A drink driver almost killed a teenage cyclist after hitting him off his bike while he drove on the wrong side of the road after being refused another drink at a local pub.

Ambrose Taylor was jailed for two years and six months after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, driving with no insurance, two counts of failing to stop after a collision and driving without due care and attention. He has also been disqualified from driving for four years and four months.

Taylor, aged 20, left The Hoops pub in Barton in late October of 2021 at 9:10pm. He then drove on the wrong side of the road at 63mph on a 30mph road, where five minutes later he hit the 13-year-old boy who was out riding his bike.

At that speed the impact left the boy with an open fracture to his right elbow as he was flung to the verge by Taylor’s silver Ford Fiesta.

A witness who was walking on the pavement close to the incident saw Taylor driving at speed and heard a loud bang before finding the boy and a wing mirror from Taylor’s car.

Taylor carried on driving, still on the wrong side of the road, and almost drove head first into another vehicle. He pulled the car into the correct lane just in time before stopping outside another pub, where the landlord saw him stumbling and slurring his words.

It was there where Taylor was arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink and drugs. He refused to provide a sample of breath at Huntingdon Police Station.

Upon further investigation, it was shown that Taylor had also been involved in another incident at 7pm that same evening where he damaged a parked Kia..

Detective Constable Fay Millen said: “Why Taylor thought it was a good idea to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk is beyond me.

“The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime, which could have easily been causing death by dangerous driving.”

https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-almost-kills-teenage-cyclist-295931

Ride a bike without front brakes and collide with an unattentive pedestrian who steps out into the road, resulting in the death of pedestrian - 18mth jail. Drive a car on the wrong side of the road so drunk that a landlord refuses you another drink, almost kill a child cyclist and leave them in the gutter then continue to another pub and refuse to be breathalysed later - 24mths jail. And tell me the justice system is not biased against cyclists..

Why do they even consider allowing this person to ever have a driving licence again? If we are trying to push active or public transport more, then it should be a no-brainer that drivers like this lose their driving licence for good. They can ride a bike or sit on a bus and finally do something positive for society.

“The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime..."

The maximum sentence for causing injury by dangerous driving is 5 years. So this crime wasn't very serious if it only deserved half the maximum?
Two years is the maximum for causing serious injury by careless driving.
This sentence suggests that the crime is at the lower end for a "dangerous" conviction - barely above the level of a "careless" conviction. Especially as there was also a string of other, associated offences.
The statement above makes no sense.

HRH Prince Del Boy Mason (swldx...@gmail.com) wrote:

> “The sentence today reflects the severity of the crime..."
>
> The maximum sentence for causing injury by dangerous driving is 5 years. So this crime wasn't very serious if it only deserved half the maximum?
> Two years is the maximum for causing serious injury by careless driving.
> This sentence suggests that the crime is at the lower end for a "dangerous" conviction - barely above the level of a "careless" conviction. Especially as there was also a string of other, associated offences.
> The statement above makes no sense.

Don't tell us.

Tell the offending *judge*.

I'm sure that he or she will take appropriate note of your advice.

Surely publicans have some obligation to take steps to prevent obviously pissed customers from driving away? How about, "Give me your keys, Mr Taylor, whilst I pull your next pint"? Or is it good enough that they just make money whilst their customers inebriate themselves, before sending them on their way?

To be fair to the publican there's nothing to say that s/he knew the toerag was driving. I agree, if they did know and let them drive away that's entirely reprehensible - and, I believe, a crime in many US states - but it says he was refused another drink in a "local pub" for being too pissed, maybe he'd walked there but then went and got his car to go looking further afield?

HRH Prince Del Boy Mason (swldx...@gmail.com) wrote:

> Surely publicans have some obligation to take steps to prevent obviously pissed customers from driving away? How about, "Give me your keys, Mr Taylor, whilst I pull your next pint"? Or is it good enough that they just make money whilst their customers inebriate themselves, before sending them on their way?
>
> To be fair to the publican there's nothing to say that s/he knew the toerag was driving. I agree, if they did know and let them drive away that's entirely reprehensible - and, I believe, a crime in many US states - but it says he was refused another drink in a "local pub" for being too pissed, maybe he'd walked there but then went and got his car to go looking further afield?

Why are you so obsessed by it, Your Royal Highness?

My impression is that yes, there is a bias against cyclists - but there is a much bigger bias in favour of motorists.

Even setting aside criminal sanctions applied when you have fallen far, far below the standard expected (how drunk do you have to be to be refused service?), I don't think there's any other area of life where such a lax approach to health and safety is taken. Pass a test when you're 17, keep driving forever without any further assessment of your competency. I work in a bog standard office but I have to redo the fire safety course every year.

-----------------------------------------
Same here - we had to do a dozen courses every two years - even driving ones with the IAM.

HRH Prince Del Boy Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My impression is that yes, there is a bias against cyclists - but there is a much bigger bias in favour of motorists.
>
> Even setting aside criminal sanctions applied when you have fallen far, far below the standard expected (how drunk do you have to be to be refused service?), I don't think there's any other area of life where such a lax approach to health and safety is taken. Pass a test when you're 17, keep driving forever without any further assessment of your competency. I work in a bog standard office but I have to redo the fire safety course every year.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Same here - we had to do a dozen courses every two years - even driving ones with the IAM.

Did you have to have the head of your official broom renewed in odd
numbered years and a new shaft for it in even numbered years too?

I think youve hit the nail on the head. The old adage "if you want to kill someone use a car" is as true now as it ever was and nothing seems to be changing. Use any other weapon and you're stuffed. The solution for most has been to get the biggest, safest (for the driver and passengers) car you can afford, with catasrophic effects on pollution, congestion and climate change.

Since SUVs have poor stopping distance and can roll over easily, they are not inherently safer, while the perfrom better in a crash, they are more likely to crash so the net effect may not be positive.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ride a bike without front brakes and collide with an unattentive
> pedestrian who steps out into the road, resulting in the death of
> pedestrian - 18mth jail. Drive a car on the wrong side of the road so
> drunk that a landlord refuses you another drink, almost kill a child
> cyclist and leave them in the gutter then continue to another pub and
> refuse to be breathalysed later - 24mths jail. And tell me the justice
> system is not biased against cyclists.

> Why do they even consider allowing this person to ever have a driving
> licence again? If we are trying to push active or public transport more,
> then it should be a no-brainer that drivers like this lose their driving
> licence for good. They can ride a bike or sit on a bus and finally do
> something positive for society.
Consider that the Dalston and Didsbury killer cyclists walked, the question
you really need to pose is ‘why is the justice system so biased against
drivers?

I can refresh your memory on the two cases if you wish.

--
Spike

Avatar
joe9090 | 276 posts | 6 hours ago
1 like

Should be 10 years in jail + castration. That would also act as quite a deterrent.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> joe9090 | 276 posts | 6 hours ago
> 1 like
>
> Should be 10 years in jail + castration. That would also act as quite a deterrent.

Do you include drivers in that punishment regime?

--
Spike

We need to make scumbags pay for these types of crimes. They are not taking it seriously enough.

Poor kid. I hope he comes through ok.

This cuntry.