Cyclist gets away with murder!

OffTheBackAdam

Well , I'm sure some forum members would be screaming for a stiff sentence if it were a motorist running down & killing a cyclist.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2886306.ece

nwallace

BBC link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383

The judge heard Messen, who had pleaded guilty to causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling, was a "vulnerable young man" with learning difficulties.

Can't quite figure out how what I would expect to be causing death by Dangerous Cycling (on pavement, 25mph beyodn careless) turns into that.

ademort

Iwas lucky enough to see the news report of this incident, and also the exact point where the collision took place. Anybody who would ride down that stretch of pavement at that speed, must have some screws missing upstairs.As for a jail sentence, the dead man leaves a partner and i thought three children behind, is it too short a sentence. Imo the question we should be asking is should this young man be allowed on a bicycle, was he an accident just waiting to happen?

spen666

the thing that intrigues me about the story is that it is reported in some media outlets he was riding
a) a mountain bike
b) that he had borrowed
c) that he was doing 25 mph
d) when he mounted the kerb at that speed


I wonder how he managed to get upto 25 mph on a borrowed mountain bike and mount the kerb without falling off

Could it be there is some journalistic licence with the reporting?

Cunobelin

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Well , I'm sure some forum members would be screaming for a stiff sentence if it were a motorist running down & killing a cyclist.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2886306.ece

Please note that I am in no way belittling the grief , tragedy and personal cost involved inthis incident, but let's look at this in perspective.


Or should we be appealing for the sentence to be reduced to bring it in line with some of the recent motoring offences?

In motoring cases it is the action not the consequences that are tried. - by this comparison the death is inconsequential and often not even considered. Ifthe driving is found to be "careless" and not "dangerous"

In this case we would simply have a person with problems and mental health issues, cycling too fast for the circumstances, something that has been condemned here.


An example:
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/south-wales-news/blaenau-gwent/2007/10/18/jurors-clear-18-year-old-driver-of-death-by-dangerous-driving-91466-19955894/

4 deaths and a two year conditional discharge for causing death by careless driving!

Whether these are "Correct" or reflect the cost to others of the individuals's actions is another issue, is a separate argument, but as for parity - should we campaignfor a reduced sentence?

spen666

Cunobelin wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Well , I'm sure some forum members would be screaming for a stiff sentence if it were a motorist running down & killing a cyclist.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2886306.ece

Please note that I am in no way belittling the grief , tragedy and personal cost involved inthis incident, but let's look at this in perspective.


Or should we be appealing for the sentence to be reduced to bring it in line with some of the recent motoring offences?

In motoring cases it is the action not the consequences that are tried. - by this comparison the death is inconsequential and often not even considered. Ifthe driving is found to be "careless" and not "dangerous"

Erm explain the fact there are seperate offences of dangerous driving ( max penalty 2 years imprisonment) and causing death by dangerous driving ( max penalty 14 years).

In both cases the standard of driving is the same. This is clearly one where consequences are "tried". There are numerous other RTA offences that are similar

In this case we would simply have a person with problems and mental health issues, cycling too fast for the circumstances, something that has been condemned here.


An example:
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/south-wales-news/blaenau-gwent/2007/10/18/jurors-clear-18-year-old-driver-of-death-by-dangerous-driving-91466-19955894/

4 deaths and a two year conditional discharge for causing death by careless driving!

Whether these are "Correct" or reflect the cost to others of the individuals's actions is another issue, is a separate argument, but as for parity - should we campaignfor a reduced sentence?

Careless driving at the time of this offence did not carry a custodial sentence. You are making an unfair comparison of dangerous cycling ( more serious offence) with careless driving ( less serious offence)

Cunobelin

You are right,

I was simply responding to the provocative OP and the comparison made.

The emphasis is that whether it was the cyclist or the motorist, the consequences are not always taken into full consideration..... and whether we should be looking at comparative censure. The inclusion of death by careless driving is welcomed and overdue.

II understand that it has to be shown that the driver was in fact driving dangerously, as with the Amir Khan case, when although to the layman the standard of driving appears dangerous, it does not stand up as such in a Court of Law.

The fairest comparison is not available as if the implication form the press is accurate about the mental health and learning abilities of the cyclist is correct - he would not have been able to drive a car (an assumption I know).

Hence the comparison with a random death caused by a motorist that did not earn a custodial sentence.

This cyclist has been I believe charged with "wanton" or "furious" cycling, not "dangerous cycling" which I believe was an option. Once aaain there will be reasons for this, as with the Amir Khan case.

This merits some comparison with motoring cases where although a death or injury has occurred but the more serious charge of dangerous driving has not been applied.

nwallace

If Wanton and Furious cycling is assumed (I don't know what it actually is and my attempt on opsi to find out turned up nothing) to be Cycling faster than is appropriate then it must be comparable (in that the appropriate speed has to be judged by the observer) to speeding in a motor vehicle(where there is a set limit).

If a car driver was to mount the pavement (assuming that is what happened) at 25mph and continue down the pavement (assuming that us what happened) it would not be a speeding charge the driver would be on if caught. Since similar law apply for both driving and cycling on the pavement (allowed only to access property) you would expect similar charges to be brought for what is essentially the same offence if you remove the form of vehicle and the different laws applying to them from the equation.

Of course my assumptions are
1) It was a pavement, beside a road and not a share use path (in which case the charge would probably make sense in that his actions may not have been careless and just judged too fast) or a footpath not provided to separate pedestrians from vehicles (again would make sense)
2) My assumption about what Wanton and Furious cycling covers correct.

Now a bit more trawling I found a post on PoliceSpecials.com

Offences Against the Person Act 1861;

"Whosoever, having charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever shall be guilty of a misdemeanour ... liable to two years imprisonment with or without hard labour."

So it reads like it could actually cover anything, of course assuming that Wanton and Furious Cycling is based on the same thing.

The JUSTICE Group in England seem to want shot of Wanton and Furious Cycling/Driving
Page 14 http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/roadtraffic.pdf
Judging by what it says Dangerous and Careless offences only apply to areas covered by the RTA (which I believe now includes private property to which the public can gain access)

Also found the bit of the RTA that I couldn't find before
S31 RTA

If a person promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a highway between cycles is guilty of an offence unless the race or trial-
(a) is authorised and,
(b) is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed, by or under regulatons under this section.

martinwitnam

Saw the TV news report on this and did you see the size of the guy who committed the crime? I think the fact that he was on a bike was inconsequential. If he had been running and bumped into Mr Green then he would probably have killed him instantly. And the fact that he got an Apollo bike up to 25 mph. WOW!!!!!