Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist fined after collision with taxi that resulted in a broken arm

Was riding the wrong way down a one-way street when the incident happened

A Cumbrian cyclist who broke his arm when he collided with a taxi has been asked to pay £165 after pleading guilty to the rare charge of dangerous cycling, reports In Cumbria. Thomas Thompson had been cycling the wrong way down a one-way street when the incident took place.

Thompson, who had only recently bought the bike for £990, was fined £60 with £85 costs and a £20 surcharge.

He told District Judge Gerald Chalk that he had been crossing the road and described his behaviour as ‘careless’.

“I’ve never had an accident. I was crossing English street, and I didn’t use the crossing. It was careless rather than dangerous. I broke my arm in three places, have a seven inch scar on my arm, a scar on my lip and one on my eyebrow, and I lost a tooth and I also lost my job as a bricklayer.”

However, Pam Ward, prosecuting, said the taxi driver had seen Thompson riding directly towards him. “Due to him cycling at speed, he went over the handlebars and collided with the taxi, fracturing his arm.”

A couple travelling in a nearby car said Thompson landed on the windscreen before sliding off the bonnet and onto the road.

In 2013, another Carlisle resident was charged with dangerous cycling after being spotted by a police officer riding his bike with his young daughter perched on his shoulders. The man was said to have been unsteady on his bike, using his left hand to steer while his right hand held onto his daughter’s leg. He was asked to pay a £55 fine, a £20 victim surcharge and £100 in prosecution costs.

Under section 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, "a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if) (a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous." The offence carries a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
lolol | 9 years ago
0 likes

Do I need to get a gavel bike now?

Avatar
jmaccelari | 9 years ago
0 likes

Karma AND a fine! Great result!

Avatar
Bigfoz | 9 years ago
0 likes

Good.

Don't suppose it will stop the other numpties who think a quick 30seconds down the wrong way is so much better than a minute or two going round the block properly.

We bitch and moan about car drivers and they're desire to get somewhere at everyone else's expense, this is no different.

And yes, I was nearly run over this last week by a nob riding the wrong way down a 1-way, and having to bunny hop onto the pavement to avoid oncoming traffic. He obviously assumed that his speed of journey was more important than "mere" pedestrians.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Bigfoz | 9 years ago
0 likes
Bigfoz wrote:

Good.

Don't suppose it will stop the other numpties who think a quick 30seconds down the wrong way is so much better than a minute or two going round the block properly.

We bitch and moan about car drivers and they're desire to get somewhere at everyone else's expense, this is no different.

And yes, I was nearly run over this last week by a nob riding the wrong way down a 1-way, and having to bunny hop onto the pavement to avoid oncoming traffic. He obviously assumed that his speed of journey was more important than "mere" pedestrians.

Well it is _slightly_ different (not saying its therefore OK), as bikes aren't as wide as cars so can in practice travel against the one-way stream without blocking the road for on-coming vehicles. They also are less likely to injure someone else (though they still can, obviously).

Lots of these roads shouldn't be one-way for bikes in the first place, they are only one-way because they aren't wide enough for two-way car traffic (especially when parking is allowed).

So its not quite the same, as motorists are heing inconvenienced by an arrangement that they themselves make necessary -while cyclists are being inconvienenced by an arrangement that they aren't responsible for.

Edit - also I've noticed that when one-way systems are introduced you get an increase in pavement cycling. Then the authorities try to crackdown on that, while failing to notice how they helped cause the problem in the first place.

Avatar
a.jumper | 9 years ago
0 likes

Most one way streets should be "except cycles" anyway but councils are failing to implement the 2012 changes. Might still have been dangerous in this case.

Avatar
horizontal dropout | 9 years ago
0 likes

"Wonderful Gavel pic."

Cue one of the most important websites on the internets:
http://inappropriategavels.tumblr.com

road.cc consider yourselves reprimanded!

Avatar
Sedgepeat | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yes again, although this doesn't carry a term of imprisonment, it is very similar to Secs 1,2, & 3 of the RTA where there are long terms of imprisonment based only on the perception and opinion of a non expert witness. Normally witnesses are bound to give evidence only of fact, what they saw and heard but not opinion. Opinion reserved only for expert witnesses. In this case the evidence of fact was speed and direction but it needn't have been and that really is worrying for cyclists but especially for drivers who are looking at a long stretch.

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 9 years ago
0 likes

So a bigger punishment than many killer drivers seem to get then...

Fair play to the guy for admitting his guilt/idiocy though...obviously didn't have an insurance company convince him to blame the innocent party.

Avatar
Leviathan | 9 years ago
0 likes

Chump.
Wonderful Gavel pic.

Latest Comments