Cyclist fined £850 for brain damaging ped

jedster

our laws are based on actions not consequences, that's why he's got a fine rather than jail.

And I dont have a big problem with this although there is a bit of a need to for punishments "pour encourager les autres" which are easier to do on the incidents with bad outcomes.

I just think that the ACTION is bad and should be punished severely. Personally I think, for example, a driver overtaking on a blind bend is a worse action than petty theft. I'm not condoning petty theft but I think being reckless with other people's safety is worse.

Origamist

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

Indeed it's not - the headlines are focussed on the act of RLJing, but there's not much detail about the actual collision circumstances.

IIRC, all of the traffic lights on Holborn viaduct have pelican crossings, but there are also pedestrian crossing points with refuges along that section. From the available info, I'd hazard the pedestrian was crossing via a pedestrian refuge and the cyclist had jumped the red light prior to hitting the pedestrian further along the road.

Mr Hyer, a partner with Rosenblatt Solicitors who has featured in many prominent cases including acting for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association in their court action against the Ministry of Defence, had been travelling to work on July 5 last year when he began to cross the six-lane junction, which has no pedestrian lights.

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

I can only assume that the speed of 26mph was volunteered by the cyclist, as speed ranges are usually provided in these situations. In the Telegraph article, it mentions that the cyclist was in gear 12 of 20 (?).

spen666

bails87 wrote:

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.

That case involved cycling on a footpath not on a road

BelgianBeerGeek

Veronese68 wrote:

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.

Quite so. Hence the charge of careless cycling. If the guy had been on a crossing that would possibly be another factor in charging with dangerous cycling. It also explains why the bench thought compensation inappropriate, much the same as stepping into the road front of a car and not using a crossing.

spen666

jedster wrote:

our laws are based on actions not consequences, that's why he's got a fine rather than jail.

And I dont have a big problem with this although there is a bit of a need to for punishments "pour encourager les autres" which are easier to do on the incidents with bad outcomes.

.....

Actually the reason he got a fine was because a fine was maximum penalty for this offence

TommyEss

Is there a difference, as with driving offences, between "careless" and "dangerous" - something like dangerous is an activity you should know to be dangerous, like speeding, whereas careless would cover, say, not checking your mirrors?!

Having said that, how riding straight at a pedestrian couldn't be considered as known to be dangerous I'll never figure out -> paging legal bods!?

walkingbootweather

bails87 wrote:

our laws are based on actions not consequences

Quite right. Nicking a bottle of water for instance is FAR worse than corrupting the world's finances.

bigmat

TommyEss wrote:

Is there a difference, as with driving offences, between "careless" and "dangerous" - something like dangerous is an activity you should know to be dangerous, like speeding, whereas careless would cover, say, not checking your mirrors?!

Having said that, how riding straight at a pedestrian couldn't be considered as known to be dangerous I'll never figure out -> paging legal bods!?

I'm just not convinced this guy did anything wrong. You're cycling along a 30mph road, you jump a red light (OK, naughty, but I've seen nothing to suggest this caused the accident), ped steps out in front of you, you slam on the brakes and shout "Oi, move!" or whatever, you hit ped - BAM!

Its probably happened to most of us. It happened to me last week. I went down like a sack of ****, bike crumpled (bars and wheels all wrecked) and ped was fine. Now, if the ped had been seriously injured would I be facing criminal prosecution? If I had gone through a red light half a mile down the road would that make any difference? Would one of the many witnesses (precisely none of whom checked whether I was OK) have helpfully pointed out how I just shouted "watch it!" before plowing straight into the guy (there wasn't a lot else I could do)? Would the prosecution have uploaded my Strava feed and noted that I had KOM'd the segment that ended a few metres before the collision? :P

unclejimbo1983

I read it as though he had run the lights just a moment before hitting the victim, perhaps hitting the ped on the crossing the other side of a junction or something, but I don't know the road so it's difficult to tell. If that is the case then I'd expect the punishment to be akin to assult. Jail time for giving someone a permanent disability is not excessive IMO.

I too find the speed reference a bit unnerving. Hopefully it is just an incidental detail of a witness statement that made its way into the article to make it sound more official.

The whole "riding towards a group of pedestrians" thing seems a bit wooly too IMO. I mean, technically as soon as a ped steps into the road in front of you you're riding "towards" them. The difference between doing 26 mph and getting suprised by a lemming ped and a 26 mph homicidal charge towards said ped is largely down to perception of intent.

For example, pretty much every day on my commute along Cannon Street, big groups of peds edge out into the road towards me when I have the green light, to give themselves an extra 3 ft headstart to cross behind me, before the next car comes along. I am riding "towards" them, but not to intimidate them. I doubt I'm ever doing over 20 mph and wouldn't choose to do more even if I had the legs for it, but if I braked in fear of one of them stepping out, they would see a "gap" and all pile out en masse (as has happened a couple of times). Then you're down to a choice of edging into a crowd of peds slowly to part them, or sitting at a green light, whilst an endless stream of commuters crosses in front of you.

If one day one of them does run out in front of me, I'll be "reckless cyclist rides towards crowd of pedestrians at crossing". "The defendant Mr. Unclejimbo rode at speeds of up to 20 mph (how was the air not sucked from his lungs?!!)".

Also, if shouting "Oi" marks you out as a psycho, I'd better condition myself to only say genteel things in moments of panick. Perhaps I'll go for "Ahoy" or "Whatho".

richk

Tricycleboy wrote:

...

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

CICA doesnt apply where a vehicle is involved (unless the vehicle was itself being used as a weapon. The Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) would be the appropriate place for such a claim to be lodged where there's no covering insurance. That's funded by a levy on (motor) insurance policies which iirc runs at about £30 a piece.

veronese68

I think the issue with the speed is that bicycles can't travel that fast in the mind of the average person. I mean, only a Venge can purr along at 20mph. That's one of the reasons we have so much trouble with people stepping out, pulling out or left hooking us. The train of thought is it's only a bicycle so it can't be going at much more than walking speed.
So, with regards to this case it would seem that to be cycling at 26mph you must be going like a bat out of hell.

bails87

Spen666: To address your two points....
Yep, I know that the court decided that cyclist had been on the pavement, but I thought (perhaps wrongly) there was CCTV footage or a witness stating that he was on the road just before the collision doing 17mph, and that was referred to as 'speeding' by a police officer. It may well have been too fast for the conditions, but I don't think the same would be applied to a driver.

And as for the punishment in this case. He got a fine because it was the maximum penalty. But the maximum penalty is 'only' a fine because the crime is 'careless cycling' which suggests no intent to harm, rather than 'cycling while trying to run people over on purpose and kill them to death', which rather does.

notsoblue

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/850-pounds-f ... pedestrian

spen666

bails87 wrote:

Spen666: To address your two points....
Yep, I know that the court decided that cyclist had been on the pavement, but I thought (perhaps wrongly) there was CCTV footage or a witness stating that he was on the road just before the collision doing 17mph, and that was referred to as 'speeding' by a police officer. It may well have been too fast for the conditions, but I don't think the same would be applied to a driver.

And as for the punishment in this case. He got a fine because it was the maximum penalty. But the maximum penalty is 'only' a fine because the crime is 'careless cycling' which suggests no intent to harm, rather than 'cycling while trying to run people over on purpose and kill them to death', which rather does.

you can only be punished for committing offences known to law. I have not got a clue what you mean by the last paragraph.

The maximum penalty for careless cycling is a fine. That is laid down by law

spen666

RichK wrote:

Tricycleboy wrote:

...

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

CICA doesnt apply where a vehicle is involved (unless the vehicle was itself being used as a weapon. The Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) would be the appropriate place for such a claim to be lodged where there's no covering insurance. That's funded by a levy on (motor) insurance policies which iirc runs at about £30 a piece.

Agree re CICa

does MIB cover this as it was not a motor vehicle involved?

veronese68

notsoblue wrote:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/850-pounds-fine-for-london-cyclist-who-caused-brain-injury-to-pedestrian

Fairly major difference. They say he was on a pedestrian crossing at the junction with the red light.

jds_1981

Veronese68 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/850-pounds-fine-for-london-cyclist-who-caused-brain-injury-to-pedestrian

Fairly major difference. They say he was on a pedestrian crossing at the junction with the red light.

The pedestrian crossing is not light controlled there. Scenario seems to be cyclist jumped a red light, then went through a none-light controlled pedestrian crossing about 10 metres farther on.
This junction is fairly complex and needs everyone to be quite aware.
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.517671, ... 8&t=m&z=19
It's at the bottom slope downwards (if heading eastwards.) I'd probably go through at 30 if the lights were in my favour.

BelgianBeerGeek

Veronese68 wrote:

I think the issue with the speed is that bicycles can't travel that fast in the mind of the average person. I mean, only a Venge can purr along at 20mph. That's one of the reasons we have so much trouble with people stepping out, pulling out or left hooking us. The train of thought is it's only a bicycle so it can't be going at much more than walking speed.
So, with regards to this case it would seem that to be cycling at 26mph you must be going like a bat out of hell.

Good point: does anyone know how they calculated his speed?

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/850-pounds-fine-for-london-cyclist-who-caused-brain-injury-to-pedestrian

Fairly major difference. They say he was on a pedestrian crossing at the junction with the red light.

The pedestrian crossing is not light controlled there. Scenario seems to be cyclist jumped a red light, then went through a none-light controlled pedestrian crossing about 10 metres farther on.
This junction is fairly complex and needs everyone to be quite aware.
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.517671, ... 8&t=m&z=19
It's at the bottom slope downwards (if heading eastwards.) I'd probably go through at 30 if the lights were in my favour.

But would you be going through at 30 if you saw pedestrians at or near that crossing?

bails87

Sometimes I think people deliberately don't understand things......

spen666 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

And as for the punishment in this case. He got a fine because it was the maximum penalty. But the maximum penalty is 'only' a fine because the crime is 'careless cycling' which suggests no intent to harm, rather than 'cycling while trying to run people over on purpose and kill them to death', which rather does.

you can only be punished for committing offences known to law. I have not got a clue what you mean by the last paragraph.

The maximum penalty for careless cycling is a fine. That is laid down by law

My point was that he couldn't be given a prison sentence because he was charged with and convicted of a crime which doesn't have prison available as a penalty, like you say, the penalties are already set.

The second para was saying that the crime he was convicted of doesn't have prison available as a punishment because it is based on carelessness rather than malice. Our laws (generally) treat an action that was intended to cause injury as more serious than a careless action that results in the same level of injury*. E.g. I chase someone in my car, mount the pavement, hit them and kill them, I'll get a different penalty to if I lose control on a bend, mount the pavement and kill someone. So the cyclist in this case, because there was no intent (as far as we/the court knows), was charged with the more minor of the available charges.

*Of course, you know that and I know that, so I;m not sure what you're not understanding. If it wasn't clear from my tone, the last bit of it was tongue in cheek. Perhaps I should have added a :P to be obvious?

BelgianBeerGeek

Following on from bails87:

Dangerous and careless cycling can be thought of as being equivalent to their driving counterparts. Dangerous is where the manner of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Careless is without due care and attention or lack of consideration.
The key point is if it is far below. The test is also objective and applies to all drivers. And cyclists too, if their manner of cycling is in question. If it falls "far below", then the next consideration is "is it obviously far below to a competent and careful driver/cyclist?" In this case, I would say not.
I assume the defendant pleaded not guilty as he thought his speed, road position etc appropriate for the conditions. And he shouted a warning. The bench thought he was going too fast. In this respect, the actual speed is almost irrelevant. He may have been going too fast for the road/traffic conditions. As I wasn't there I can't say.
Interesting to see if the cyclist appeals.

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

But would you be going through at 30 if you saw pedestrians at or near that crossing?

As always, a time & place. Normal city workers, sure, with brakes covered in the middle of the lane.

The bench thought he was going too fast. In this respect, the actual speed is almost irrelevant. He may have been going too fast for the road/traffic conditions. As I wasn't there I can't say.

Interesting, how many of the bench would have much experience of traveling at 26 mph on a bike?

vermin

Just caught up on this interesting story. Holborn Circus is a nightmare for peds, cyclists and drivers alike. Everyone is confused by the junction. Anyone; car, bike or ped, going through there at 26mph would be causing a danger. The red light that the cyclist was found to have jumped (assuming that the diagram on the LCC article is accurate) is very close to the ped crossing and is the only protection and indication of safety afforded to peds using the crossing. The article also mentions that the victim "followed other pedestrians on to the crossing" before being hit, which, if correct, suggests that the cyclist must have been able to see that there were peds in the road, not just one lemming.

My sympathies are entirely with the victim, who deserves to recover sufficient damages to enable him to rebuild his life insofar as is possible. This will hopefully be possible in the civil proceedings.

In the mean time we, as cyclists, are vilified as a group, because many non-cyclists see us as a single group. We really do need to do something about this. I am endlessly appalled by the number of cyclists who habitually RLJ in London.

If the LCC can organise mass demos in London, why can we not do something similar to raise the heat under RLJers , to embarass the RLJers and to make the non-cycling community aware that we are equally appalled by their behaviour?

Origamist

jds_1981 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/850-pounds-fine-for-london-cyclist-who-caused-brain-injury-to-pedestrian

Fairly major difference. They say he was on a pedestrian crossing at the junction with the red light.

The pedestrian crossing is not light controlled there. Scenario seems to be cyclist jumped a red light, then went through a none-light controlled pedestrian crossing about 10 metres farther on.
This junction is fairly complex and needs everyone to be quite aware.
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.517671, ... 8&t=m&z=19
It's at the bottom slope downwards (if heading eastwards.) I'd probably go through at 30 if the lights were in my favour.

As I thought upthread - it's a pedestrian walkway with a central refuge (not a pelican or puffin crossing). The lights at Holborn Circus that presumably the cyclist jumped are about 50m back. Given the proximity of the crossing to the lights (just over 4 secs riding time at 26mph) it seems that the Magistrate made the right decision and the cyclist was lucky not be charged with a more serious offence.

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

But would you be going through at 30 if you saw pedestrians at or near that crossing?

As always, a time & place. Normal city workers, sure, with brakes covered in the middle of the lane.

Hmmm, I really wouldn't. I've had one nasty collision and plenty of near misses with pedestrians at a lower speeds than that, so perhaps I'm just extra cautious. They act very unpredictably, often aren't looking where they're going and they can't hear you coming. Its just not really worth it. DSC or Chelsea Embankment = fine, Holborn Viaduct = not a chance.

jds_1981

Origamist wrote:

As I thought upthread - it's a pedestrian walkway with a central refuge (not a pelican or puffin crossing). The lights at Holborn Circus that presumably the cyclist jumped are about 50m back. Given the proximity of the crossing to the lights (just over 4 secs riding time at 26mph) it seems that the Magistrate made the right decision and the cyclist was lucky not be charged with a more serious offence.

Is that based on the light being jumped, or in general? If in general I presume you're in favour of 20mph limits in pretty much all of London?

vermin

notsoblue wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

But would you be going through at 30 if you saw pedestrians at or near that crossing?

As always, a time & place. Normal city workers, sure, with brakes covered in the middle of the lane.

Hmmm, I really wouldn't. I've had one nasty collision and plenty of near misses with pedestrians at a lower speeds than that, so perhaps I'm just extra cautious. They act very unpredictably, often aren't looking where they're going and they can't hear you coming. Its just not really worth it. DSC or Chelsea Embankment = fine, Holborn Viaduct = not a chance.

Quite. There's just far too much confusion around Holborn Circus to make that sort of speed safe at any time.

jds_1981

It's not a junction I'd want to rlj for sure. I can only presume he went for a burnt amber or was somewhat suicidal.

Origamist

jds_1981 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

As I thought upthread - it's a pedestrian walkway with a central refuge (not a pelican or puffin crossing). The lights at Holborn Circus that presumably the cyclist jumped are about 50m back. Given the proximity of the crossing to the lights (just over 4 secs riding time at 26mph) it seems that the Magistrate made the right decision and the cyclist was lucky not be charged with a more serious offence.

Is that based on the light being jumped, or in general? If in general I presume you're in favour of 20mph limits in pretty much all of London?

It's based on the interplay of a number of aggravating factors. What's more, I'd have no problem with a 20mph limit.

spen666

bails87 wrote:

Sometimes I think people deliberately don't understand things......

spen666 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

And as for the punishment in this case. He got a fine because it was the maximum penalty. But the maximum penalty is 'only' a fine because the crime is 'careless cycling' which suggests no intent to harm, rather than 'cycling while trying to run people over on purpose and kill them to death', which rather does.

you can only be punished for committing offences known to law. I have not got a clue what you mean by the last paragraph.

The maximum penalty for careless cycling is a fine. That is laid down by law

My point was that he couldn't be given a prison sentence because he was charged with and convicted of a crime which doesn't have prison available as a penalty, like you say, the penalties are already set.

So what crime should he have been charged with then?

The second para was saying that the crime he was convicted of doesn't have prison available as a punishment because it is based on carelessness rather than malice. Our laws (generally) treat an action that was intended to cause injury as more serious than a careless action that results in the same level of injury*. E.g. I chase someone in my car, mount the pavement, hit them and kill them, I'll get a different penalty to if I lose control on a bend, mount the pavement and kill someone. So the cyclist in this case, because there was no intent (as far as we/the court knows), was charged with the more minor of the available charges.

*Of course, you know that and I know that, so I;m not sure what you're not understanding. If it wasn't clear from my tone, the last bit of it was tongue in cheek. Perhaps I should have added a :P to be obvious?