Cyclist fined £2000

Fluffie

I wonder what folks' views are on this news item I heard today.

Cyclist hollered at peds on the road to get out of the way as he wasn't going to slow down. Obviously peds couldn't give a toss despite clearly hearing him. He mows one of the peds down, ped dies. Cyclist gets fined £2000.

Personally I think it's an effing liberty! I wonder how many car drivers, lorry drivers, coach drivers, train drivers this stupid ped had dawdled in front of, probably none. Why then fine the cyclist when the ped and her friends had cleary heard the warning. Just shows you how stupid, ignorant, and entirely lacking in personal responsibilty some people are.

How many times have many of us got utterly frustrated by peds on the road who look right at us but expect us to slow down for them. It'd be a different thing altogether had the ped been on a crossing but this doesn't seem to have been the case.

Fluff

schilbach

Here are the links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 496757.stm

and also:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497432.stm

julietp

I see the point however whether I agree will very much depend on whether the cyclist did not slow down because he couldn't or because or wouldn't. One person's stupidity is no excuse whatsoever for another to deliberabely cause injury (or in this case, death) to that person where it is avoidable. If the cyclist couldn't slow down or swerve without putting his own life at risk (extremely doubtful) then I think he is very lucky to have avoided a prison sentence which in my opinion would be deserved. And yes, I am a cyclist.

julietp

It doesn't even say in the reports that the pedestrian was walking in the road. I understand fully why the family are so aggrieved.

spen666

This is discussed at length in the commuting threads

Fluffie

I used my bicycle to get to work for about ten years, most of it commuting by cycle/train but latterly cycling into London from Caterham. Now I've moved to Wales - it's great!

There's always been great debate about cyclists observing the rules of the road or not, on this forum, or Cycling Plus as it was.

The fact that we're now all being tarred by the same Boris Johnson brush... ride through red lights, mobile phone use while cycling, cycling on the pavement - none of which I agree with by the by. But on many occasions having peds step out in front of me expecting, because I'm as vulnerable as they are, that I will give way to them... it used to really get on my tits. This guy, if the ped was on the road at the time, did what I had visions of doing but for obvious reasons never did - cos I didn't want my arse scraping down the road because of some dick brain.

There seems to be a lot of question regarding whether these drunken girls were on the road or the pavement... I suspect they wish to appear as 'innocent' as possible of any responsibility they played in this 'accident'.

penugent

julietp wrote:

I see the point however whether I agree will very much depend on whether the cyclist did not slow down because he couldn't or because or wouldn't. One person's stupidity is no excuse whatsoever for another to deliberabely cause injury (or in this case, death) to that person where it is avoidable. If the cyclist couldn't slow down or swerve without putting his own life at risk (extremely doubtful) then I think he is very lucky to have avoided a prison sentence which in my opinion would be deserved. And yes, I am a cyclist.

I agree.

spen666

julietp wrote:

I see the point however whether I agree will very much depend on whether the cyclist did not slow down because he couldn't or because or wouldn't. One person's stupidity is no excuse whatsoever for another to deliberabely cause injury (or in this case, death) to that person where it is avoidable. If the cyclist couldn't slow down or swerve without putting his own life at risk (extremely doubtful) then I think he is very lucky to have avoided a prison sentence which in my opinion would be deserved. And yes, I am a cyclist.

Not in the slightest.

He COULD NOT receive a prison sentence for the offence he was convicted of.

The court has no power to pass a sentence of imprisonment for dangerous cycling

spen666

Maximum penalty for this offence was a fine of £2,500

ForumNewbie

I am surprised at people on here sticking up for this cyclist. He shouted a warning by all accounts while quite a distance away. If the girls didn't get out of the way he should at least have slowed down or veered round them. Accordingly to reports he didn't even apply brakes and was going at over 20 mph. It also said he was on the pavement - no excuse if he was and going at that speed on pavement.

One report said he was competing in a TT but I can't believe that if he was on the pavement.

I am surprised that a £2500 fine is the maximum sentence. I seem to recall a young man recently knocked down and killed a man when cycling down a hill on the pavement as the guy walked out of his gate on to the pavement. If I remember rightly, I think the cyclist was spared prison because he had learning difficulties.

Beeblebrox

He seems to have acted callously and considered causing injury to someone was less important than his speed.

I would not be against a manslaughter charge if it were feasible.

Garry H

The CPS could have pressed for a charge of manslaughter, but did not. He does not seem to have actually been on the pavement, but was turning right, to access the tapered part of the pavement, in order to gain access to a lane.

What is of little doubt is that he could have slowed down or stopped, but instead chose to ride for a gap.

mooro

Fluffie wrote:

Personally I think it's an effing liberty! I wonder how many car drivers, lorry drivers, coach drivers, train drivers this stupid ped had dawdled in front of, probably none. Why then fine the cyclist when the ped and her friends had cleary heard the warning. Just shows you how stupid, ignorant, and entirely lacking in personal responsibility some people are.

Do you actually live on this planet ???

Why fine a cyclist for mowing somebody down? an act which turns out to kill somebody. you weren't there so you can only rely on witness statements, one of which from the rider himself, said he could have avoided the accident if he slowed down.

This moronic reasoning illustrates that just because you ride a bike does not mean you are not an irresponsible idiot.

It is frustrating that motorists are not prosecuted for their actions which affect cyclists, but this does nothing to support that argument.

CountB

This is a real tragedy and the cyclist deserves a gaol sentence. End of story.

What cheeses me off is the disproportionate media coverage given to the story. How many cyclists/pedestrians/other drivers were killed by a dangerous car driver this week? How many of those drivers will get a 14 year gaol sentence as emphasised on the BBC?

The media is currently interested in cycling because of Boris Johnson, David Cameron et al. Just as they report only teenage knife crime (no interest in over 20's getting stabbed), they are looking for cycling bad press. This means that your average f@t b@5tard can sit on the sofa with a pie and a can of Stella and feel victimised that he is being over-taxed and discriminated against for driving 250 metres to Tesco to buy his ready meals and 3rd world sweatshop clothes.

BBC News 24 even segued from Mark Cavendish's stage win in the Tour to this story - FFS!!

Tom Butcher

There's not really enough information to make a judgement - I'd like to hear from the cyclist to see what his version of events is. If the teenagers were playing chicken then I think quite a few people might be inclined to ride through the group at speed if they thought they could do so safely - the fact that this girl then ignored his warning and stepped in front of him is something that was always possible but probably not something a lot of us would have expected - I mean you don't ride down the centre of the road in case someone steps off the pavement.

spen666

CountB wrote:

This is a real tragedy and the cyclist deserves a gaol sentence. End of story.

What cheeses me off is the disproportionate media coverage given to the story. How many cyclists/pedestrians/other drivers were killed by a dangerous car driver this week? How many of those drivers will get a 14 year gaol sentence as emphasised on the BBC?

...

Bear in mind that 14 years is maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving.
Maximum sentence for pinching a sweet off the pick & mix at shop is SEVEN years. Maximums mean very little

gtvlusso

Ultimately - a girl lost her life in an unfortunate incident. Peds will never stop walking out as they don't hear you coming, people don't listen to shouting over traffic noise and some people just don't realise what it can take to stop a fast moving bike (especially in the wet!)

A lesson to us all about being more diligent and watching out for each other.....

Sympathies to the family of the girl involved - it is very sad for them. Shame the law was not on their side as this dude should have had more of a kicking for the incident as it was perceived to be a touch arrogant.

Understand that the law delivered the maximum sentance he could get for the offence...Still, it will affect all of us, I am sure there will be some knee jerk reaction law to make us more responsible in future.

We are not all idiots though, however, bikes are so accessable to everyone that this kinda thing will happen (hopefully not resulting in death) and people will ride on pavements, RLJ and so on.

Garry H

Tom Butcher wrote:

There's not really enough information to make a judgement - I'd like to hear from the cyclist to see what his version of events is. If the teenagers were playing chicken then I think quite a few people might be inclined to ride through the group at speed if they thought they could do so safely - the fact that this girl then ignored his warning and stepped in front of him is something that was always possible but probably not something a lot of us would have expected - I mean you don't ride down the centre of the road in case someone steps off the pavement.

Take off your blinkers dude. The guy saw the teenagers and consciously decided to plough through a small gap, rather than slow down. This is "dangerous cycling". This is what caused the death of the girl. It's all very well trying to defend the rights of cyclists, but this guy behaved moronically, all for what, shave a few seconds off his time?

Tom Butcher

Not blinkered at all - I said IF they were playing chicken and left a gap then I think quite a few people would just carry on riding for whatever gap they left - he shouted a warning too - yes it's slightly risky but not totally unreasonable - you don't expect someone who knows you are coming to step straight in front of you.

Let's look at it another way. If you are out running and a group of teenagers try and block your path - they leave a gap and as you run through it one steps in front of you is knocked over and bangs their head which results in their death - have you really committed a serious offence - or indeed any offence at all. I do think you have more responsibility on a bike because your speed is higher but it's roughly equivalent so how would you judge that case ?

Garry H

Tom Butcher wrote:

Not blinkered at all - I said IF they were playing chicken and left a gap then I think quite a few people would just carry on riding for whatever gap they left - he shouted a warning too - yes it's slightly risky but not totally unreasonable - you don't expect someone who knows you are coming to step straight in front of you.

Let's look at it another way. If you are out running and a group of teenagers try and block your path - they leave a gap and as you run through it one steps in front of you is knocked over and bangs their head which results in their death - have you really committed a serious offence - or indeed any offence at all. I do think you have more responsibility on a bike because your speed is higher but it's roughly equivalent so how would you judge that case ?

Who said they were playing chicken?

If I was running I would be pretty confident that I could stop on a dime, not so on a bike travelling at 17mph. He went for a gap through a crowd of people and I think I remember hearing that he was quite a big guy as well, 6'3" (?)

We're getting a pretty bad press as it is, this idiot hasn't done any of us any favours

Tom Butcher

I said IF they were playing chicken - I didn't say they were. I've read claims elsewhere that that is what they were doing - if that's the case then I was just describing a scenario whereby the cyclist would not really have deserved the vilification he is getting in some quarters - that's all.

If you are running and someone stepped right in front of you there would be a point where you could not stop - so in that instance you'd accept that you were to blame would you ? For all we know this may be what happened here - certainly it is one version of events doing the rounds.

passout

I break the rules all the time on my commute - hopping onto the pavement, the lot. I do this when necessary to ensure my safety and no other reason. I am not going to ride according to the law, just to impress a few motorists, when doing so increases my risk of been hit by said motorists.

Still... I've never hit a pedestrain. Yes they should get out the way but we should ride defensively and be prepared to slow down if there is a potential hazard. To try & justify this crash, when the cyclist apparently had the opportunity to stop is pointless. He should have slowed down in order to prevent an accident. Risking a crash to prove some sort of point is stupid and is exactly why I break the highway code (see above).

By the way, I'd only ride on the pavements if it's empty - not a problem on my commute - and necessary. I don't whizz past walkers, before someone points out the flaw in my argument.

We should put others safety and of course OUR OWN safety at the top of the list. The law, rights of way etc are very much secondary.

PS You surely can't blame Boris for the coverage of this story? Cyclists have been unpopular well before he was on the scene. Also it was an unsual case, which is why it made the BBC.

synchronicity

"move because I'm not stopping"

is not the same as

"move because I can't stop"

Even though the pedestrian might have been in the wrong place, that is not acceptable behaviour on the part of the cyclist. Everyone knows you have to give way to the 'weaker' animal/vehicle on the road, be it a person, horse drawn cart, semi-trailer, or whatever.

redvee

The coverage I've read in the press stated that his bike didn't comply with the highway code as it didn't have any reflectors on the frame or pedals as it was a custom built bike that cost him £4700. Easy way of paying the fine, sell the bike and get something cheaper with the balance though if I was him I'd think twice about getting back on 2 wheels again.

top_bhoy

passout wrote:

I break the rules all the time on my commute - hopping onto the pavement, the lot. I do this when necessary to ensure my safety and no other reason. I am not going to ride according to the law, just to impress a few motorists, when doing so increases my risk of been hit by said motorists.

Still... I've never hit a pedestrain. Yes they should get out the way but we should ride defensively and be prepared to slow down if there is a potential hazard. To try & justify this crash, when the cyclist apparently had the opportunity to stop is pointless. He should have slowed down in order to prevent an accident. Risking a crash to prove some sort of point is stupid and is exactly why I break the highway code (see above).

By the way, I'd only ride on the pavements if it's empty - not a problem on my commute - and necessary. I don't whizz past walkers, before someone points out the flaw in my argument.

We should put others safety and of course OUR OWN safety at the top of the list. The law, rights of way etc are very much secondary.

PS You surely can't blame Boris for the coverage of this story? Cyclists have been unpopular well before he was on the scene. Also it was an unsual case, which is why it made the BBC.

I've had to read this a few times and it's a classic which should be pinned. A cyclist with an arrogant attitude complaining about a cyclist with a similar outlook. You couldn't make it up! What gives you the right to decide which laws you can and can't abide by? Do you deserve to be strung up if someone unexpectedly steps out from a shop or building doorway, turns a corner, etc and you hit them? Whether you whizz past walkers or not is not is irrelevant. People can be knocked over at low speeds which increases the chances of injury.

If you're big enough to cycle and over 16, you're big enough to keep to the rules. The chance of being hit by a car is sadly always present for every cyclist but plenty of cyclists seem to manage keeping within the rules so why should you be the exception? If you can't accept the rules maybe you should try something else and keep your hypocrisy to yourself.

Sub3_99

redvee wrote:

The coverage I've read in the press stated that his bike didn't comply with the highway code as it didn't have any reflectors on the frame or pedals as it was a custom built bike that cost him £4700. Easy way of paying the fine, sell the bike and get something cheaper with the balance though if I was him I'd think twice about getting back on 2 wheels again.

That has absolutely no bearing on the incident. In any case the highway code only requires reflectors etc. if the bike is ridden at night. Personally I reckon that the bunch of yobs was baiting him by stepping on & off the pavement as has happened on numerous occasions to me....

number9

1/

the reporting of this case was a disgrace.


2/


Howard hit the girl after she stepped back into the road, according to
the cops


3/


The claim that Howard shouted"Get out of my way, I'm not stopping" was
a crock of shit, the only person who made this claim was the
prosecutor, no witness confirmed this at all


4/


Youths drinking in the park and then mucking about in the road getting
the support of The Mail just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths


5/


e quote from the father about the cyclist is of interest:


"He is an arrogant, vile little man."


Given that Mick Bennet is on a Life Licence, having been released from
a life sentence imposed for a s18 Wounding With Intent some years ago,
he speaks from a position of some knowledge on the matter of
vileness.


6/


The problem (as I understand it) is that amongst the group of friends,
"conflicting statements" were given.


This included one person saying the girl walked into the path of the
cyclist.


Who's right? I have no idea, I was not there.


But: If these self same witnesses maintain their statements even in a
civil case, then there is every chance of the claim failing.

flattythehurdler

This is the best post about the incident that I have read.

spen666

number9 wrote:

1/

the reporting of this case was a disgrace.


2/


Howard hit the girl after she stepped back into the road, according to
the cops


3/


The claim that Howard shouted"Get out of my way, I'm not stopping" was
a crock of shoot, the only person who made this claim was the
prosecutor, no witness confirmed this at all


4/


Youths drinking in the park and then mucking about in the road getting
the support of The Mail just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths

This is irrelevant to the fact that the cyclist was riding dangerously - hence why he was convicted

5/


e quote from the father about the cyclist is of interest:


"He is an arrogant, vile little man."


Given that Mick Bennet is on a Life Licence, having been released from
a life sentence imposed for a s18 Wounding With Intent some years ago,
he speaks from a position of some knowledge on the matter of
vileness.

and this is somehow relevant to the issue of the cyclists guilt? The fact that someone's father may or may not have committed any offence is irrelevant to the question of whether the cyclist was riding dangerously.

Slinging mud at relatives of the deceased is hardly going to endear you to anyone

6/


The problem (as I understand it) is that amongst the group of friends,
"conflicting statements" were given.

Clearly so conflicting that a jury had no problem in convicting the dangerous cyclist

This included one person saying the girl walked into the path of the
cyclist.


Who's right? I have no idea, I was not there.


But: If these self same witnesses maintain their statements even in a
civil case, then there is every chance of the claim failing.

So you m,ake all these statements of "fact" - despite the fact you were not there?
As for a civil claim failing, you are I suspect wrong. The claimant will merely have to prove the conviction for dangerous cycling. The only issue then will be "possible" arguments re contributary negligence

A civil case is on the balance of probabilities -ie prove >50% likely you are right. The criminal case for dangerous cycling has to be proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT - a far higher stanfdard.

Are you seriously suggesting that despite it being proved to the far higher standard that he was cycling dangerously, that it can't be shown to the far lower standard that he caused the injury to the lady? Dream on

dondare

CCTV film showed him cycling on the road, not the pavement. Nonetheless, pedestrians have right of way on the road and he should have slowed down rather than trying to blast his way through. Bad judgement and a freak accident; we've not heard what his defence was but it does seem like dangerous cycling in which case the verdict and the sentencing were correct within the constraints of existing legislation.
On the very same day a lorry driver who killed a cyclist was fined £275 for careless driving; now that is a travesty.

dondare

Was it a jury trial?