Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver who killed cyclist on roundabout near Bristol given community order

Jury sent note to judge suggesting 'Think Bike' signage be added to junction...

A Bristol motorist has been order to complete 250 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving. Phillip Bridges said he made all the usual checks when approaching the roundabout on which the collision took place only to hear his wife scream as he was about to hit 74-year-old Peter Brown.

The Bristol Post reports that the incident took place at the M48 Aust junction in October 2016.

Bridges said that at the end of the slip road he slowed for the roundabout and looked both left and right, but failed to see Brown, who was wearing high visibility clothing.

When his wife, who was sitting beside him, screamed, he braked.

He struck Brown’s back wheel and the cyclist fell, suffering a brain injury from which he died two weeks later.

Bridges said when he got out of the car, Brown was not wearing a helmet. “I saw a helmet over on the grass, four to five feet away.”

Bridges denied the charge. Attempting to explain why he had not seen Brown, he said: “I feel that he’s come from off the cycle path. He’s come from the back of my car. He’s pulled onto the roundabout instead of carrying on to the cycle path. I was not able to see him doing the checks I did.”

Patrick Jones-Barbour, who had been driving behind Bridges’ BMW after crossing the Severn Bridge, told the jury he had seen Brown on the roundabout.

“A cyclist appeared on the roundabout from the right hand side. I saw the cyclist contrasted against the dark green foliage on the roundabout.

“I thought to myself ‘we’re going to have to stop’. I started braking, ordinarily. The BMW slowed but it didn’t stop.

“It went onto the roundabout and there was a shout from the cyclist, who tried to swerve out the way of the BMW. The cyclist and the BMW collided.”

A forensic collision examiner who made videos of both the driver’s and cyclist’s views on their respective approaches to the scene of the crash said he could not account for why Bridges had not seen Brown.

James Tucker, defending, conceded that his client had previous convictions for drink driving, but said he had grown into a family man who had started his own window cleaning business.

As well as the year’s community order and a three-month curfew, Bridges was banned from driving for 15 months after which he will be required to pass an extended driving test.

After the guilty verdict, the jury sent a note to the judge suggesting that 'Think Bike' signage be added to the junction.

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

47 comments

Avatar
HoarseMann | 6 years ago
2 likes

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

Avatar
oldmixte replied to HoarseMann | 6 years ago
0 likes

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

Avatar
brooksby replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
0 likes

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

True. On the other hand, the motorist driving behind the collider saw the cyclist and the collider's wife in (presumably) the front passenger seat saw the cyclist. But the guy legally and actually in control of the car failed to look/failed to see.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
1 like

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

So you don't consider failing to look properly as dangerous driving? Sadly most of the legal profession appear to agree with you, but have to say it baffles me. Of course we all make most stakes, but shouldn't the consequences to us bear some relationship to the seriousness of the possible effects on others?

 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
2 likes

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

The problem is these lenient sentences are sending a message that it’s ok to drive badly. As long as you aren’t reckless, well, it could have been anyone, never mind.

The driver behind and the passenger clearly saw the cyclist. The car slowed but didn't stop. So the driver probably failed to look properly.

Sure, maybe it’s a one-off mistake. Or maybe it’s the culmination of bad driving. Either way, someone has lost their life due to negligence. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
1 like

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

Last time I checked, I didn't need to pass a test, have equipment that met a yearly standard nor needed insurance for third parties when I made the dinner tonight nor when I drilled a hole in the wall.

It's one of those irregular verbs though isn't it. 

I made a mistake, you had an accident, the cockwomble was negligent.

Avatar
tinguinha | 6 years ago
3 likes

Has drink driving convictions (more than one!). Hits and kills a guy in hi-viz whom everybody else saw and he had absolutely no legitimate reason not to see. Will be back behind a car steering wheel in just over a year. Straight-up insane.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
7 likes

I've never made a mistake to the point of harming another person in my life despite at one point being a serial car commuter into and around London covering some 250,000 miles in 10 years.

I'm not alone in that.

It really isn't difficult to see anyone (even if all in black and no lights/hi-vis) IF you bother to actually look and see, it really isn't difficult to do that if you take more than a fleeting moment, that you are going at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Given that we know the harm motorvehicles do it's massively encumbant on you to check, check again and if you're still not 100% sure or don't have a perfect view check once more. When someone dies in this manner it isn't a "genuine human error" whatever the heck that is, it's lazy, ignorant, thoughtless and ridiculously reckless.

Maybe if someone "genuinely" makes a human error and stabs your partner or your child because they were wielding a knife in public but not meaning to do harm you'd think again, maybe if someone wiped out one of your family members on the road because they made a "genuine" error of not looking properly or taking the time to ensure they weren't going to harm anyone you'd think twice.

This fucker got away with it, I hope it burns him for life but people like this don't give a moments thought just like Gail Purcell, just like Helen Measures and so many more killers who end up getting off scot free or a slap on the wrist.

Avatar
oldmixte | 6 years ago
0 likes

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
4 likes
OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

There are mistakes, and there are mistakes.
For instance, you wouldn't accidently let your kids run across a motorway, or accidently leave knives in your bed, or accidently drop your hair dryer in the bath when you are in it.

Only the truly feckless do these things.

Point being... not looking around your a-pillar at junctions should be considered just as feckless. There is no accident about it... he made a choice that not checking his blind spot would be ok, because it had been ok every other time he'd not checked it.
He failed in his duty of care as a driver... was rightly convicted for causing death by careless driving... just got the wrong sentence.

It's not about being holier than though, a human being died because another human being couldn't be arsed. Not being arsed is not being unlucky... by not being arsed you are riding your luck every time... eventually that luck will run out.
When it does, do you believe it ok that the only person punished is the victim?

Avatar
Hirsute replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
2 likes

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

I think some posts reflect the sentence (the lack of) given a previous drink driving conviction.

I don't agree with the idea of mistake as though not knowing about blind spots is something new to a driver. What happened to continuing to check as you complete your manoeuvre?

Avatar
oldstrath replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
5 likes

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

I've made lots of mistakes, so have all the other people on here, and everywhere else. But surely it is reasonable to demand a greater degree of care from someone in charge of a few tonne of metal than of someone trying to remember whether they fed the cat.

The key points here are surely: first, whether more severe punishment might motivate greater care, and second, whether we shouldn't just remove the privilege of driving from anyone who shows any evidence of possible unfitness to drive. Personally I'd be in favour of a simple rule - any traffic offence or collision, no more licence. After all, this would surely save lives.

By the way, unless the screen pillar ia independently mobile, which seems unlikely,  " the screen pillar was in the way" actually means " he was too careless or idle to look properly ".

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to oldstrath | 6 years ago
2 likes
oldstrath wrote:

By the way, unless the screen pillar ia independently mobile, which seems unlikely,  " the screen pillar was in the way" actually means " he was too careless or idle to look properly ".

I'd go further than that, crush his car a it's clearly unsafe!

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to oldmixte | 6 years ago
1 like

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

 

Angry response...

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such a 'genuine human error' then give up driving.

Otherwise be prepared to accept the concequences of making such errors.  The cyclist in this case had no choice but to take the concequences of someone else's error, why do you think you should be allowed to avoid the concequences of such an error if you were to make it?

 

Considered response...

 

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such an error then campaign for and demand segregated cycling/driving routes so that the concequences need not be so drastic for either party.

 

(Also you talk of 'the brain' not registering the cyclist' as though said brain  was some separate thing from the driver!  I find that quite bizarre!)

Avatar
Pushing50 replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 6 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

 

Angry response...

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such a 'genuine human error' then give up driving.

Otherwise be prepared to accept the concequences of making such errors.  The cyclist in this case had no choice but to take the concequences of someone else's error, why do you think you should be allowed to avoid the concequences of such an error if you were to make it?

 

Considered response...

 

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such an error then campaign for and demand segregated cycling/driving routes so that the concequences need not be so drastic for either party.

 

(Also you talk of 'the brain' not registering the cyclist' as though said brain  was some separate thing from the driver!  I find that quite bizarre!)

 

Angry response to OldMixte 

Get fu@!ed

 

Considered response

If I had made a mistake equal to this, I would expect a custodial sentence greater than community work and the loss of my licence for good. I would not have made a cock and bull story of making considered checks and that the cyclist appeared from behind. I would feel too ashamed to come up with a story trying to alleviate some of the blame when there are witnesses (one being my own wife) who did see the cyclist. 

This is not a mistake, it is a catastrophic error or judgement that requires more punishment than has been given. Therefore, get fu@!ed!

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
3 likes

With a strike rate of 1 in 300 it's probably an accident. I'd also question what "an illegal" is, maybe a young white man with a penchant for horse tranquilliser?

Avatar
Valbrona | 6 years ago
1 like

James Tucker, defending, conceded that his client had previous convictions for drink driving, but said he had grown into a family man who had started his own window cleaning business.

The window cleaner down my street drives a car that is not taxed or insured, employs an illegal at less than the minimum wage, doesn't declare his income to anyone, tops up aforesaid income by doing the odd burgalry when the opportunity arises, and doesn't work Tuesdays and when he has to sign-on.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Valbrona | 6 years ago
2 likes

Valbrona wrote:

James Tucker, defending, conceded that his client had previous convictions for drink driving, but said he had grown into a family man who had started his own window cleaning business.

The window cleaner down my street drives a car that is not taxed or insured, employs an illegal at less than the minimum wage, doesn't declare his income to anyone, tops up aforesaid income by doing the odd burgalry when the opportunity arises, and doesn't work Tuesdays and when he has to sign-on.

Concedes that Valbrona makes a decent point (shudders, and waits for the sky to fall in...  3  ).

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to Valbrona | 6 years ago
1 like

Valbrona wrote:

James Tucker, defending, conceded that his client had previous convictions for drink driving, but said he had grown into a family man who had started his own window cleaning business.

The window cleaner down my street drives a car that is not taxed or insured, employs an illegal at less than the minimum wage, doesn't declare his income to anyone, tops up aforesaid income by doing the odd burgalry when the opportunity arises, and doesn't work Tuesdays and when he has to sign-on.

Full time burglary is probably quite a competetive business. Doing the window cleaning to scope out properties is probably the way forward and a great efficiency saving. He sounds like an enterprising individual who is entitled to run at least one cyclist over during his working life.

Avatar
Hirsute | 6 years ago
0 likes

I'm still lost for words.

Avatar
Pushing50 | 6 years ago
1 like

"At last a decent statement from the beak. Hopefully this language will set a precedent, although I doubt it."

 

Above is my statement from the Kade Scrivens case where the judge gave 7.5 years jail and dismissed his mitigation. I am now very sad to see that my prophesy has come true within 24 hours.

edit
 
quote

Avatar
Pushing50 | 6 years ago
2 likes

So, his misses sees the cyclist in Hi Viz and she isn't the one who is making these so called checks. He wasn't wearing a hemet at the time but there was one laying nearby. 

Jesus he must have hit him hard and really not looked. I cannot (from the report) see any mitigating circumstances. He has tried to lie to cover his irresponsibility and gets COMMUNITY SERVICE? How can this judge substanciate such a lenient sentence? Would it mean that the judge has to look for a new window cleaner?

(Words no londer fail me, but still: FOR FUCKS SAKE!).

Avatar
Pushing50 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Now words are starting to fail me apart from: FOR FUCKS SAKE!

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

again, why is this not manslughter, why are the laws/rules being applied differently compared to people on bikes? This BS outcome had better be heard in the meetings relating to cycle safety, and all the other fucking joke sentences or non sentences handed out to motorists who kill and maim.

 

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 6 years ago
2 likes

Depressing to think that you could get killed by a worthless piece of sh1t in a twat-mobile & that sh1t doesn't even get punished! 

How can this be allowed?!

Avatar
50kcommute | 6 years ago
0 likes

How can you make proper checks and fail to see someone in Hi-Vis? Such a contradiction - it's not like he was in a tipper truck or alike.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for the jury deliberation...fast forward 5 years and I'd not be surprised to see him in the headlines again!

Avatar
Cupov | 6 years ago
1 like

another bullshit verdict...and isn't 'think bike' motorcyle related?

Avatar
Valbrona replied to Cupov | 6 years ago
0 likes

Cupov wrote:

another bullshit verdict...and isn't 'think bike' motorcyle related?

Exactly.

And this 'giving a note to the Judge' says to me that there was something deeply flawed with this jury.

 

Avatar
Trev22085 replied to Valbrona | 6 years ago
0 likes

Sentencing and punishment is determined by the courts and this is where the change needs to be made for these serious crimes.

Avatar
Bill Tucker | 6 years ago
0 likes

If this is such a dangerous junction why isn’t it littered with the corpses of cyclists?

Pages

Latest Comments