (mind you, I
suspect that the driver probably didn't present well in court and got right
up the court's collective nose).

Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765




His Dad must run Thames Materials Ltd, the firm that employed Dennis
Putz with his three convictions for drunk driving, three convictions for
reckless driving and twenty, yes twenty, driving disqualifications who
killed cyclist Catriona Patel while driving his truck drunk and on the
phone? Sounds like he'll be perfect for training their drivers.

Tony

On Dec 24, 5:53*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/12/2010 16:09, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...who-attacked-c...

QUOTE:
A teenager who attacked a cyclist with a steering wheel lock has had a
three-year driving ban overturned – so he can pursue a career as a lorry
driving instructor. Zain Cornell-Gallardo, 19, of Pettits Lane North,
Romford, was jailed for 15 months and banned from driving for three years at
Basildon Crown Court in September, after being convicted of assault causing
actual bodily harm...

The judge said the incident began when Cornell-Gallardo, driving a Vauxhall
Corsa, passed very close to Mr Baldwin, causing him to crash.
ENDQUOTE

Says who, though?

And corroborated by whom?

QUOTE:
The cyclist caught up with the car as it was stopped at traffic lights and
banged on the passenger window.
ENDQUOTE

So there was no significant damage or injury caused by this "close pass"
which "caused the cyclist to crash". Certainly not enough (after hitting
something or falling off, or both) to stop him catching up with a car.

[SNIP: Stuff about an altercation involving the cyclist, a passenger in the
car and the driver.]

Sounds pretty much as these two deserved each other when they met on that
Essex road. Neither of them come out of it well.

QUOTE:
Cornell-Gallardo's barrister ... argued his sentence was too long, saying the
crown court judge didn't take enough account of his youth or the fact it was
his first offence. She also said the driving ban was "wrong in principle",
because there was no link between the assault and his skills behind the
wheel. [ ... ]

Lord Justice Leveston said 15 months was in fact lower than the sentencing
guidelines suggest for a premeditated attack, where a weapon is used.
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but by
the subsequent assault. He added: "In the circumstances, and particularly
bearing in mind his anticipated future career, we quash the disqualification
from driving."
ENDQUOTE

The only "bad driving" even hinted at in the report is the claim (presumably
by the uninjured cyclist on the roadworthy bike and presumably
uncorroborated) that the car had passed "too close" (a matter of opinion at
best) and that this caused him (the cyclist) to crash.

If such a claim (not a collision, mind, just an assertion that a car passed
"too close") were all that were necessary to justify a 3-year driving
disqualification, then truly no driver or family in the UK would be safe from
"mission cyclists" (especially the sort who go around seeking and provoking
trouble with a camera strapped to the top of their heads).

All in all, from start to finish, a very unhappy case, with none of the
parties emerging as an upright citizen (except perhaps the passenger). But at
least an important principle has been upheld. "Your word against mine" is no
basis for draconian penalties like a three-year driving ban (mind you, I
suspect that the driver probably didn't present well in court and got right
up the court's collective nose).

Being called "Zain Cornell-Gallardo" really deserves some
institutional time too.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765


Quote:
The judge said the incident began when Cornell-Gallardo, driving a Vauxhall
Corsa, passed very close to Mr Baldwin, causing him to crash
End Quote

Quote:
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but by
the subsequent assault
End Quote

It Could be argued Mr Baldwin's injuries WERE caused by Cornell-Gallardo's
bad driving. Or does this mean we are not responsible for the consequences
of our actions?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/12/2010 21:42, Jolly polly wrote:
Quote:
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but
by the subsequent assault
End Quote


What justification could there possibly be for banning someone just
because they ran someone off the road and then assaulted them? Surely
it's not a problem when people are unable to drive properly and can't
control their anger?

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNFRtDAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/r/8H/jN96B04T3Z7VJxplLDCeAKf
T5E6bzvcMPgl4792lwnjHSsQ6J3Ve45+7Esf09QMotQY28nojS HWQGnrUwgYIqgX
jVPbErc+V1wis36IrdLL2gXppQr6HTPgkDotLfn523b9At1prj TZ5IfbmTUQOJMa
CXdPwNT+Re9hGcRMeqjVRTJwzLZOz8Hm4bW+iOtIanK7qGlldG vxT5htGpcx9HmU
6d/nSeZmSuJOAXcK5MWwVFF5Pq55Aeicf8TNOuaCesTrYcJIr3iEB p0NVJS0z1U9
9Jltwn+AkxuRrePiPJ14xN3wVoqsLzM5T7Jq43yJJit6k16VZE 6sXTuT/fXh/TE=
=i074
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 24/12/2010 21:42, Jolly polly wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765



Quote:
The judge said the incident began when Cornell-Gallardo, driving a Vauxhall
Corsa, passed very close to Mr Baldwin, causing him to crash
End Quote

Quote:
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but by
the subsequent assault
End Quote

It Could be argued Mr Baldwin's injuries WERE caused by Cornell-Gallardo's
bad driving.

Only by unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion. Easily falsified.

Or does this mean we are not responsible for the consequences of
our actions?

No.

It means we are not responsible for what other people imagine or allege.

On 24/12/2010 22:14, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 24/12/2010 21:42, Jolly polly wrote:

Quote:
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but
by the subsequent assault
End Quote

What justification could there possibly be for banning someone just
because they ran someone off the road and then assaulted them? Surely
it's not a problem when people are unable to drive properly and can't
control their anger?

On what is reported, it is possible that the driver did not "run [the
cyclist] off the road" and that that description ("he passed too close and
that caused me to crash into something/fall off my bike") is fabrication or
embellishment for something much more inocuous (eg, failing to stay behind
the cyclist and having the temerity to overtake).

No-one can fully control their anger. You don't know exactly what the cyclist
did to the car's passenger, or what relationship existed between that
passenger and the driver.

If, for instance, a stranger assaulted the wife of almost any citizen, most
would undoubtedly retaliate if the circumstances allowed it. Perhaps you
would write it down to "the luck of the draw" and just let the assailant
cycle away into the distance?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 24/12/2010 21:42, Jolly polly wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765



Quote:
The judge said the incident began when Cornell-Gallardo, driving a
Vauxhall
Corsa, passed very close to Mr Baldwin, causing him to crash
End Quote

Quote:
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but
by
the subsequent assault
End Quote

It Could be argued Mr Baldwin's injuries WERE caused by
Cornell-Gallardo's
bad driving.

Only by unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion. Easily falsified.

Or does this mean we are not responsible for the consequences of
our actions?

No.

It means we are not responsible for what other people imagine or allege.



The above is what the judge said, not other people, the judge of the case.
You appear to be implying that the judge is repeating or making (unproven)
allegations, but infact the judge must stick to the proven facts of a case.

On 26/12/2010 00:17, Jolly polly wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 24/12/2010 21:42, Jolly polly wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...erturned-28765




Quote:
The judge said the incident began when Cornell-Gallardo, driving a Vauxhall
Corsa, passed very close to Mr Baldwin, causing him to crash
End Quote

Quote:
But he said the three-year ban was "unnecessary", given the fact that Mr
Baldwin's injuries weren't caused by Cornell-Gallardo's bad driving but by
the subsequent assault
End Quote

It Could be argued Mr Baldwin's injuries WERE caused by Cornell-Gallardo's
bad driving.

Only by unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion. Easily falsified.

Or does this mean we are not responsible for the consequences of
our actions?

No.

It means we are not responsible for what other people imagine or allege.

The above is what the judge said, not other people, the judge of the case.
You appear to be implying that the judge is repeating or making (unproven)
allegations, but infact the judge must stick to the proven facts of a case.

Judges *are* allowed to refer to what has been alleged. It is very clear that
it is not possible to prove what *was* alleged in the instant case. That is a
very good reason why the driver cannot be punished for it. The system does
not punish unproven "offences".

At least, that's the way that justice used to operate in the UK.