Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Suspended sentence for lorry driver who killed cyclist and claimed he was unable to avoid hitting him

Prosecution rejected delivery driver's claim he was unable to pull over or slow down...

The driver of an Argos delivery lorry who said he was unable to pull over or slow down before he struck and killed a cyclist near Stockton-on-Tees in May last year - an assertion challenged by the prosecution - has been given a six month prison sentence, suspended for two and a half years.

Joseph Reed, aged 50 and from Willington, County Durham, had pleaded guilty at Teeside Crown Court to causing the death by careless driving of 61-year-old father of four Sean Ruff on the evening of 21 May 2013, reports the Northern Echo.

Mr Ruff, who worked as a finance director for demolition specialists Able UK, had been making his usual post-work bike ride before driving home to Cleadon, South Tyneside, when he was struck from behind by Reed’s lorry.

The court was told that he suffered multiple injuries and that death would have been almost instantaneous.

Christine Egerton, speaking for the prosecution, said that the victim would have been visible to the driver for a minimum of 9 seconds and a distance of 227 metres prior to the collision at 6.20pm on the A66 at Elton, near Stockton-on-Tees.

She said: "Witnesses said he did not brake or deviate, even after the collision. Some witnesses feared he was not going to stop, although he did do so.

"An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway."

She rejected claims made by Reed when he was interviewed by police that although he had seen Mr Ruff, traffic in the lane outside him meant he could not pull out, while vehicles behind meant he was unable to stop.

"Witness accounts do not support that, they say lane two was empty,” she said. "In any case, there was room for Mr Reed to pass safely while remaining in lane one."

Christopher Dorman-O'Gowan, speaking in mitigation on behalf of Reed, said: "He does not seek to blame Mr Ruff in any way.  A thoroughly decent man died that day, and a good man was at the wheel of the wagon."

Passing sentence on Reed, Judge Peter Armstrong said: “Cases such as this are a tragedy for all concerned.

"Nothing I can say will provide comfort or recompense for the family of Mr Ruff, any life is priceless.”

Addressing Reed, who was also banned from driving for 30 months, he added: "The effect on you has also been great, you have lost your job and your home, and you will have to live with the fact you have taken a life.

"Your inattention to the road that day was not momentary, but neither was it a prolonged period of inattention.

"In passing sentence, I am bound to follow the guidelines for judges in such cases,” he added.

Commenters on this story should please keep in mind that the families of those involved may be reading.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

60 comments

Avatar
Shades | 10 years ago
0 likes

Very sad. Nothing would posess me to cycle on a dual carriageway. Tried it commuting 18 years ago, on the advice that it was a quicker route, and it scared the cr#p out of me. I can still remember the feeling of cars and lorries thundering past me at 70mph.

Avatar
dp24 | 10 years ago
0 likes

He admits he saw the victim, and claims (incorrectly) he could not move out to overtake, so did nothing to try and slow down and avoid a collision. The fact he was up on a careless driving charge seems like little more than they didn't think one of dangerous driving would stick.

Dangerous Driving;
(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if —

(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

If the CPS opted not to go with a dangerous driving charge, because they felt that a jury would not find that his actions fell far below what is expected of a careful and competent driver, then something really has to change.

Avatar
mrchrispy | 10 years ago
0 likes

if this boils your piss then i urge you to write to your MP.
google it, its free, its quick and its easy.
no point moaning on the internet if you are not going to try and change things.

Avatar
BikeBud | 10 years ago
0 likes

A lot of comments on here talk of his decision to continue driving rather than slow down or change lane.

Witness statements suggest he didn't not brake or deviate, and that the second lane was clear.

Doesn't this suggest that he didn't see the cyclist (i.e. wasn't looking)?

Avatar
Sidi 700c | 9 years ago
0 likes

Why should we encourage new people to cycle when we read crap like this on a weekly basis?

I commented on another story where i could offer my services as a hitman and wait for my target to cycle. The worst that would happen is what this guy got away with. Payoff is great since i will be rich once i get out in 6 months time. Any takers?

Screw up on the road and come up with some BS excuse that the prosecution will swallow. Sad day for this persons family and the rest of us, yet again.

Avatar
mrmo replied to BikeBud | 10 years ago
0 likes
BikeBud wrote:

Doesn't this suggest that he didn't see the cyclist (i.e. wasn't looking)?

Which is even more astounding really.

Which would you think more badly of.

Sorry judge I was distracted, I didn't see him.
Sorry judge I saw him but ran him down anyway.

To be honest neither is exactly good, but the first strikes me as honest and the reaction of a normal person, since when is deliberately driving over a person the preferred excuse for a mistake?

Avatar
MKultra replied to BikeBud | 10 years ago
0 likes

No it simply suggests that he thought he had right of way so decided to kill someone to prove it. If he was unable to see the cyclist then he should be serving time for manslaughter as he was driving when he knew he was medically unfit to drive. It's a toss up between murder for the first and manslaughter for the second. Sadly he ended up pulling less jail time than someone who fails to pay the TV licence. This is how much our lives are worth to the oil companies.

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet replied to BikeBud | 10 years ago
0 likes
BikeBud wrote:

A lot of comments on here talk of his decision to continue driving rather than slow down or change lane.

Witness statements suggest he didn't not brake or deviate, and that the second lane was clear.

Doesn't this suggest that he didn't see the cyclist (i.e. wasn't looking)?

BOLXS!

"She rejected claims made by Reed when he was interviewed by police that although he had seen Mr Ruff, traffic in the lane outside him meant he could not pull out, while vehicles behind meant he was unable to stop."

Avatar
MKultra | 10 years ago
0 likes

He was found guilty of the wrong offence. He saw the cyclist from more than 200 meters away, he had plenty of time to change lane if he was concerned about safely passing him - but instead due to his own arrogance and sense of self importance he decided to plow on regardless and run another human being down. It's murder, not some semi criminal "driving offence". He made a deliberate and premeditated decision to run a man over, it's not a poxy driving offence in any shape or form.

Avatar
RedfishUK | 10 years ago
0 likes

He had time, he didn't stop...then he LIED about it. WTF do you have to do to get the full force of the law.

Avatar
antonio | 10 years ago
0 likes

Whatever spin the lawyers put on this verdict, the sentence is a non sentence. The joint submissions by CTC BC and other high profile cycling organisations to the government with concerns of judicial sentences is obviously falling on deaf ears.

Avatar
kitsunegari | 10 years ago
0 likes

What concerns me the most is that despite the witness evidence not corroborating the drivers story, he was still only given a suspended sentence.

What on earth has to happen in order for drivers to face worse?!

Avatar
md6 | 10 years ago
0 likes

I can't help but think, if he saw him, and chose not to take any form of action to avoid running over him, the driver made the choice that slowing down and risking being rear ended by a much smaller vehicle (assuming a car) is more unpleasant than killing a person. That is what's wrong with the attitude to drivers in this country. The sentencing guidlines are clearly unfit fot eh purpose, and the charge was inadequate. This wsn't careless driving (although the driver clearly didn't care about killing) it was dangerous, he made the decision to risk the life of another person because he couldn't be bothered to do anything else. That alone, should be grounds for a much harsher sentence than 6 months suspended and a 30 month driving ban. If it wasn't so tragic, this would be laughable.

Condolences to the family

Avatar
jmaccelari | 10 years ago
0 likes

This is insane. There was no excuse for the killing of this man. If the weapon had been a knife it would have been years in jail, but because it was a motor vehicle, the killer gets to walk away.

The laws need to be revised and the CPS needs some backbone.

Avatar
mlimburn | 10 years ago
0 likes

Until these drivers are banged up for significant periods of time, drivers will continue to drive like knobs endangering other road users. Getting away with murder is perfectly OK as long as you are driving the weapon!

Avatar
Argos74 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Outraged and stupefied at the sentencing, not because Mr Ruff was riding a bike, but that he's human, with family and friends who loved him, and whom he loved. The loss would have been no less had he been walking, driving a car or a van, or riding a motorbike.

A six month sentence, suspended for two and a half years, and driving ban for the same length of time, is a grotesque slap in the face for justice. I'm not talking out of a petty sense of vengeance or retribution here - more deterrence, both general and specific, rehabilitation and prevention. Which this sentence in no way addresses.

Avatar
edster99 | 10 years ago
0 likes

My condolences to the family.

Avatar
TheSpaniard | 10 years ago
0 likes

Down with this sort of thing

Avatar
EK Spinner | 10 years ago
0 likes

Another detail many seem to not have picked up on, the prosecution no less seems to think that there was enough space for him to pass safely in lane 1 of a Dual Carriageway.

The ONLY place to pass a vehicle (of any type) is surely lane 2

Also, never mind didn't have time t slow down, all road users have a responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see is clear in front of them. Is that not why as kids we were't allowed to run in the school corridors.

Avatar
mrmo replied to EK Spinner | 10 years ago
0 likes
EK Spinner wrote:

Another detail many seem to not have picked up on, the prosecution no less seems to think that there was enough space for him to pass safely in lane 1 of a Dual Carriageway.

To be honest he was found guilty so doesn't matter.

There are a lot of questions that need answering though. The judge could only hand down the sentence he did because his guidelines prevented him doing anything else.

So why did the CPS not go for a more realistic charge? Why are the sentences so pathetic? What do Politicians intend to do about it!!

Avatar
georgee | 10 years ago
0 likes

An utter farce again, I'm always shocked that a victims family in these situation haven't reacted more strongly given how appallingly the courts let them down.

Avatar
vagabond23 | 10 years ago
0 likes

I just read about this on BBC website and was so incensed that I felt compelled to post on here. It is utterly outrageous reading the mitigating circumstances, if you can call it that, how the driver walks away after such a crime.
As somebody said previously, what sort of planet do these judges live on.

Avatar
Stumps | 10 years ago
0 likes

We use the word "collision" now not accident. Not meaning to ruffle feathers but it was the prosecution who said 9 seconds.

However regardless of this its a bloody disgrace he was done for careless and not dangerous after admitting he saw him but kept on going in anycase.

The whole sentencing system needs to be overhauled massively though.

Avatar
colinth replied to Stumps | 10 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

However regardless of this its a bloody disgrace he was done for careless and not dangerous after admitting he saw him but kept on going in anycase.

Exactly, how can it not be considered dangerous when the driver admitted he saw the victim, claimed there was no room to overtake in lane 2, but just carried on driving anyway ? If you read the sentencing guidelines they do push the judge to a pretty pathetic sentence.

He pleaded guilty to carless driving, not sure if he was ever charged with dangerous driving but either he wasn't or the CPS accepted a deal for careless just so they could get a conviction. The legal system from the CPS down for this type of offence is an absolute farce

Avatar
Neil753 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Maybe we should all be starting to think:

1. Do we really want car licence holders driving vans up to 7.5t?

2. Should we really be allowing such vehicles to drive at up to 60mph on dual carriageways, when HGVs are limited to 50, especially when "hi cube" 7.5t vans can be so enormous?

3. Isn't it about time we had compulsory cameras in commercial vehicles, pointing not only forward but rearwards as well, so that the behaviour of the driver can be more readily evaluated in a court of law?

4. And shouldn't we be starting to appreciate that if a lifetime ban was mandatory, for any "at fault" incident that involved loss of life, the number of collisions (major and minor) would fall dramatically?

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet replied to Neil753 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

Maybe we should all be starting to think:

1. Do we really want car licence holders driving vans up to 7.5t?

2. Should we really be allowing such vehicles to drive at up to 60mph on dual carriageways, when HGVs are limited to 50, especially when "hi cube" 7.5t vans can be so enormous?

3. Isn't it about time we had compulsory cameras in commercial vehicles, pointing not only forward but rearwards as well, so that the behaviour of the driver can be more readily evaluated in a court of law?

4. And shouldn't we be starting to appreciate that if a lifetime ban was mandatory, for any "at fault" incident that involved loss of life, the number of collisions (major and minor) would fall dramatically?

1. As long as they are safe and respect other road users, what's the problem? It is the attitude of the driver that's the problem. Take this one case, this guy thought it best to plough through a cyclist rather than risk being shunted up the rear or change lanes. That's not an issue with the licence or vehicle!

2. As long as they are being driven safely and courteously, as above what's the problem? Also there is a huge difference in responsiveness between a fully loaded HGV of what 42t and 7.5t van.

3. No, because cameras will not stop people from driving unsafely, disrespectfully and discourteously. They only apportion blame after the incident. Far too many people on the roads today really on the other person to avoid an accident. I nearly rode under a HGV this week. The cameras would show a clear road in front and a clear car park behind, not that he pulled out in front of me whilst on the telephone without looking. I know he wasn't looking because I could clearly see the phone blocking his line of sight.

4. Totally with you there mate.

All this talk around safety features is bit like the great helmet debate. Bolxs. A loaded pistol in a locked case is not dangerous. A loaded pistol on a table is not dangerous. A loaded pistol in the hands of a sane, rational person has the potential to be a dangerous situation. A loaded pistol in the hand of a desperate, drug crazed psychopath held against someone's head is a dangerous situation.

Avatar
dp24 replied to Neil753 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

1. Do we really want car licence holders driving vans up to 7.5t?

Good point. I see car licence holders in 4x4s who i'd rather not see driving them on a daily basis.

Avatar
Neil753 replied to dp24 | 10 years ago
0 likes
dp24 wrote:
Neil753 wrote:

1. Do we really want car licence holders driving vans up to 7.5t?

Good point. I see car licence holders in 4x4s who i'd rather not see driving them on a daily basis.

Right now, somewhere in the UK, there's someone climbing into a hi-cube 7.5t van, who maybe hasn't driven anything bigger than a small car, or maybe hasn't driven any vehicle at all since they passed their car driving test many years previously. That driver will not have any understanding of how such a huge vehicle behaves when fully loaded (possibly poorly loaded), will be unfamiliar with the controls, will probably be completely unaware of the need to inspect such a vehicle much more carefully before the start of a journey, have reduced situational awareness, and may be prone to "panic" when faced with unforseen "obstacles" (like a cyclist riding his bike along a narrow dual carriageway).

As I see it, current UK licensing, that allows car drivers to step up into something much bigger, without any sort of training whatsoever, is completely bonkers.

If I could change one thing on British roads, at minimum cost for maximum lives saved, it would be to get the hgv limit changed from 7.5t to 3t, for all new drivers.

Avatar
levermonkey | 10 years ago
0 likes

Why do we persist in using this word 'accident'? There is no such thing!

Accident implies that nothing could be done. This was not an accident as the impact and resulting death was totally avoidable.

Sorry, anger is making me a little incoherent! I work in the construction industry and I'm sick of hearing "It was a terrible accident!", "No-one could expect this would happen!"

'Accidents' do not exist, only 'Unforeseen Events'. If it's unforeseen, then why? What had you missed? Why were there no safe-systems of work in place? What could have been done to prevent this happening?

Something can always be learnt from an unforeseen event. Mainly how to prevent it happening again. Accidents teach you nothing other than how to say "It was just one of those things".

Avatar
Critchio | 10 years ago
0 likes

Dear oh dear, where will it end. Judges who offer the obligatory "Nothing I can say...." line make my blood boil. As soon as you hear that you just know that the sentence is going to be a joke. Judges really do have stop saying this at the sentencing point its said so much on 'auto-pilot' these days its an offence to the family concerned.

It would not suprise me if the driver was eating/smoking and was distracted with food or dropped his cigarette, or was fatigued and had one of those micro-sleeps. Hell of an assumption to make but something that could never be established by Police unless seen by a witness/es and I also assume phone use was ruled out, the Police would not overlook that and they can check easily enough.

How else do you hit someone on a dual carriageway having seen them for 9 seconds. You stop. Even on a motorway you stop. You just stop.

Pages

Latest Comments