Cyclest Jailed

jthef

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

The family say don't ride on pavment.
Shame all new cycle traks are on the path

Anonymous

Jeez. Feel sorry for the family. Also something the cyclist has got to live with for the rest of his life too. One silly mistake or decision is all it takes as I have seen far too many times.

will3

NapoleonD wrote:

Jeez. Feel sorry for the family. Also something the cyclist has got to live with for the rest of his life too. One silly mistake or decision is all it takes as I have seen far too many times.

What's more it's:
one silly decision + a dose of bad luck (meeting the ped) = jail
same silly decision + a dose of good luck (not meeting the ped) = no jail

so the penalty is down to the luck or meeting or not the unfortunate pedestrian rather than the silly decision.

Not sure that's right (ie it's the outcome that is punished, not the decision/action.)
same goes for mobiles+ driving, etc etc

Anonymous

That's just it, how many times has he done this and not met anyone coming? It may be none and this is the first time, he may do it every day...

The hardest part of my job has always been delivering unexpected death messages.

onlyonearrow

Agree it was a silly decision and highlights the need to think about the possible consequences of an action when on the public road. The jail sentence is probably justified, but what puzzles me is why he was also banned from driving for a year? The offence was not a motoring offence.
Does this set a precidence that a pedestrian or cyclist who causes an accident can be penalised through their driving licence, even if not driving?

spen666

What interested me on reading the story is that he was disqualified from DRIVING for 12 months.

Having just looked up the law, it appears that a motorist can be duisqualified from driving and the offence carries 3-9points, but a cyclist can't get points but CAN ( not must) be disqualified from driving.

This is the only instance I have come across where legislation allows a driving ban for a cycling offence.

I think the driving ban is appelable however as it does not stop him riding his bike which is what he was doing to cause the death.

redddraggon

I doubt that guy who killed the old lady was a "cyclist", more likely just a "person on a bike"

carldavies

redddraggon wrote:

I doubt that guy who killed the old lady was a "cyclist", more likely just a "person on a bike"

I agree!

beverick

spen666 wrote:

What interested me on reading the story is that he was disqualified from DRIVING for 12 months.

Having just looked up the law, it appears that a motorist can be duisqualified from driving and the offence carries 3-9points, but a cyclist can't get points but CAN ( not must) be disqualified from driving.

This is the only instance I have come across where legislation allows a driving ban for a cycling offence.

I think the driving ban is appelable however as it does not stop him riding his bike which is what he was doing to cause the death.

Interestingly it seems to have been classed as "an offence against the person" not a cycling offence:

Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:

"Whosoever, having the 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 misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years

So the ban has actually been applied because he caused "bodily harm".

I did find the ban to be quite bizarre as, logically, it quite clearly makes him more likely to commit the same offence again rather than less.

Are you saying that the ban could be appealed against as it is disproportional to the offence committed?

Whatever the offence getting a 7 month sentence for causing the death of another is rediculous.

Bob

alex16zx

I remember hearing of a cyclist in Scotland who got 3 points on his licence for cycling on the motorway. What would they have done to a non-driver?

bompington

Interesting comment from Dorset police (see "cycling on pavement" thread):
“Adults should be riding on the road and if they are forced to go on to a pavement they should take extreme care and always give priority to pedestrians.”

spen666

alex16zx wrote:

I remember hearing of a cyclist in Scotland who got 3 points on his licence for cycling on the motorway. What would they have done to a non-driver?

no he didn't.

The officer issued the wrong fixed penalty notice and when the police were notified( via media attention) they withdrew the FPN as it was invalid

There is no offence for which a cyclist can be given points, but as in this case he can be disqualified

spen666

beverick wrote:

....of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years

So the ban has actually been applied because he caused "bodily harm".

The ban has been applied because he was sentenced to it as part of the punishment for this offence.

The offence cannot be made out without bodily harm being caused!

I did find the ban to be quite bizarre as, logically, it quite clearly makes him more likely to commit the same offence again rather than less.

Are you saying that the ban could be appealed against as it is disproportional to the offence committed?

Not sure disproportional is the word I would use. It seems strange at first glance to ban someone from a car for an offence committed on a bicycle and for that reason I suspect it may be appelable.

however, consulting with colleagues - allcriminal laywers- the view seems to be that perhaps the sentence is not so bizarre. Imagine what would happen if this person was driving like he rode?

Will an appeal succeed? Its an interesting point and I wait to see if he even appeals

Whatever the offence getting a 7 month sentence for causing the death of another is rediculous.

Bob

Spinner28

I'm pleased with the verdict! I hate to see cyclists riding on the pavement, pavements are for pedestrians. I don't like many of the cycle paths that are suppose to compliment roads & would never use them personally as it's actually far easier to use the road. With cycle paths you lose your right of way at minor road junctions & at roundabouts & major road junctions, where they often snake in & out of traffic islands etc. It’s far easier & quicker & less taxing on the brain sometimes to use the road. Ok, granted I'm a confident experienced rider who does enjoy riding on the road, & I suspect many cycle lanes have been put in place to try & make cycling as a means of transport more attractive & (supposedly) safer for Joe Bloggs. But if cyclists are to be encouraged to ride on any type of cyclepath that is in effect on the pavement then the cyclist MUST accept a high level of responsibility. I would go as far as a speed limit on these type of paths of approx Jogging pace? Difficult to enforce I know, but nevertheless. Maybe a discussion for another time.

In this case however, the cyclist in question was not riding on a combined cyclepath/walkway, but actually went up on to the pavement to avoid a red light!! Seriously not impressive!!! And that's another of my bugbears, RLJ'ing. WHY?!!!

Fellow cyclists take note: If you choose to ride on the road, abide by the rules of the road! By breaking them you could, as proven here, seriously hurt someone or worse. At best you get cyclists a bad name. We struggle enough to get support from the general public, including motorists, when you start RLJ’ing & riding on pavements it really doesn’t help. Don’t ride on pavements-It’s illegal!!! Unless it’s a cyclepath, then we all have a responsibility to ride with absolute care & consideration to pedestrians, who can be a pain in the butt. Nevertheless, it doesn’t warrant flying into them at 20+mph!

downfader

..so has anyone seen comments on the newspaper websites, supposedly from the family of the convicted, stating that he'd been shunted onto the pavement by a red car, not to avoid a red light?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34
(CTRL+F and "sarah")

redvee

I've read he was appealing against the sentence which I couldn't understand. Now the red car makes sense of the appeal.

downfader

Looks like a couple of comments have been removed since, perhaps due to legal reasons. :?

Where did you read he's appealing btw?

redvee

downfader wrote:

Where did you read he's appealing btw?

Can't remember TBH. Either Metro, Daily Star or Brizzle Evening Post but can't find any reference online to the appeal.

downfader

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 794813.ece

Mentioned again. If this was the case it leads me to wonder why he continued to cycle on the pavement after the alledged event..? :? ..and what the road and pavement layout is in that area..?

Appealing on the basis that you didn't understand the law is a bit confused. Surely that is your lawyer's job to explain the charge fully to you and the implications

redvee

It also states in the article "on his way home from a shift" & "on the evening of ".Chances are the car didn't see him cause he didn't have any lights. This is speculation as it gets dark late in August, gone 9pm some days. But might be a contributary factor.

downfader

redvee wrote:

It also states in the article "on his way home from a shift" & "on the evening of ".Chances are the car didn't see him cause he didn't have any lights. This is speculation as it gets dark late in August, gone 9pm some days. But might be a contributary factor.

Riding at 9pm in June without lights is inpractical, so if he did do that during late august then yes it would have contributed.

spen666

If he is appealing against his conviction ( as opposed to the sentence), then he has a very uphill task as he pleaded GUILTY.

It is very hard ( not impossible though) to appeal successfully against a conviction if you have pleaded guilty.



If he is appealing against his sentence, then the comments to the effect of him being forced onto the pavement by the car are irrelevant as that line goes to guilt, not mitigation.