http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23944993

240 hours of unpaid work and was disqualified from driving for a year.

Brown admitted in court he had been eating a sandwich between five and 10 seconds before he hit Mr Wilkins, who was cycling along the road.

Brown told the jury his “eyes were on the road” but Mr Wilkins had no lights or reflectors.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/9728816.Crash_kills_firefighter/

fwiw accident was at 21:20pm , sunset at 21:07

fwiw accident was at 21:20pm , sunset at 21:07

yeah I was just trying to find some info, nice of the bbc to point out no lights but omit any info on light levels

So he wasn’t looking at the road then?

Let’s hope Mr Brown doesn’t need the Fire Brigade whilst they’re a man down.

FFS BBC asserting that the cyclist had no lights again.

But police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash.

http://road.cc/content/news/90037-driver-who-killed-oxford-cyclist-found-not-guilty-dangerous-driving-guilty

And another one: Drove straight through a stop sign because it didn’t look like a junction on his sat nav. Hit and killed a cyclist. 240 hours of unpaid work, £60 surcharge, £85 court costs, banned from driving for two years.

I hate these threads …makes me scared of commuting

if you ever want to kill someone get them a bike and hunt them down

FFS you can do almost any level of not give a shit and still [ pretty much] get away with it

FFS you can do almost any level of not give a shit and still [ pretty much] get away with it

This.

It seems that casual homicide by car is seen as just ‘one of those things’ that happens to people when in reality it’s caused by them.

Yep.
It does seem like you can pretty much get away with any any lame excuse as to why you ran into someone and killed them, so long as they are on a bike.

Eating something
Confused by sat nav
Sun in the eyes….

I have seen a few reports regarding this incident and it is amazing that most of them seem to omit the part about his light probably having been on, but being damaged in the crash. Presumably the driver just said “his light wasn’t on” and it’s very hard to disprove once it’s been damaged by the impact.

The light , in my opinion, is unlikely to be a true version of reality even if the jury bought it. Even with no lights if you cannot see a cyclist at twilight then in what sense are you looking at the road?

think the comments by the police officer are great and spot on – though I wish he didn’t have to be in the position to say them – all very sad

the BBC need to sub edit their links a bit better though – or does the link just reflect society? He wasn’t cleared he got away with a lesser charge – he still caused a death

After the trial concluded on 8 August, Sgt Jack Hawkins, of Thames Valley Police, said: “The jury in this case decided that the facts amounted to careless driving as opposed to dangerous.

“What I would do of course is urge all drivers to think about their driving and their actions behind the wheel so that this kind of thing doesn’t happen.

“Fatal collisions are very often avoidable and this case was no different at all.”

More on This Story
Related Stories Eating driver cleared of road death 08 AUGUST 2013, OXFORD

Don’t like someone? don’t murder them, simply learn their work patterns then run them over and it becomes a sad and tragic accident.

Don’t like someone? don’t murder them, simply learn their work patterns then run them over and it becomes a sad and tragic accident.

You do realise he didn’t “get off”? You may not like the sentence but given a verdict of death by careless driving – its entirely within the expected range.

Whilst all this talk of “Murder” is good emotional point scoring murder is completely different, and requires a premeditated intent.

Should be manslaughter IMO.

Hugely frustrating there is not cycling lobby group kicking up a stink about this in a really big way.

You do realise he didn’t “get off”?

he drove down the road not watching what he was doing, he may have been eating texting or fannying around with the radio, he may not either weay he wasn’t concentrating and he hit a cyclists when he had >6seconds to make a slight adjustment to his steering. I’m sure many would call that dangerous. Killing someone and getting labelled as a careless driver sounds like “got off” to me. If it was a lorry driver* who had carelessly killed a car occupant I wonder if the jury would have come to the same conclusion.

When the disparity between perpetrator and victim is so large that a “careless” mistake has such tragic consequences, does that not automatically become dangerous?

*or any big enough vehicle for a “careless” mistake to kill someone in a 1tonne cage

If it was a lorry driver* who had carelessly killed a car occupant I wonder if the jury would have come to the same conclusion.

Funny you should say that: jailed for five years and three months and disqualified from driving for five years.

The punishment never seems enough.

fwiw accident was at 21:20pm , sunset at 21:07

Not trying to blame the rider at all but the law for cars is lights on at night which is classed as 30 minutes before sunrise. It would make sense for cyclists to do the same.

Shame though if that’s why they used to get the driving off with such a low sentence but it’s how the law works.

Personally I struggle to see from the reported facts how running down a cyclist in plain sight does not fall far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. Unfortunately the typical jury does not apply the correct baseline standard of driving when considering such cases – instead they compare to the awful standard of an average driver (ie themselves) rather than a competent one. Something really needs to be done to address this issue.

Is it just me, or is that BBC article a bit biased towards the driver – it mentions that the driver said the cyclist had no lights or reflectors, but misses out the bit with the authorities saying that he probably did have the light on, but there was no way of knowing for sure because of the damage caused by the crash, and also misses out the bit where it says there was good visibility and the cyclists would have been clearly visible for at least 6.5 seconds. Once again it seems like the blame is being put on the cyclist, even when the driver admits and is convicted of careless (but not dangerous) driving.

Also, that stuff about pedals needing to have orange reflectors on if they were made after 1985 – does that mean that SPDs are supposedly illegal after sunset? :/

Awful for the cyclist’s family, really feel for them. Makes me wary of commuting, and makes me terrified when Mr Toast goes road riding.

Also, that stuff about pedals needing to have orange reflectors on if they were made after 1985 – does that mean that SPDs are supposedly illegal after sunset?

Yes. You also need a red rear reflector, in addition to lights, after dark.

(Although I remember something about ‘pedal cycles adapted for racing’ being exempt from some reflector requirements?)

Hugely frustrating there is not cycling lobby group kicking up a stink about this in a really big way.

British Cycling, after a LONG campaign, recently got the Government to agree to a review of the sentencing guidelines:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/roadsafety/article/20130828-campaigning-road-safety-Review-of-sentencing-guidelines-is-victory-for-British-Cycling-and-its-members-0

Not sure I’d go so far as to call it a “victory” until something is actually done and driving a vehicle becomes something with a bit more responsibility attached and not something that’s considered a God-given right but hey, small steps.

This woman got an 18-month prison sentence for a similar offence:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/23/driver-killed-cyclist-as-she-altered-her-satnav-3895800/
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/driver-jailed-for-killing-cyclist-5819773

What I find even stranger is this: http://road.cc/content/news/90086-breaking-passenger-dies-injuries-after-bus-performs-emergency-stop-avoid-cyclist

A potential charge of involuntary manslaughter.

A police spokesman quoted by Anglia TV at the time of the first reports of the incident said, “The allegation is that the cyclist caused the bus driver to brake heavily and as a result the passenger was injured

It’s not the potential charge and punishment, but the inconsistency, that’s the most galling thing.

If you ride like a d*ck and cause someone to be seriously injured/killed then you should face some severe consquences. But it should be the same if you drive like a d*ck too!

Not trying to blame the rider at all but the law for cars is lights on at night which is classed as 30 minutes before sunrise.

Aren’t you a professional driver? 😯 Current law is lighting to make a vehicle visible sunset to sunrise, with headlights from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise (you seem to have got confused with the time of day – it was within the half hour after sunset, not sunrise). I’m fairly sure that at one point you didn’t need lights at all until half an hour after sunset (until half an hour before sunrise), but at some point since I’ve been driving that got tightened up.

Not that any of that is really relevant to driver’s failure to see cyclist in this case – especially given that expert testimony is that he did have lights, which unsurprisingly broke in the collision.

Funny you should say that:

proved to be texting at the time tho wasn’t he? That’s one of the accepted “big no no”s (even if it is flouted on a massive scale). If OP driver had been proved to be texting I suppose he may have gotten dangerous. Still possible to be sober, not texting, not speeding and still be bloody dangerous tho.

Custodial may not be applicable but a considerable ban would be shirley? Do 12month bannees need to retake their test and have a proper eyesight test? (i believe eyesight of OP driver was mentioned)

This is one reason why I always charge my rear light batteries between rides, and always use a rear light on the road. There can be no “it wasn’t dark enough when he set off so he didn’t have a light”.

My family and GF know that I always have at least one rear light. Two when it’s actually dark, so I won’t be caught out by a failure. That way, if I’m reduced to a smear on the tarmac by some c**t who isn’t paying attention they can’t wriggle their way out of a slightly less insulting punishment.

Can anyone explain why the lorry driver (in the miketually link above)got a much harsher sentence?

Is it because:
– he seemed to be a habitual mobile phone user while driving
– he was a ‘professional’ driver
– he killed two people instead of just one
– something else.

I genuinely don’t understand how there can be such disparity between sentences.

MrsToast I think in a “getting pulled over by the feds” sense you’re safe aslong as you are adequately lit up. If however, god forbid, you are KSI-ied by a driver the defence will go all out on the rules and regulations to prove you were partly to blame and no doubt the bbc will highlight the fact you didn’t have pedal reflectors (a legal requirement doncherknow) without mentioning the zillion other lights your bike was festooned with.

– he seemed to be a habitual mobile phone user while driving tick
– he was a ‘professional’ driver tick
– he killed two people instead of just one he killed two car occupants ie real proper people*

*sorry is my cynicism showing?

D0NK – Member

Funny you should say that:
proved to be texting at the time tho wasn’t he?

This is from the link:

At first, Roberts tried to blame Mr McHale for the crash and an initial examination of his phone showed no messages at the time of the incident.

However, later checks revealed that someone had deleted a text message, sent one minute 16 seconds before the collision.

So there was a text sent 76 seconds before the collision that was deleted.
76 seconds would be roughly a mile before the collision took place….

The bloke who hit the cyclist admitted he had been eating a sandwich 5-10 seconds before the collisions…..

British Cycling, after a LONG campaign, recently got the Government to agree to a review of the sentencing guidelines

As you say small steps, but not gaining any significant media coverage. As I said –

kicking up a stink about this in a really big way.

bails – Member
This is one reason why I always charge my rear light batteries between rides, and always use a rear light on the road. There can be no “it wasn’t dark enough when he set off so he didn’t have a light”.

I always use two lights – one flashing and one constant.
Perhaps not on very bright days, but even on overcast days where contrast is reduced I will put my lights on.

I have recently started going on a Wed night group ride with some roadies and have been amazed at their lack of concern about bothering with lights. Most of them don’t take them along and the ones that do, use really cheap lights that aren’t particularly bright or the batteries die within about 10 mins of turning them on.
It is quite ridiculous that they all seem to be on full carbon uber-bikes but don’t want to spend £30 on a couple of decent rear lights.

A roadie caught me up the other day and his first comment was to inform me that both my rear lights were on. When I said thanks, but I knew that they were on and had put them on as it was quite dull when i set off, he seemed quite bemused as to why I would do such a thing.

proved to be eating but eating afaik isn’t specifically listed as a dangerous thing to do whilst driving (like speeding, texting or being drunk) of course there’s lots of stuff not listed but would be just as dangerous but if it’s not listed I don’t think people put you on the naughty step. Dunno how it works in court with a jury but you see plenty of people explaining things away. Just after wrapping their car around a lampost in snowy conditions “but I wasn’t speeding, it’s not my fault” no but you were going too fast for conditions weren’t you?

good point on the timings, 5-10 seconds eating, cyclist would have been in view 6seconds before the crash, that’s quite possibly him eating when cyclist would have been in view.

It’s not the potential charge and punishment, but the inconsistency, that’s the most galling thing.

+1.

Remember the case back in 2007 where a cyclist hit a group of teenagers, one fell against the kerb, hit her head and later died.
That cyclist was fined £2200.

Slightly more than the £35 that most motorists seem to get for killing cyclists…

Something really needs to be done to address this issue.

I’m not particularly a fan of locking people up for what in the end could be a moment’s inattention, however I’m always amazed at the pathetically short driving bans they receive. If you ask me, anyone who kills or seriously injures someone due to careless driving should receive an automatic life ban. It could work on the same basis as life sentences where they could be allowed to drive again under license after detailed assessment, and have that license removed for any further small infringements like speeding.

Still think there should be retests every 5 or 10 years (def 5 yrs over 60).
Compulsory eye test at 2 yearly intervals in order to keep your license.
Optician sends the confirmation to the DVLA and it updates the records against your license.
The bloody car is checked every year so why not test the lump of meat that’s controlling the thing?

I know it’s not enough but 240hours is a lot of unpaid work.

That’s fulltime every weekend for 4 months. OK he still gets a home life, but thats borderline as bad as say 4 months in an open prison (i.e. an 8 month scentance, with half on probation/tagged).

And unlike somone who kills deliberately he’s likely to not be a psycopath, so will feel emptahy for the ‘victim’.

I think we need more short bans, along with improved detection so we know who to give the bans to.

Get caught speeding = 2 week ban. A £30 fine makes no difference to most people, but 2 weeks without the car might actually inconvenience them. There is basically no consequence to breaking the law on the road in the vast majority of cases.

If someone is convicted of an offence like dangerous or careless driving then they have to take a retest and then for the next year they’re only allowed to drive cars that are fitted with a GPS based speed restrictor. Don’t want one? Then don’t drive dangerously or carelessly. Get caught driving an unrestricted car when you’r eon ‘probation’ = 12 month ban and an extended retest.

Compulsory eye test at 2 yearly intervals in order to keep your license.

cartoon image of specs on licence plate for drivers who need ’em? IIRC that lorry driver that killed 2 cyclists a few years apart needing specs for driving but wasn’t wearing them for atleast one.

dunno how you deal with contact lense wearers, but the rules around vision seem lax, mind you we’re pretty lax about driving in general.

bails +1 difficult to enforce a 2 week ban tho.

Aren’t you a professional driver? Current law is lighting to make a vehicle visible sunset to sunrise, with headlights from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise (you seem to have got confused with the time of day – it was within the half hour after sunset, not sunrise). I’m fairly sure that at one point you didn’t need lights at all until half an hour after sunset (until half an hour before sunrise), but at some point since I’ve been driving that got tightened up.

Yes I am. It was a ‘typo’ I meant 1/2 hour before sunrise and after sunset. I’m fairly sure it was always the case of lights on before sunset, I was advised 1 hour before.

Stumpy – all of those things – but the main difference is found guilty of DANGEROUS not CARELESS.

The test should be thought of without considering the consequences. So if the Police saw you eating a sandwich on the road home tonight with no other road users around would they stop you and report for Careless or Dangerous driving. Given they can now fixed penalty Careless I think it is VERY likely they would do the former, but even last year they would have been quite unlikely to report that as the more serious offence.

Crazy-legs – again that was a successful conviction for Dangerous driving, this was for Careless.

Aracer – I’m surprised there isn’t more reliance on expect evidence to define what is the standard they expect – perhaps there was, or the Judge made clear instructions to the Jury on how they should ignore their own prejudices. However there was 4 days of evidence and Jury took 4 hours to consider the point. Is it just POSSIBLE that they were better informed than either you or the Journo (who almost certainly didn’t sit in on it all)? Don’t forget that they need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt – not just the most likely scenario.

D0NK – No there is no automatic requirement for 12 month careless driving bans to retake a test. It can be added.

noid – Member
Stumpy – all of those things – but the main difference is found guilty of DANGEROUS not CARELESS.

The test should be thought of without considering the consequences. So if the Police saw you eating a sandwich on the road home tonight with no other road users around would they stop you and report for Careless or Dangerous driving. Given they can now fixed penalty Careless I think it is VERY likely they would do the former, but even last year they would have been quite unlikely to report that as the more serious offence.

I genuinely don’t understand this. Perhaps it’s why this becomes such a difficult issue when dealing with this type of case?

If you don’t consider the consequence, how is it more ‘dangerous’ than ‘careless’ to be using a mobile or eating a sandwich?
So if the lorry driver had been eating a sandwich, instead of sending a text (approximately) a mile before the accident occurred, would he have only got done for careless driving because he was eating a sandwich and not sending a text, even if the outcome was the same?

And in your example above, if the police stop me in the same situation but I am on the phone why is that more serious if there are no other road users around than if I had been eating a sandwich?

I’m not being argumentative for the sake of it. I just don’t understand the difference. The end result is people die as a result of another person’s lack of care – both situations seem dangerous to me, but neither the sandwich eater or the phone user intended to kill anyone when they made the decisions they did.