Forum menu
I live in Dorset and I remember reading about the cyclist who was called. Just read the sentencing and it's a bloody joke. The guy had lights on and the article makes reference to high Viz. Personally, I think that's irrelevant as he had lights on his bike.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46070280
He "stopped briefly" but did not report the crash despite his windscreen being "almost caved in", prosecutors said.
Mr Gibbs died on the road from "overwhelming head injuries".
Later that night, a police officer spotted Johnson's damaged van passing the crash scene on the back of a recovery truck and reported it as a possible suspect vehicle for the collision.
FFS!
Absolutely unbelievable. You will get a several years in jail for a rude Tweet but a hit and run resulting in death gets a community order? This is complete madness.
Also I think he's a complete ****ing liar saying he thought he hit a deer.
As I've said many times, if you want to kill someone do it in a motor vehicle.
Having said that I do question the wisdom or riding on an unlit dual carriageway at night. I wouldn't.
Nobody gives a shit, not the cops, judges or the general public.
People in cars have important things to do and you’re getting in the way.
Unbelievable sentence, if the bike lights were of decent quality and not suffering from a battery almost out of juice. 🙁
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17196166.martin-collier-lost-his-temper-after-car-made-way-for-ambulance-in-coxford-road-southampton/ got a harsher sentence than the OP case!
Some witnesses said they could see Mr Gibbs' illuminated bike lights from as far away as 200 yards (182m), while others said they had to "take avoidance action and swerve" to miss him, the court heard.
That's quite a wide range.
we have less rights and protection on the road than a dog.
A good friend of mine was killed last week in a RTC . He was out for a run and jogged across a pelican crossing which had pedestrians already on it. Car blew through the red light and killed him , and broke the leg of a young lad on a pushbike.
Father of 2 young children who are really good kids .
As for those sentances above, it would appear it was plain luck that a traffic officer saw the vehicle on a recovery truck , put 2 and 2 together so they caught the guy . Otherwise he could have got away with it. On tinpot local radio the other morning they had to explain how peds and cyclists have right of way at all times, then the cock of a chancellor gives the motorists ( idiots) more ammo by stating RFL is all going to be spent on repairing potholes.
Take away their cheaffeur driven jags and give them a brompton for 1 week.
RIP Rob , you will be missed by many people .
Nobody gives a shit, not the cops, judges or the general public.
People in cars have important things to do and you’re getting in the way.
This. We need a massive, top down and bottom up change of culture in this country and I can't see that happening any time soon.
Th worst part for me is that he will be driving again in 18 months. Why let someone like this ever drive again.
A smashed windscreen limits visibility massively. The fact he drove away in the dark with a damaged vehicle sounds like he knew exactly what had happened and he was escaping the scene. If my windscreen was smashed I'd stop and call for a recovery truck.
Hampshire County Council are trying to plan for the next ~30 years, as regards the roads https://www.hants.gov.uk/news/june05hants2050
The current questionnaire section deadline is 23rd November https://etehampshirecc.researchfeedback.net/s.asp?k=152533806340 for "Mobility, Connectivity and Energy"
At the very least, changes need to be made to the fail to stop legislation so that you can't blithely drive off after a collision of that magnitude. He could have got six months just for that, and the 'I thought I hit a deer' loophole should be closed.
TBH, they should have charged him with failing to stop anyway and let a jury decide on the basis that even a cursory examination of the scene would have revealed what actually happened.
I feel for his family and friends. I can't imagine being in court to hear that sentence being read out.
The sentence is because of the crappy sentencing guidelines. I wonder what the CTC, British Cycling are doing in trying to force legislation change as these type of stories keep coming year after year.
****ing ridiculous sentence. The minimum should be lose his license forever.
Can this sentence be challenged?
I'd like to know why "high visibility" clothing was even mentioned in court, given that it seems the accident happened in the dark, on an unlit road.
Reflectives may have been relevant. Hi Viz, completely pointless in such a scenario. Hi Viz for daylight, reflectives for darkness, surely this is generally accepted, no?
@singletrackmind: Firstly, condolences re. your friend. Secondly... RFL? If cyclists are referring to the proceeds of vehicle excuse duty as a "road fund" it's not going to be a surprise when gammony motorists continue with "we pay for the road so get out my way, cyclist" crap?
several witnesses said that they had to take action to avoid him, which would be unusual if they guys lights were actually of any use.
I see loads of riders that technically have a rear light but it is pathetically dim - like they are asking to be hit.
If I were a judge I would act leniently against a car driver in a situation like that.
several witnesses said that they had to take action to avoid him, which would be unusual if they guys lights were actually of any use.
Did those witnesses also say they were driving too close to the car in front, driving at 70mph plus and didn't observe the cyclist from afar as they weren't really looking.
If I were a judge I would act leniently against a car driver in a situation like that.
Luckily you will never become a judge...
Dressed like that she was asking for it....
A smashed windscreen limits visibility massively. The fact he drove away in the dark with a damaged vehicle sounds like he knew exactly what had happened and he was escaping the scene. If my windscreen was smashed I’d stop and call for a recovery truck.
That's because he's lying. The 'I hit a deer excuse' is just a legal fiction. His internet searches make this obvious as does fact that as you say nobody drives home with a shattered windscreen after hitting a deer, you call a recover truck.
I wonder what the CTC, British Cycling are doing in trying to force legislation change
Cycling UK are doing a fair bit, see their canpaigns page... https://www.cyclinguk.org/current-campaigns
This one in particular - https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/road-justice
They've also responded robustly to the Government's cynical focus on reforming cycling offences rather than all road offences.
Are you a member? Might be worth considering if you are concerned about road safety for cyclists.
Dunno about BC.
as you say nobody drives home with a shattered windscreen after hitting a deer, you call a recover truck.
Which he did as soon as he had got (he thought) far enough away from the fatal accident he caused.
several witnesses said that they had to take action to avoid him, which would be unusual if they guys lights were actually of any use.
"had to take avoidance action and swerve to miss him" usually really means "there was a bloody cyclist on the road and I had to move out slightly to pass them safely, which is really annoying".
I see loads of riders that technically have a rear light but it is pathetically dim – like they are asking to be hit.
Read that sentence back to yourself slowly and have a think about what you wrote.
In this situation it wouldn't matter to me (as a judge) if the cyclist was wearing black head to toe with no lights. The real crime here is driving away from the accident and leaving a cyclist dying by the side of the road.
There have been several times when I have nearly hit a cyclist or pedestrian over the 30 years I've been driving - mainly because they have been drunk, messing around, run out from between parked cars etc etc. Not once would I ever consider leaving the scene of any accident that might have ensued.
For that crime alone they should have thrown the book at him - no matter who was at fault in the original collision.
For that crime alone they should have thrown the book at him – no matter who was at fault in the original collision.
Unfortunately the 'I thought I hit a deer' excuse is enough to establish reasonable doubt.
The law needs changing here to mandate that drivers report any collision even if it's a deer. Then this BS excuse will be rendered unless.
Sentence is spot on guidelines, make of that what you will.
Yet the baying mob still want life for death by careless cycling. Worth responding to the consultation if you care.
Hopefully the defendant is a gig economy worker on a DPD style contract as it will be costing him £150-ish a day in penalties until he finds a replacement to carry out his job.
Minimum loss of licence for life with 5 years inside if ever caught behind the wheel of a vehicle requiring a licence to operate it on the highway. (A full 5 years with no let-off for good behaviour)
"Some witnesses said they could see Mr Gibbs’ illuminated bike lights from as far away as 200 yards (182m), while others said they had to “take avoidance action and swerve” to miss him, the court heard."
Or to correct that ....
"Some witnesses said they could see Mr Gibbs’ illuminated bike lights from as far away as 200 yards (182m), while others ...
Were paying so little attention to the road/were failing to drive with sufficient care that they failed to see in good time and properly overtake another road user."
It's not like the A338 has a succession of tight curves in it either. It's about as close to straight as you're going to get between Ringwood and Bournemouth.
Dangerous driving causing a death and driving away from the accident scene..... And all he has to do is work for free for a while and catch a bus for 18 months.
To hear this is as per guidelines is even more shocking than the "accident" itself!
Absolutely ridiculous!
The cyclist was not wearing high-visibility clothing, the court was told.
Interesting that the Beeb chose to put this in the article as it sounds like an attempt to blame the cyclist (as they don't mention that he was illegally lit and not wearing a helmet I'd assume that he was).
Surely there's a good case for an appeal for an unduly lenient sentence?
We have until 11.45pm tonight to respond to consultation on the Gov's plans to introduce new "death by cycling" laws.
I'm fine with new laws, that helps establish cyclists as an equal user group. I'd happily mandate insurance too frankly, virtually everyone has it, and it would shut up some of the mouth breathing ****s that have no idea what they're talking about.
However, that's nothing to do with drivers being told "that was a bit naughty" when they kill people, and that seems to be the problem.
You are obviously free to respond in favour if that's your opinion, however...
However, that’s nothing to do with drivers being told “that was a bit naughty” when they kill people
The issue is the waste of legislative resources with a cynical attempt to villify cyclists, fast-tracking this while sitting on a long-promised wider review of road offences (which this could have been part of).
So there is a link, in that context.
Surely there’s a good case for an appeal for an unduly lenient sentence?
Not if it is in line with the sentencing guidelines.
Or to correct that ….
“while others …
Were paying so little attention to the road/were failing to drive with sufficient care that they failed to see in good time and properly overtake another road user.”
No, the statement was most likely an accurate reflection of the "evidence" your correction is applying your own bias - it may be true, or it may genuinely be that there was a fault with the light, it was mounted badly etc. The court has to make its decisions based on the actual evidence before it - not on hypothesis about what they make up themselves. It was the job of the investigating officers to establish if that light could clearly be seen by an observant driver at a suitable distance.
The law needs changing here to mandate that drivers report any collision even if it’s a deer. Then this BS excuse will be rendered unless.
Mmm, 1. Making people "report" everything rather than "stop" would not really help at the scene; 2. would clog up a resource strapped police with people reporting stuff like hitting a rabbit; 3. You'd like to have hoped that the investigating officer, or the CPS asked the questions "if you thought it was a deer, did you not think it would be sensible to stop and check if the deer was now blocking the carriageway and presumably a risk to other road users?
The ‘I hit a deer excuse’ is just a legal fiction. His internet searches make this obvious as does fact that as you say nobody drives home with a shattered windscreen after hitting a deer, you call a recover truck.
Where did you see what he searched on the internet? Did they even prosecute for fail to stop/report? I'm fairly certain not everyone call a recovery truck for every deer v vehicle - there were no pics of the van in the article (and may not have been in court) which makes it hard to know how bad it was damaged.
I’d like to know why “high visibility” clothing was even mentioned in court, given that it seems the accident happened in the dark, on an unlit road.
Reflectives may have been relevant. Hi Viz, completely pointless in such a scenario. Hi Viz for daylight, reflectives for darkness, surely this is generally accepted, no?
I think you may be reading too much into the particular words, as used either in court or the press. In colloquial use normal people use "high vis" differently from the distinction you appear to be trying to make. The point may well have been relevant because had he been highly reflective (and this may even be true of some neon coloured clothing) then it would have made the "thought it was a deer" story unbelievable or been enough to move the case from careless to dangerous.
Read that sentence back to yourself slowly and have a think about what you wrote.
I have no problem with what I wrote - I see loads of cyclists wearing black (no problem with that unless...) and with small rear lights which are so dim that they look like they are about 10 minutes away from the battery failing.
That counts as 'asking to be hit' in my mind and I reckon in the mind of most police and judges.
You’d like to have hoped that the investigating officer, or the CPS asked the questions “if you thought it was a deer, did you not think it would be sensible to stop and check if the deer was now blocking the carriageway and presumably a risk to other road users?
This is what I was thinking. Hit a thing big enough to make van pretty much un-driveable (so clearly not a rabbit, fox, badger etc,.) yet just carry on driving and leaving whatever it was to slowly die or block the road causing other accidents.
From chakaping's link =
[i]2.2.2. In England, deaths and serious injury caused by cyclists have attracted
a great deal of attention. There have been a number of high-profile cases
e.g. at the Central Criminal Court on 23 August 2017 Charles Alliston
was acquitted of manslaughter but convicted of wanton and furious
driving after he rode into Mrs Briggs when she was crossing a road in
London. Mrs Briggs suffered serious head injuries and died a week later.
Mr Alliston was sentenced to 18 months detention in a Young Offender’s
Institution. At Reading Crown Court on 11 October 2017 Richard
4
Manners admitted causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct after
crashing into a 4 year old boy in a pedestrian-only area while riding a
bike with no brakes. He was imprisoned for 27 weeks.[/i]
Right, 2 then. Amazing
I wish I had the patience to read it all, but I haven't. I did scan and nowhere can I see mention that riding dangerously is extremely rare because it causes as much danger to the person riding as it does to anyone else!
This all sadly reinforces my gut feel that I should avoid riding on, or near the road at all costs. I feel like an environmental cheat loading my bike up to drive 7 miles to the downs when I could/should ride there. And riding on the road with my kids??? No way Hose.
No way Jose
You've not seen Father Ted have you.
globe.com/scene/?frame=S02E02-tn4Nixkt
or watch and listen here about 15.40.
Surely there’s a good case for an appeal for an unduly lenient sentence?
Not if it is in line with the sentencing guidelines.
Kevin Johnson previously pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court to causing death by careless driving.
So are the causing death by careless/dangerous driving charges the only options? It seems to me that death has been caused by negligence/willful negligence and as such could be considered manslaughter.
This all sadly reinforces my gut feel that I should avoid riding on, or near the road at all costs. I feel like an environmental cheat loading my bike up to drive 7 miles to the downs when I could/should ride there. And riding on the road with my kids??? No way Hose.
Have you considered the fact you are still driving on the [same] roads with the same drivers and whilst your tin box might provide you with some extra protection it won't guarantee a van driven by an inattentive driver doesn't wipe you out? Have you considered whether by training your kids to believe that everybody gets driven everywhere and so if, like many, they stop actively pursuing "sport" as they get older you'll have bread sedentary couch potatoes who face the life of health problems associated with an inactive lifestyle. Have you considered whether by keeping "our children" away from such places we help reinforce in their minds "that bikes don't belong on roads" and they grow up to become the "you should pay roadtax" shouters of the future? By protecting them from a tiny catastrophic risk now are you exposing them to a much more likely one in many years time?
FWIW I've never had a dodgy pass riding on the road with kids, and even people who have generally agree that drivers are far more courteous around children. That does of course rely on them seeing you to start with (although a group may be more visible)! The sentence on those who do cause fatalities will have no impact on other drivers who don't pay as much attention as they should.
I’m fine with new laws, that helps establish cyclists as an equal user group. I’d happily mandate insurance too frankly, virtually everyone has it, and it would shut up some of the mouth breathing **** that have no idea what they’re talking about.
Cyclists are already an equal user group in law and there is no need for new laws to establish that. I don't think that adding a new law on dangerous cycling or introducing mandatory insurance will shut anyone up, because the people you are describing just think that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, full stop.
I have no problem with what I wrote
If I encountered someone cycling at night in black clothing with no lights, I'd think they were taking a stupid risk and behaving irresponsibly, but I'd hope they didn't come to harm. I wouldn't think they were "asking to be hit".