Cyclist fined £850 for brain damaging ped

jedster

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 464777.ece

I'm one of those voices who always complains when motorists get trivial penalties for causing serious injuries to cyclists. In fairness, I have to say that it is utterly wrong that a cyclist who ignores a red light and hits a ped at 26mph resulting in permanent brain damage, a wrecked career and a fundamentally different and worse future life should get a way with a fine. This deserves jail time and the law should be changed to enable that penalty in future.

bompington

Agree completely. Mode of transport does make a great deal of difference to how much of a danger to others you are, cyclists are clearly and demonstrably (statistically anyway) less dangerous than drivers, but you can certainly still be a dangerous fool on a bike. Fine looks a bit small to me - article says maximum fine is only £1000: one of those legal issues where the perceived seriousness of the crime doesn't seem to fit the potential consequences.

PS: bit of a shame for the guy in the stock photo they used for the article, it makes him look like he's the perp.

pangolin

Gaye Cheyne, chairwoman of the bench, said that he had shown a “lack of care and competence” and had been cycling at an “unsafe speed” as he rode towards a group of pedestrians. She said the maximum fine the bench could impose was £1,000 and that she would not award compensation because it was inevitable that civil proceedings would follow.

Doesn't this imply that the £850 is only the beginning?

Out of interest who pays if the lawyer is awarded a huge amount for loss of earnings etc and the cyclist can't afford it?

anonymousblackfg

Still it's £650 more than you get for killing a cyclist. I fully agree with Jedster though, feed the idiot to the Daily Mail.

Sadly, it's all the rest of us who'll suffer the abuse because of this.

I was looked at madly by some twunt who went through a ped crossing swerving around a child last night when I called him an idiot.

jonomc4

jedster wrote:

I'm one of those voices who always complains when motorists get trivial penalties for causing serious injuries to cyclists. In fairness, I have to say that it is utterly wrong that a cyclist who ignores a red light and hits a ped at 26mph resulting in permanent brain damage, a wrecked career and a fundamentally different and worse future life should get a way with a fine. This deserves jail time and the law should be changed to enable that penalty in future.

+1

veronese68

I think we're all in agreement on this one.

el_presidente

It does say there were no pedestrian lights at the junction and refers to the cyclist as having previously ignored a red light. So I'm not sure that the ped didn't just step out in front of the cyclist without looking (we've all seen it) and the previous RLJ from the cyclist has been used to convict him.

Not that I am an apologist for RLJ in any way but I'm not sure this is quite as cut and dried as the article makes out.

keyser__soze

Playing devil's advocate, he didn't jump a pedestrian-crossing red - there's no pedestrian crossing - and there's nothing to state that the guy jumping the red actually caused the accident. I don't know the junction so I can't really say but I presume the peds cross assuming no traffic is coming if the junction lights are a certain way.

Mr Hyer... had been travelling to work on July 5 last year when he began to cross the six-lane junction, which has no pedestrian lights.

As for the 'oi, move', I'm sure everyone has experienced lemming pedestrians walking out into the road and given a verbal warning that they hadn't seen a cyclist. I often do this in conjunction with braking in case they don't stop but you can't stop a bike on a sixpence.

Tricycleboy

pangolin wrote:

Gaye Cheyne, chairwoman of the bench, said that he had shown a “lack of care and competence” and had been cycling at an “unsafe speed” as he rode towards a group of pedestrians. She said the maximum fine the bench could impose was £1,000 and that she would not award compensation because it was inevitable that civil proceedings would follow.

Doesn't this imply that the £850 is only the beginning?

Out of interest who pays if the lawyer is awarded a huge amount for loss of earnings etc and the cyclist can't afford it?

IIRC the tax payer foots the bills of the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority http://www.justice.gov.uk/victims-and-witnesses/cica

keyser__soze

Again playing devil's advocate because I don't know the junction and haven't seen any CCTV, does anyone think a car driver would've been prosecuted for dangerous speed and driving without due care and attention for doing 26mph through a junction where there may be pedestrians crossing? The speed issue could set a worrying precedent.

t4tomo

I note no comp awarded as judge said civil case to follow.

The thing here is that whether he jumped a red light or not he rode straight at a pedestrian expecting him to move, instead of giving way / slowing down/ taking avoiding action. A short spell in the slammer would have been approriate.

You see a lot of this in London, just because you have right of way or priority, it doesn't mean you can cycle / drive like a prick with no care for other road users.

Is it because we are all so used to traffic lights that we now just think green = go, rather than checking all is clear before proceeding?

The other night I was walking down the street a witness a cyclist who had the green lights in his favour but was trailing the rush of cars through a cross roads. It was rush hour so as soon as the cars went through a load of pedestrians started to cross over and there were still people streaming through (on the red man) as he approached.

Now I know its frustrating when that happens, but in stead of slowing down he start shouting "get out the effing way". A bit OTT IMO a "cyclist coming through" whilst slowing up a bit in case you need to stop would be far better.

jedster

hang on though, one of the very sound reasons for NOT going through red lights is that other road users (which includes peds) will not be expecting you to appear from that direction. It's not really different from driving too fast or driving the wrong way up a one way street - YOU have made it much less likely that a ped will see you.

To be doing 26 mph when in such a situation is totally unreasonable. YOU'VE created a dangerous situation - better control your speed carefully then.

If, as a result of YOUR stupid decisions you face a potential collision with a ped YOU should take ALL evasive action even at the cost on injuring YOURSELF rather than them. Bikes dont stop on a six pence but you can see peds at the kerb looking the wrong way and you can steer as well as brake. If you have to eat tarmac or hit a wall well tough sh1t - YOU gambled, YOU lost.

This tosser had multiple opportunities to avoid gravely injuring the ped and avoided all of them.
We (as a society) tolerate this kind of selfish, irresponsibility far too much.

notsoblue

I think the RLJ issue is a bit of a red herring here. It *was* careless cycling on his part if he was riding 26mph in an area like Holborn Viaduct "towards a group of pedestrians" even away from a junction. With 10 years of experience of riding in London he should really have known better.

The more vulnerable road user should really be protected.

jedster

Now I know its frustrating when that happens, but in stead of slowing down he start shouting "get out the effing way". A bit OTT IMO a "cyclist coming through" whilst slowing up a bit in case you need to stop would be far better.

Agree. It's worth remembering that a ped has as much right to be in the road as you do. Given they are the most vulnerable, once tthey have stepped out you have to give way to them - crossing or no crossing.

TommyEss

A ped has priority over a bicycle on a carriageway, irrespective of how they came to be there.

veronese68

I must say I read this bit

City of London Magistrates’ Court saw CCTV footage of Schipka, having ignored a red light, hitting Mr Hyer in the middle of the road at Holborn Viaduct while travelling at about 26mph.

as meaning he jumped a red light at that junction. Granted there was no ped light there, but it sounds to me as it may have had some relevance.
I think the fact that the cyclist is denying jumping the red when it's on the cctv doesn't reflect very well on him either.

TommyEss

Understandably his wife has a very strong view on this case, but:

“I want the whole world to know that cyclists have a duty of care to behave like human beings,” she said. “It’s about time people stopped worrying about cyclists being killed by lorries if they do not conduct themselves in the right manner. He nearly killed my husband.”

The problem is this is a sweeping statement suggesting we ignore an issue that affects a sigificant number of cyclists because one cyclist was a dick and severely injured one pedestrian.

Now re-read that changing "cyclists" for "people" and "cyclist" and "pedestrian" for "person". The issues of road safety are divided down the lines of mode of transport - we as a nation need to look at ways to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities of people whether they are people on foot, people on bike, people in cars or people in lorries.

jds_1981

jedster wrote:

Agree. It's worth remembering that a ped has as much right to be in the road as you do. Given they are the most vulnerable, once tthey have stepped out you have to give way to them - crossing or no crossing.

Not convinced a pedestrian is more vulnerable than a cyclist.

jds_1981

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Again playing devil's advocate because I don't know the junction and haven't seen any CCTV, does anyone think a car driver would've been prosecuted for dangerous speed and driving without due care and attention for doing 26mph through a junction where there may be pedestrians crossing? The speed issue could set a worrying precedent.

Hopefully speed is just a soundbite. No-one would think twice about a car doing 30mph towards a group of pedestrians. Wouldn't even be mentioned in a collision..

Although not related to this case, as someone else mentioned, pedestrians in London are often lemming like. For instance, my video on embankment. http://vimeo.com/27785487

Headhuunter

jds_1981 wrote:

jedster wrote:

Agree. It's worth remembering that a ped has as much right to be in the road as you do. Given they are the most vulnerable, once tthey have stepped out you have to give way to them - crossing or no crossing.

Not convinced a pedestrian is more vulnerable than a cyclist.

Nor am I, when I've hit lemming peds in the past who've jay walked out between traffic etc, usually I end up on the deck and the ped is left standing just slightly shocked

pinkbikini

bompington wrote:

PS: bit of a shame for the guy in the stock photo they used for the article, it makes him look like he's the perp.

I thought that too. Imagine if a journo went on a killing spree and they reported it with a stock photo of a journalist on the way to work...

Anyhow, no sympathy for the cyclist here, every sympathy for his victim.

rjsterry

Headhuunter wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

jedster wrote:

Agree. It's worth remembering that a ped has as much right to be in the road as you do. Given they are the most vulnerable, once tthey have stepped out you have to give way to them - crossing or no crossing.

Not convinced a pedestrian is more vulnerable than a cyclist.

Nor am I, when I've hit lemming peds in the past who've jay walked out between traffic etc, usually I end up on the deck and the ped is left standing just slightly shocked

Depends on how you/they fall. There are plenty of examples of people being pushed or tripping over and smacking their head leading to similar injuries, even though people get off with nothing more than a bruise or two, and scuffed clothing. (cf helmet debates)

SteppenHerring

rjsterry wrote:

Depends on how you/they fall. There are plenty of examples of people being pushed or tripping over and smacking their head leading to similar injuries, even though people get off with nothing more than a bruise or two, and scuffed clothing. (cf helmet debates)

Mandatory helmets for pedestrians.

gabriel959

jedster wrote:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3464777.ece

I'm one of those voices who always complains when motorists get trivial penalties for causing serious injuries to cyclists. In fairness, I have to say that it is utterly wrong that a cyclist who ignores a red light and hits a ped at 26mph resulting in permanent brain damage, a wrecked career and a fundamentally different and worse future life should get a way with a fine. This deserves jail time and the law should be changed to enable that penalty in future.

Agree completely. This is non-sense.

But this bit from the wife is ridiculous...

“I want the whole world to know that cyclists have a duty of care to behave like human beings,” she said. “It’s about time people stopped worrying about cyclists being killed by lorries if they do not conduct themselves in the right manner. He nearly killed my husband.”

rubertoe

I think to many people Look but don't See.

You see it all the time and were all guilty of it, but still no excuses for the cyclist and it once again gives people ammunition to make sweeping generalisations about RLJ etc

TommyEss

jds_1981 wrote:

Although not related to this case, as someone else mentioned, pedestrians in London are often lemming like. For instance, my video on embankment. http://vimeo.com/27785487

My usual response to this is a loud "Heads up!" whilst covering the brakes.

bails87

pinkbikini wrote:

bompington wrote:

PS: bit of a shame for the guy in the stock photo they used for the article, it makes him look like he's the perp.

I thought that too. Imagine if a journo went on a killing spree and they reported it with a stock photo of a journalist on the way to work...

Anyhow, no sympathy for the cyclist here, every sympathy for his victim.

Yeah, that's appaling journalism. Imagine if it was a photo of an innocent teacher under a "Teacher convicted of child sex offences" headline. If it was me I'd be going to the PCC.....and expected them to do sweet FA, but still.

As for the speed, I remember that case where the girl died a few yers ago, that sparked Andrea Leadsom's 'Dangerous cycling' bill. The cyclist then was estimated (or admitted) to doing about 17mph. A police officer said that that was 'speeding'. Would a car be speeding if it was doing 17mph in a 30mph zone?

As for the cyclist, he shouldn't have jumped the light (if he did). But let's remember that (almost always, anyway) our laws are based on actions not consequences, that's why he's got a fine rather than jail.

Origamist

Veronese68 wrote:

I must say I read this bit

City of London Magistrates’ Court saw CCTV footage of Schipka, having ignored a red light, hitting Mr Hyer in the middle of the road at Holborn Viaduct while travelling at about 26mph.

as meaning he jumped a red light at that junction. Granted there was no ped light there, but it sounds to me as it may have had some relevance.
I think the fact that the cyclist is denying jumping the red when it's on the cctv doesn't reflect very well on him either.

According to this report, the cyclist jumped the previous red light (denied by the cyclist) and collided with the pedestrian at a crossing:

Cyclist, Mr Schipka, denied the accident was caused by him going through a red light on his bike. However, the City of London Magistrates’ Court was played CCTV footage of him disregarding a red light at the junction before hitting Mr Hyer.

http://www.ashleyainsworth.com/news/?p=3724

There were no lights at the pedestrian crossing where the collision took place, according to the Times.

This "previous" is relevant as it supports the CPS case that the cyclist was riding carelessly on the immediate lead-up to the collision. If there had not been CCTV of the prior RLJing, I'm not sure the case would have been brought before the Magistrate.



I hope the victim is able to recover further as it sounds like he has suffered life-changing injuries.

Edit: traffic light info.

bigmat

Saw a report on this the other day before judgment. The headline was about cyclist jumping red light but then when you read further it was unclear as to whether he had, or had just been accused, or whether it had anything to do with the accident. I wonder if the cyclist has been stitched up a bit here - will read it properly when I have more time later.

keyser__soze

The careless cycling thing makes me concerned about how a court would view a forum member who posts in the SCR or Strava threads. I remember one contributor - who also owned up to running a burned amber once - had a nasty crash on PS a while back due to a ped who walked out without looking. If the ped had been seriously injured, I could imagine the coverage:

Mr XYZ, of South West London, hit the pedestrian at 25mph on a notoriously busy crossing after recording speeds of up to 35mph on his commute through the streets of London (ie freewheeling down Sawyers/Broomfield). The court heard how XYZ frequently boasted of his speed while cycling on a popular cycling forum, regularly recording speeds of 30mph+ on his GPS computer and daily turned the highway into a race-track, actively racing other cyclists. During one such 'race' he admitted cycling recklessly by jumping red lights. The jury decided there was sufficient evidence that Mr XYZ was an unsafe cyclist who failed to take into account the safety of other road users and awarded damages to the pedestrian

veronese68

Origamist wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I must say I read this bit

City of London Magistrates’ Court saw CCTV footage of Schipka, having ignored a red light, hitting Mr Hyer in the middle of the road at Holborn Viaduct while travelling at about 26mph.

as meaning he jumped a red light at that junction. Granted there was no ped light there, but it sounds to me as it may have had some relevance.
I think the fact that the cyclist is denying jumping the red when it's on the cctv doesn't reflect very well on him either.

According to this report, the cyclist jumped the previous red light (denied by the cyclist) and collided with the pedestrian at the next junction:

Cyclist, Mr Schipka, denied the accident was caused by him going through a red light on his bike. However, the City of London Magistrates’ Court was played CCTV footage of him disregarding a red light at the junction before hitting Mr Hyer.

http://www.ashleyainsworth.com/news/?p=3724

There were no lights at the pedestrian crossing where the collision took place, according to the Times.

This "previous" is relevant as it supports the CPS case that the cyclist was riding carelessly on the immediate lead-up to the collision. If there had not been CCTV of the prior RLJing, I'm not sure the case would have been brought before the Magistrate.



I hope the victim is able to recover further as it sounds like he has suffered life-changing injuries.

Edit: traffic light info.

It's not clear at all from The Times article. I read it that he jumped a red lght on the junction the incident took place and that while the junction was traffic light controlled there were no specific pedestrian lights.
If the guy was just crossing a road without any traffic signals or crossing points that does put the onus on him rather more. Just shouting "Oi move!" isn't helpful.
The comments from the vitim's wife are not very good, but she was obviously, and understandably, aggrieved. I would hope that in the cold light of day she would agree that we should try to minimise danger to all road users.