Cyclist killed during 24hr charity cycle ride

BillyMansell

What an incredibly sad story when he was doing so much for such an important cause;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-26705915

There is a justgiving link in the article should anyone feel so inclined.

Anonymous

Very sad.
Guess all we can do now is boost the funds to the charity he was riding for and hope the driver spends a long time in prison.

supersmoothpunk

This happened very close to my house and I never knew. I just clicked on the thread and noticed the location. That will explain why they shut the road all day. Such a sad tragic accident caused by a stupid drink driver.

forward_loop

So very very admirable - for someone to raise money for charity outside of the normal spoon fed opportunities and how very very sad for it to end this way.

Druidor

Just read this.. very sad event


personally think anyone who kills someone while driving drunk or under influen e should be a mandatory murder crime..

tomh101

Truly tragic. He wrote this on his justgiving page; 16/03/14 19:19 ".6 days to go. Birthday drinks in Kings Head on 29th March if I am still alive by then"
RIP Christian

sarm34

just kill the drink driver end of story .... a life for a life

sparklehedgehog

sarm34 wrote:

just kill the drink driver end of story .... a life for a life

Slowly and painfully

Anonymous

Not sure even I would go that far, but I bet she will escape jail.

kingstonian

Druidor wrote:

Just read this.. very sad event


personally think anyone who kills someone while driving drunk or under influen e should be a mandatory murder crime..

Well said

chris_bass

Carbonator wrote:

Not sure even I would go that far, but I bet she will escape jail.

i wouldnt have thought so, if she was over the limit.

the ones which get let off are usually because there isnt enough proof they were driving without due care and attention

redvee

If you feel inclined the Just Giving page

http://www.justgiving.com/KentEpic

It can take a while for the % of total to stop, at present it's on 4148% of the original target though when you look in the morning it will be higher again.

Daz555

Druidor wrote:

Just read this.. very sad event


personally think anyone who kills someone while driving drunk or under influen e should be a mandatory murder crime..

Very unlikely you are going to be able to prove intent to kill so murder is out of the question.

Tragic situation. RIP.

Vandiesel

Very very sad news, heard it on local radio over the weekend but never realized he lived so close to us a couple of miles.
Thoughts and prayers to the family at this very difficult time.
RIP mate

Anonymous

Daz555 wrote:

Druidor wrote:

Just read this.. very sad event


personally think anyone who kills someone while driving drunk or under influen e should be a mandatory murder crime..

Very unlikely you are going to be able to prove intent to kill so murder is out of the question.

Tragic situation. RIP.

I think you are missing the point a little bit.
The intent would be getting in the car whilst drunk!

You are quoting current laws, but Druidor (like myself), seems to be saying they need changing.

Please do not start all that silly legal talk though. All people want is for things to be fair. It does not matter what names you give things.
OK, its not murder, but its as good as in a lot of these cases.

The driver seems to be out on bail for 4 months so not being treated that seriously IMO.
We don't know much about the circumstances of course.
Maybe the driver was only marginally over the DD limit and being so was not a major factor in the crash.

Do not know much about 24hr cycle rides but the name implies you ride for 24hrs without sleeping.
If I started one at 9am I would have been awake for about 22hrs (and cycling for 19 of them) by 4am and not sure how alert that would leave me.

All we can hope now is that the truth comes out and that real justice is done.

marcusjb

Carbonator wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Druidor wrote:

Just read this.. very sad event


personally think anyone who kills someone while driving drunk or under influen e should be a mandatory murder crime..

Very unlikely you are going to be able to prove intent to kill so murder is out of the question.

Tragic situation. RIP.

I think you are missing the point a little bit.
The intent would be getting in the car whilst drunk!

You are quoting current laws, but Druidor (like myself), seems to be saying they need changing.

Please do not start all that silly legal talk though. All people want is for things to be fair. It does not matter what names you give things.
OK, its not murder, but its as good as in a lot of these cases.

The driver seems to be out on bail for 4 months so not being treated that seriously IMO.
We don't know much about the circumstances of course.
Maybe the driver was only marginally over the DD limit and being so was not a major factor in the crash.

Do not know much about 24hr cycle rides but the name implies you ride for 24hrs without sleeping.
If I started one at 9am I would have been awake for about 22hrs (and cycling for 19 of them) by 4am and not sure how alert that would leave me.

All we can hope now is that the truth comes out and that real justice is done.

^mostly wild speculation that doesn't really have a place here IMHO.

Just awful news and it has really hit hard as someone who regularly rides overnight - I read the news as I got up from arriving home in the middle of the night from a double century ride.

He sounds like he was a great chap and I can not imagine what his family and friends are going through just now. Tragic and a total waste. My thoughts are with them.

ai_1

sarm34 wrote:

just kill the drink driver end of story .... a life for a life

Yeah because revenge makes things better.
I have zero tolerance for drink driving but this sort of comment helps no-one.

bigmat

Very sad news - RIP Christian. Hopefully his family take some solace from the amount that his efforts will end up raising for a very worthy cause.

Re the "eye for an eye" stuff above, thank god we don't live in that sort of society. And no, its not murder if there's no intent (which there seems to be no suggestion of). I could see an argument for manslaughter depending on the circumstances, but I imagine this one will be a causing death by dangerous driving charge. Hope the sentence is up to the job.

ManOfKent

Very sad news. I rode through his home village yesterday morning and saw this when I got home.

Please could we not prejudge the case? As far as I can tell the driver was arrested but has not yet been charged. I'm certainly in favour of tougher sentences, but not until/unless she's convicted of an offence. Incidentally a second person has been arrested in connection with this, today.

Vandiesel

ManOfKent wrote:

Very sad news. I rode through his home village yesterday morning and saw this when I got home.

Please could we not prejudge the case? As far as I can tell the driver was arrested but has not yet been charged. I'm certainly in favour of tougher sentences, but not until/unless she's convicted of an offence. Incidentally a second person has been arrested in connection with this, today.

Agreed +1

cougie

Awful news.

I've donated. It's the least we can do to a fellow cyclist. Please give if you can.

http://www.justgiving.com/KentEpic

upperoilcan

cougie wrote:

Awful news.

I've donated. It's the least we can do to a fellow cyclist. Please give if you can.

http://www.justgiving.com/KentEpic

+1

CiB

I hope MIND can find a way to divert some of this huge windfall in the direction of the family. If ever there was a time for saying thanks but your need is greater, this is it. Wife + 3 kids? No brainer. MIND were due to get £1000 if he hit his target - take your £1k MIND, take £10k if you must, but donate the rest to his wife & kids.

ai_1

CiB wrote:

I hope MIND can find a way to divert some of this huge windfall in the direction of the family. If ever there was a time for saying thanks but your need is greater, this is it. Wife + 3 kids? No brainer. MIND were due to get £1000 if he hit his target - take your £1k MIND, take £10k if you must, but donate the rest to his wife & kids.

I disagree. While that sentiment is understandable I really don't think they can or should do that.
If someone donates to a charity for mental illness that's where they expect the money to go. The charity should not take it upon themselves to divert the funds to another cause no matter how worthy.
People are donating more than they would otherwise to the charity in question as a mark of respect and a show of support, not as a way to support his family financially.
If people want to donate to the family that's great but it's a different thing.

Anonymous

Hopefully he will have had adequate life insurance to look after his family financially.

CiB

Ai_1 wrote:

I disagree. While that sentiment is understandable I really don't think they can or should do that.
If someone donates to a charity for mental illness that's where they expect the money to go. The charity should not take it upon themselves to divert the funds to another cause no matter how worthy.
People are donating more than they would otherwise to the charity in question as a mark of respect and a show of support, not as a way to support his family financially.
If people want to donate to the family that's great but it's a different thing.

Disagree. People aren't suddenly realising what a great charity MIND is, they're doing that modern-world response to a terrible event and chucking money at it. It's a pretty safe bet that the a good chunk of the donations are from those who got to hear of this through vaguely cycling-related means and feel empathy with the poor guy, not because of a sudden desire to support MIND and its perfectly laudable objectives.

You'r right obviously - they will be unable to donate any of the funds raised to his wife & kids, using the myriad rules & regs not to do so. I'll donate to a fund for his family, but not MIND - they've done well out of this, much better than they could have expected. Congratulations to them on this windfall.

Anonymous

I wonder what the cyclist would have wanted?

If it were me I would want all the money to go to the charity.

I think a lot less people would have donated if they knew only a small percentage was going to the charity.

CiB

Would you? "If it were me I would want all the money to go to the charity". I wouldn't, and wouldn't like to look his widow or his kids in the eye and say "you can't have any of this - he wouldn't have wanted you to". If I'd set out to raise a few quid for charity and was killed doing it, I'd want my surviving family to see some or more of that additional benefit, and would very much like to see this chap's family see some benefit. There's always a sense of unfairness at someone dying doing something good like this; to say that his family should not see any of the vast additional moneys raised as a direct result of his death adds to that sense of unfairness, that the charity benefits big-time and the people who really could use some extra support at this time are denied any benefit at all. A large org has unexpectedly received £60k+ as a direct result of a man's death. I'm not convinced that they have a moral right to every last penny of that money.

Carbonator wrote:

I think a lot less people would have donated if they knew only a small percentage was going to the charity.

Do you? And how many do you think would kick up a huge fuss if some was diverted to his grieving widow & young family?

ai_1

CiB wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I disagree. While that sentiment is understandable I really don't think they can or should do that.
If someone donates to a charity for mental illness that's where they expect the money to go. The charity should not take it upon themselves to divert the funds to another cause no matter how worthy.
People are donating more than they would otherwise to the charity in question as a mark of respect and a show of support, not as a way to support his family financially.
If people want to donate to the family that's great but it's a different thing.

Disagree. People aren't suddenly realising what a great charity MIND is, they're doing that modern-world response to a terrible event and chucking money at it. It's a pretty safe bet that the a good chunk of the donations are from those who got to hear of this through vaguely cycling-related means and feel empathy with the poor guy, not because of a sudden desire to support MIND and its perfectly laudable objectives.

I find your logic on this very confused and I think you're missing the point. It's not your business to decide what other people want. If they give money to charity A it's not your place to decide they really wanted it to go to charity B. What you seem to be suggesting is very disrespectful to anyone contributing to the MIND charity.
If someone wants to contribute to the charity as a mark of respect to the cyclist that's entirely up to them and I see nothing to criticise in that.

CiB wrote:

You'r right obviously - they will be unable to donate any of the funds raised to his wife & kids, using the myriad rules & regs not to do so. I'll donate to a fund for his family, but not MIND - they've done well out of this, much better than they could have expected. Congratulations to them on this windfall.

You seem to resent that the charity may benefit from the cyclist's death. Do you not think it's good that something positive comes from this? It's like you think they're getting away with something unfair on a technicality. It's essential that the "myriad rules & regs" are there to prevent misuse of funds raised by charities, whether by misguided good intentions as I would consider yours, or simple corruption. On the information I'm aware of, there's nothing wrong happening here except for the accident itself.

ai_1

CiB wrote:

Would you? "If it were me I would want all the money to go to the charity". I wouldn't, and wouldn't like to look his widow or his kids in the eye and say "you can't have any of this - he wouldn't have wanted you to". If I'd set out to raise a few quid for charity and was killed doing it, I'd want my surviving family to see some or more of that additional benefit, and would very much like to see this chap's family see some benefit. There's always a sense of unfairness at someone dying doing something good like this; to say that his family should not see any of the vast additional moneys raised as a direct result of his death adds to that sense of unfairness, that the charity benefits big-time and the people who really could use some extra support at this time are denied any benefit at all. A large org has unexpectedly received £60k+ as a direct result of a man's death. I'm not convinced that they have a moral right to every last penny of that money.

Carbonator wrote:

I think a lot less people would have donated if they knew only a small percentage was going to the charity.

Do you? And how many do you think would kick up a huge fuss if some was diverted to his grieving widow & young family?

The money is not owed to his family either legally or morally.
It has nothing to do with them.
I expect they will be glad to know that something positive came from the tragedy, I would, but they certainly shouldn't expect to benefit financially from charitable donations unless their needs are within the scope of the charity.
The fact that he died taking part in a charitable event doesn't make it more or less of a tragedy in my opinion. It does however provide a way for others to show support. Any compensation to his family is a completely separate matter and should stay that way. Life insurance and/or damages are the appropriate source of compensation, or if someone were to set up an appropriate charitable fund for this purpose that would be fine too.

The MIND charity has a responsibility to use donated funds for the purpose for which they were donated. This is as it should be.

You are WAY off target here.

CiB

Ai_1 wrote:

You are WAY off target here.

Yeah, maybe I am. Trouble is when I read about people being killed like this, it seems so wrong that a woman loses her husband at such a young age and has to suffer all the grief & bitterness and anger at such a stupid way to lose him, and his kids face the rest of their lives without their dad because of of his desire to do good. It just strikes me that the charity receive 100% of the benefit of this - to them - stranger - dying, and his immediate closest family face a lifetime of getting over it and don't see a single penny of that additional £60,000 that MIND will receive. Yeah. I'm way off target for not agreeing that his wife & kids shouldn't get a penny. Good luck to his wife - she can meet someone else and get over it can't she? And his kids have only got what? 70-odd years to miss their dad? Thanks heavens we have people willing to make sure that the charity keeps every penny of this unexpected windfall that they didn't even know about last week.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't give to charity if they want to, or that rules is rules and must be obeyed. Just suggesting a bit of compassion. That's all.