Cyclist fined for killing pedestrian

Snapper1

This is being discussed in AH but probably more appropriate here.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496370.stm


Cyclist fined over fatal accident

A cyclist found guilty of dangerous cycling after knocking down a 17-year-old girl who later died from her injuries has been fined £2,200.

Jason Howard, 36, from Buckingham, hit Rhiannon Bennett as she walked through the town with friends in April 2007.

Aylesbury magistrates heard Howard had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" before riding into her. She died from head injuries.

Howard told police he thought the shout would be enough to avoid the crash.

On Monday, the court heard that he could have swerved to avoid the girl.

Howard was cycling on the road when he approached the group but the court heard conflicting evidence about whether he mounted the kerb at any point during the incident.

---

Seems similar to the cases of "death by dangerous driving" you hear of that receive suspended sentences etc. I know the bloke will have to live with this all his life but a fine seems scant consolation for an act of such recklessness.

Reganio 2

Yep, although it is just very unlucky, I got knocked down by a moped on the path and got back up and walked home grand when 8, with a big tire print going right up my leg.

Shame though and I think a fine is very leniant and he should have done time but not that much. Shouting "move because I'm not stopping" is a real ba**ard thing to say though.

Chips Lovell

Sounds more like an After Hours thread.

Person X commits crime, receives seemingly lenient sentence from namby pamby liberal judge. Everyone piles on to say what a disgrace this and that shooting/hanging/hard labour for life isn't good enough for him. Bonus points if the offender is Romanian.

blorg

In fairness, that does sound very lenient. It does sound very much like he could have avoided her if he had wanted to, and the court found that he could have swerved.

That is no different to a motorist mowing down a jaywalker and making no attempt to avoid them "because they were on the road." Wouldn't wash.

Shouting "move because I'm not stopping" sort of establishes his intent in the matter.

It is every road user's obligation to exercise a duty of care towards other road users, even if they are breaking the law, and do all they can to avoid unnecessary accidents.

DirkVoodoo

Its an unfortunate accident for sure, but I think without any of us knowing the exact facts and what went on in that courtroom, then this is just going to boil over into a cyclists versus the world argument (not here, but on AH!).

There are already people posting about having been hit by cyclists, at various speeds and in various circumstances. Lots of cuts and bruises, but I would have thought that the chances of a bike hitting you in a city street and resulting in death are lower than those for a car hitting you. I'm not going to speculate further, but I do think he should have braked or swerved rather than take a chance in hoping they would hop out of the way.

rp

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I'm not going to speculate further, but I do think he should have braked or swerved rather than take a chance in hoping they would hop out of the way.

Agreed. I think it's a bit of "man bikes dog" journalism.

rp

Just saw a news update: the cyclist has criticised his fine as too lenient,and said he should have been tried for manslaughter.

blorg

rp wrote: »

Just saw a news update: the cyclist has criticised his fine as too lenient,and said he should have been tried for manslaughter.

Any link?

Some discussion from Matthew Weaver on the Guardian blog. So it appears that the cyclist admitted he could have steered away "but chose not to, thinking a shout was enough."-Times The judge criticised his "devil may care" attitude but the critical problem seems to have been that there is no charge in law of causing death by dangerous cycling, as there is with driving- so as he was not charged with manslaughter he just got the max fine for dangerous cycling.

The district judge, Terry English, heard that Howard, who paints white lines on the road, was pedalling at about 23mph when he hit the teenager. She died six days later, without coming out of her coma.

Howard had claimed that he was aiming for a small gap between Miss Bennett and her friends.

Mr English told Howard: "The speed at the time of the collision I consider a gross speed, given the circumstances, which would be obvious to any competent or careful cyclist.

"As a cyclist, you should know cycling in such a way would be dangerous."

The judge added that answers the defendant had given to the police had been illustrative of the "devil-may-care" way he had ridden.

"You had ample opportunity to greatly reduce your speed. You had oceans of room to avoid any possible contact between you and any of the group," he said.

-Scotsman

I think we have to stand up and criticise this sort of behaviour, it doesn't do cyclists any good when this sort of thing happens and just ingrains the "bloody cyclists" mentality - already the BBC has stuck up a big story entitled Cyclists 'don't obey road laws' I have seen exactly this sort of behaviour from a small minority of cyclists, gunning it at pedestrians crossing the road, it's just disgraceful.

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

...but the critical problem seems to have been that there is no charge in law of causing death by dangerous cycling, as there is with driving- so as he was not charged with manslaughter he just got the max fine for dangerous cycling.

So the problem is the law rather than the judge dishing out a lenient sentence?

blorg wrote: »

I have seen exactly this sort of behaviour from a small minority of cyclists, gunning it at pedestrians crossing the road, it's just disgraceful.

I've seen it too, particularly in jaywalking heavy areas such as both ends of Grafton Street and College Green. Idiotic guys just flying at people obviously thinking that its their fault if they don't get out of the way. It's a timely reminder that you can kills someone with a bike.

rp

blorg wrote: »

Any link?

No, it was on one of those ticker-tape things under another news story.

I think we have to stand up and criticise this sort of behaviour, it doesn't do cyclists any good when this sort of thing happens and just ingrains the "bloody cyclists" mentality - already the BBC has stuck up a big story entitled Cyclists 'don't obey road laws' I have seen exactly this sort of behaviour from a small minority of cyclists, gunning it at pedestrians crossing the road, it's just disgraceful.

We should, although it's uncertain what the circumstances were: who was one the pavement & who was on the pavement? The fine though is consistent with other UK punishments, 92% of road killings get punished 'merely' as dangerous driving/cycling. An that fella with the three bald tyres who wiped out a whole group of cyclist in Wales a couple of years ago only got a £180 fine.
Yeah, change the law, but do it consistently and think it through (fat chance, civil servants don't do joined-up thinking)

kmart6

Jesus, he's obviously feeling the guilt!

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

So the problem is the law rather than the judge dishing out a lenient sentence?

Yes, the judge seemed to say as much, that his hands were tied and he gave the guy the max he could under the law. I guess CPS for whatever reason didn't see fit to charge him with manslaughter. My problem with it is that cases like this one-off ásshole will only prompt calls for clamping down on cyclists, new punative laws, restrictions, cyclist registration (this is a big one), etc. - it was already mentioned in court that his custom titanium bike wasn't road legal as he didn't have pedal reflectors and a bell!

I've seen it too, particularly in jaywalking heavy areas such as both ends of Grafton Street and College Green. Idiotic guys just flying at people obviously thinking that its their fault if they don't get out of the way. It's a timely reminder that you can kills someone with a bike.

That is exactly where I am thinking of too.

rp wrote:

We should, although it's uncertain what the circumstances were: who was one the pavement & who was on the pavement?

It's utterly irrelevant as to whether they were on the pavement or the road, he obviously saw them and had time to brake or swerve (he admitted as much himself.) Just because a ped is on the road is no excuse to cycle into them, you have a duty of care to all other road users. Transpose cyclist with motorist and this is blatantly obvious (e.g. "motorist runs down granny crossing the road, says he hooted, was in a rush and she shouldn't have been on the road, it's for cars.")

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

...it was already mentioned in court that his custom titanium bike wasn't road legal as he didn't have pedal reflectors and a bell!

Paul bought his Bianchi from Evans in the UK. It came with a bell.

Chris Peak

It is sad about the girl alright, and it is up to the CPS to prosecute ‘properly’ as this is in the news today also:
The widow of a cyclist killed by a lorry criticised the courts toady after the driver was fined only £275 for careless driving.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4301595.ece

We’re not going to turn this into another ‘us against them’ debate, I hope.

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

Paul bought his Bianchi from Evans in the UK. It came with a bell.

At least one of my road bikes (think it was the Trek) did as well. My Focus came with a complete reflector kit (unattached thank god!)

Victor

blorg wrote: »

there is no charge in law of causing death by dangerous cycling, as there is with driving- so as he was not charged with manslaughter he just got the max fine for dangerous cycling.

Irish law is different on this - a pedal cycle is very much a vehicle.

TinyExplosions

blorg wrote: »

At least one of my road bikes (think it was the Trek) did as well. My Focus came with a complete reflector kit (unattached thank god!)

My Focus came with a bell

blorg

TinyExplosions wrote: »

My Focus came with a bell

Reckon it was the Focus so but I lost it! Reckon we should ask Wiggle for a discount given the bikes were _not_ supplied "ready to ride" but required further assembly

TinyExplosions

blorg wrote: »

Reckon it was the Focus so but I lost it! Reckon we should ask Wiggle for a discount given the bikes were _not_ supplied "ready to ride" but required further assembly

True that -the bell was in the second box along with the allen keys, pedals and shoes

el tel

The news report i saw on this yesterday on BBC said the cyclist was taking part in a time trial (in a cul-de-sac ffs!), was going at 23mph and kept stating how his bike was worth over £4000. They demonstrated how there was a low pavement which he could have mounted to avoid the people on the road. The twats don't know what they were talking about obviously.