12 months in jail for red light jumping cyclist who left 9-year-old girl with fractured skull

Before I make any comment on this case I will say that I wish the young girl a full and speedy recovery.

A couple of things seem odd about this. First of all the charge of GBH seems very strange. This was clearly a road accident. I understand the charge of GBH without intent but it still doesn't ring right to me. I certainly can't imaging a GBH charge being brought against a motorist in a similar set of circumstances. That said the resultant sentance seems appropriote.

On the helmet issue, although I'm a little uncomforatable about bringing it up of the back of this story, this is a forum that represents the point of view of cyclists so perhaps it is appropriote. If a cyclist had received injuries after being hit by a RLJing motorist (or even another cyclist) the issue of helmet use would undoubtedly have been mentioned in the reporting of the story. I'm not suggesting that pedestrians should start wearing helmets but there does seem to be a significant imbalance in the way that the media percieves these two vunerable groups (pedestrians and cyclists) who are subject to very similar risks when on the street. Pedestrian safety seems to be the responsibility of everyone but the pedestrian and cyclist safety seems to be the responsibility of the cyclist alone.

In this case it's clear that the cyclist is 100% in the wrong and the reporting of the scenario is very fair.

I have to say I think that sending this guy to prison, if previously of good character, is a waste of taxpayers' money.

I know the road well and whilst it is easy to be approaching the crossing at over 30mph, due to the descent, you *have* to slow down to under 20mph in order to negotiate the steep bend where the crossing is placed. Benwell obviously over-cooked it and lost control of his bike.

A couple of years ago a cyclist (Rob Jefferies) was killed by an 18 year old motorist down here. The motorist hadn't seen him, despite perfect conditions, and drove into the back of the cyclist. That motorist pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He got 200 hours community service and an 18 month driving ban.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9470538.Student_admits_blame_for_c...

To me both accidents were due to a lack of care and attention. However the cyclist, who HASN'T actually killed anyone, gets charged with GBH and sent to prison. On the other hand the motorist, who HAS killed someone, just gets community service. How is this fair? To me killing someone is much worse than injuring someone.

This shouldn't be viewed in the light of cars versus motorist. It was plain wrong to jump a red light and morally reprehensible to leave an injured child laying there and ride on. 1 year is WAY to short

I have never understood why injuring or killing someone with a motor vehicle is treated differently to injuring or killing someone with a knife, pickaxe, D lock, stale malt-loaf or licensed firearm.

The student how threw a fire extinguisher off a roof, injuring nobody got 32 months. The HGV driver who runs a clear red light and could cause even more damage gets 6 points (if caught).

There is no such thing as a "cyclist" there are people riding bikes. There is no such thing as a "motorist" there are people driving cars/vans/lorries. Draw me a Venn diagram of pedestrians/cyclists/motorists and you'll see what I mean.

People, whatever they are doing, must take account of others and be held to account when they don't. This guy did a bad thing, handed himself in, fessed-up and was punished.

Reading the comments about the road layout it sound like road design might have been a contributory factor. Placing a crossing just after a blind bend on a fairly hefty descent seems questionable. I don't know the road and maybe there is nowhere else for the crossing to go and poor road layout doesn't excuse riding too fast or blasting through red lights (even without intending to) but we all know that poor road design has caused a huge number of accidents.

I too wondered about the GBH issue.

I understand GBH is where permanent injury has been sustained i.e a scar as opposed to ABH where the injury is fully recoverable i.e not likely to leave a scar. Fractures will always leave some permanent sign of injury so GBH would be appropriate. However, it seems to be an unusual charge because it is not what many people would think of as an assault in the obvious sense. Of course, it is technically an assault because the perp struck the victim in some fashion but it does seem to be stretching the definition of an assault because another suitable charge is not available.

GBH does carry a potential life sentence though, so maybe the perp was advised to plead guilty on the basis that the sentence would be lower given the aggravating factor of leaving the scene. I'm still not sure why the CPS decided to prosecute with GBH and not a traffic offence equivalent of driving dangerously. I suspect the usual road traffic offences, 'Driving without Due care and attention' or 'Driving Dangerously' are not applicable to cycles and are only applicable to motor vehicles.

This case does beg the question why the CPS don't charge drivers, whom seriously injure or kill people in an accident with GBH or manslaughter, respectively. All the debate over insufficient evidence to charge a driver with Dangerous driving when a cyclist or pedestrian is seriously injured would be solved if GBH was more often used. It would be an awful lot better than driving without due care and attention, which more often than not results in an injustice.

When all is said and done these events are very unusual when compared to motoring collisions. Cyclists may well, on occasion, collide with pedestrians but rarely are either party seriously injured. If they were we would hear more of these sorts of accidents. It may be inevitable that with more people cycling and the likelihood that pedestrians and cyclists will have to share the same space more collisions will occur. On this point cyclists should always ride at a speed at which they can stop quickly and safely and pedestrians should also understand that they are more manoeuvrable than cyclists and should be prepared to step aside if they feel in danger, if a cyclists rings his bell or calls out. If both pedestrians and cyclists treat each other with respect and not pig headed belligerence we can get along much better than either group do with motor vehicles.

Lets hope the young victim recovers fully and isn't put off from cycling herself.

I hope that the little girl makes a full recovery.
I was the victim of road rage by a motorist who, after side swiping me twice and still not knocking me off; leant out of his window and pulled by bars up, finally putting me on the road. He got out after skidding to a stop to have another go but luckily two other motorists stopped and got out. He got back into his car and left the scene so I took photos of him leaving.
I called the police, I attended the police station; they took my statement and photos of the road rash I'd suffered and details of the damage to my bike. The police told me that they were looking for the driver. He handed himself in later the same day (see a similarity).
He was in court this week, the police told me it was a preliminary hearing, but I thought that I'd go along to see what happened. He didn't bother with a solicitor; it turns out he had been convicted of assault on three previous occasions and had to undergo an anger management, he knew the ropes. He lied, he expressed regret, he walked out with a £490 fine (£300 for assault, £35 victim surcharge, £85 costs and £75 compensation) less than the repairs to my bike. He was smiling. I'm having physiotherapy, luckily I'm in the forces so the Army pay for that.
The bottom line is that justice is not fair or even handed.

Mark, your account makes for troubling reading. I hope you get adequate physio and also recover psychologically and put the experience behind you.