Almost 3 years doesn't strike me as especially lax.
I dunno.
It seems lax to me. He says he intended 'to clip the cyclist and run him into a ditch'. What's more likely, given the injuries to the cyclist, is he intentionally ran into the cyclist with a lot of force, intending at the least very serious harm. And what about his omission to help a man who was practically dying on the road? The prosecution obviously went for a safer option from the various offences against the person.
It seems lax to me. He says he intended 'to clip the cyclist and run him into a ditch'. What's more likely, given the injuries to the cyclist, is he intentionally ran into the cyclist with a lot of force, intending at the least very serious harm. And what about his omission to help a man who was practically dying on the road? The prosecution obviously went for a safer option from the various offences against the person.