Taxi driver fined £35 with 3 points on his licence after cyclist killed in collision
Court told driver failed to stop and drove on for a further 90 metres with injured cyclist on his bonnet until he hit a tree
Broken bike (pic by garryknight, www.flickr.com)
Magistrates in Solihull have fined a taxi driver £35 and given him three penally points for an incident last year which he collided with a cyclist and then carried him for a further 90 metres on the bonnet of his car colliding with traffic signs and eventually hitting a tree. 20 year old animation student Tom Ridgway died of his injuries shortly afterwards.
At the conclusion of the case Mr Ridgway's family called for tougher punishments for drivers who kill. The incident will be seen as further evidence of the need for change by those calling on the Government to undertake a review of the lenient sentences given to drivers who kill or injure cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
In this case 54-year-old taxi driver Ichhapal Bhamra was charged with the much lesser offence of driving without due care and attention rather than facing the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving - which usually carries a custodial sentence, or causing death by careless driving which results in a long ban, heavy fine and community service.
The Crown Prosecution Service opted for the lesser charge because it could not determine the cause of the initial collision nor whether Mr Ridgeway had been killed as a result of that impact or from being carried on the bonnet of the car until it collided with the tree.
In mitigation the court was told that Mr Bhamra has since voluntarily given up his taxi licence and that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and no longer felt able to drive.
Given that the CPS determined that Bhamra's was driving without due care and attention some will undoubtedly question why they then did not pursue a charge of causing death by careless driving given that the CPS guidelines say it is merited for:
"A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence".
While the level of charge brought was a disappointment to Mr Ridgway's family it is also worth noting that Solihull magistrates did not impose the maximum sentence available to them for the offence. According to the sentencing guidelines those found guilty of careless drive can be given 9 penalty points on their licence and a fine usually amounting to 150 per cent of the defendant's weekly income.
The magistrates based their sentence on all the evidence presented to them - while our impressions of the case come from the report in The Solihull News, but even so both the charge and the sentence handed down will be seen as troubling by cycle safety campaigners and many in the wider cycling community..
Commenting on the charge, the sentence and the effect Tom's death had had on his family his mother, Liz Ridgway told the Solihull New that:
“Neither the charge not the sentence reflect the enormous tragedy of a young man’s death when he was simply cycling along next to the pavement,” she said.
“It’s devastated our lives and there will be no going back.”
Mrs Ridgway went on to pay tribute to her son saying:
“Tom was a generous and exceptionally warm-hearted young man, making friends wherever he went and sharing his sunny, optimistic love of life with everyone he met.
“Everyone who knew him, misses his beautiful smile and genuine warmth. It is impossible to express how much Tom is loved by his family and friends and how special he was.”
Solihull MP Lorely Burt said she was “shocked and disgusted” by the sentence and pledged to look into the case. Last month representatives of CTC, British Cycling, and RoadPeace met with Justice Minister, Helen Grant to call for a review of sentencing guidelines, in cases where drivers kill or injure more vulnerable road users. At the meeting Department for Transport official agreed to back "a cross-stakeholder meeting with the different agencies involved to discuss a review of the system and how it might be improved."
As yet no date has been announced for a follow up meeting,
Speechless 
I'm only here for the cake
WTF!!!! That has left a very sour taste.
For once i am lost for words.
I give up on the prosecution service.
If a member of my family was killed by a driver and the court did this, I'd strap the driver to a bike and do that same back.....
You would get away with it too 'Gkam84' as it would only be a cyclist.
Utterly disgusting. I can't believe how cheaply our legal system values human life. This has to set some sort of record low in terms of punishment for a proven killing.
There are no words.
I was about to say "unbelievable" but then I realised this really doesn't surprise me at all, we've seen this kind of leniency time and time again.
When are the authorities going to start taking people being killed on our roads seriously?
LEJoG for RoadPeace: http://alangibsonlejog.blogspot.com
It's time all cases resulting in the deaths of cyclists were automatically taken to the Crown Courts.
antonio
CPS - grow some.
Defence lawyers - too extreme for a public forum.
This is insane! What a truly horrendous insult to this young man's grieving relatives.
In mitigation the court was told that Mr Bhamra has since voluntarily given up his taxi licence and that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and no longer felt able to drive.
How the hell is that mitigation?
And I guess now the B****** is claiming benefit as he can't drive!
If this continues 'taking the law into his own hands' will become a compliment. They're certainly not responsibly in the hands of lawyers, judges and judiciary.
Still smiling politely at a persistently flat chain.
They've gotta be kidding!
these stories are terrible and nothing will being those people back etc, i just wonder if somebody is genuinely suffering things like PTSD/flashbacks and the like from it then how much value can be given to custodial sentences or any other such enforced things?
while i have not had anything like that happen to me, if i did - would i be okay by knowing that somebody is sitting in prison for a few years? ideally i would want to do what i felt like doing to them, not what the judicial system hands out because really they are a 3rd party going through the motions while for you it is real. even killing them won't change things. just a tragedy.
trying to intimidate people with custodial sentences may work, but only if it is widely recognised and in the public perception all the time. to give something relatable would also take a long time, but in the end may prevent things more than fear of being banged up.
Sig
Even by uk standards that's lame. Fucking lame.
Known as Greg Collins to his friends and enemies alike.
"The Crown Prosecution Service opted for the lesser charge because it could not determine the cause of the initial collision nor whether Mr Ridgeway had been killed as a result of that impact or from being carried on the bonnet of the car until it collided with the tree."
What difference does it make!! He was still killed by a car driven by a dangerous driver...
It is a disgrace. That the driver surrendered his licence is of little comfort to the victim's family I expect.
OldRidgeback
these stories are terrible and nothing will being those people back etc, i just wonder if somebody is genuinely suffering things like PTSD/flashbacks and the like from it then how much value can be given to custodial sentences or any other such enforced things?while i have not had anything like that happen to me, if i did - would i be okay by knowing that somebody is sitting in prison for a few years? ideally i would want to do what i felt like doing to them, not what the judicial system hands out because really they are a 3rd party going through the motions while for you it is real. even killing them won't change things. just a tragedy.
trying to intimidate people with custodial sentences may work, but only if it is widely recognised and in the public perception all the time. to give something relatable would also take a long time, but in the end may prevent things more than fear of being banged up.
You are speaking of the purely utilitarian aspect of justice, where punishments serve to deter and rehabilitate. From that perspective it can be reasonably argued that locking the driver up would serve no practical purpose - the victim can't be brought back, and it most likely wouldn't change the behaviour of the driver or the public.
However, there is another aspect of justice that is often ignored - retributivism. It is the theory that when a person has done something wrong he ought to be punished for his wrongdoing, according to the severity of the action, and regardless of whether it benefits anyone in an utilitarian sense. Just deserts and all that.
I think the reason it is so seldom mentioned nowadays is because it is often conflated with mere revenge. Yet as a legal and moral concept it is still very much alive - it is the reason why war criminals from the former Yugoslavia are prosecuted, and why Holocaust perpetrators are still being hunted worldwide even today. An utilitarian argument can be made that these people are old (or very, very old, in the case of Nazi war criminals) and obviously won't be able to commit crimes again. And prosecution doesn't seem to have any effect as deterrence, judging by the amount of genocide since WWII, or since the Yugoslavian Civil War for that matter. Yet most people would agree that these people must be brought to justice, that we can't just say "well, trying them won't change anything now so let's just call it a day."
Now, is the taxi driver even remotely comparable to war criminals? No, not in the least. But the principle still stands - wrongdoings ought to have appropriate consequences. So, are £35 and three points even remotely appropriate for taking the life of a young person through sheer carelessness? I don't think so.
this is appalling. I am totally beyond words.
I don't think I can stand reading these anymore. Can we come up with a standard letter that we start pestering our MP's with. Every week with a link to these stories, eventually they're gonna take notice?
So what this case tells me is that I needn't be so cautious overtaking those pesky idiots on bikes who keep getting in my way. Whats the worse that will happen? A 35 quid and 3 points? Pff, s'nothing.
Unbefuckingleivable
Jail the magistrates, public menaces
Jail the magistrates, public menaces
Oh what a judgement call, Why does this kind of attitude in the courts not surprise me.
If it was an old age pesioner that failed to pay a bill in error; they would have received a far more severe penalty or punishment.
Judge and Taxi Driver should be named and shamed!
Un***king believable!
Really makes me feel safe on the roads when they are actively encouraging dangerous drivers.
Another example of the namby pamby UK Court system, if this was in France, Belgium or Spain they would of locked him up...the countries going to the dogs..
Keep sharing this information....post to facebook, twitter and tell people...it simply cannot continue like this...
@techsmechs I'm with you.
The words 'fucking disgrace' seem woefully inadequate in this pathetic example of how rubbish our road laws are.
We need to put heat on MPs AND the APPCG...protest, tweet, letters to MPs.
And can't this sentence be appealed for being pathetic?
And as to that excuse about not knowing what actually killed the guy, it reminds of me that line in Collateral where Tom Cruise's assassin says "I didn't kill him, the bullet and the fall did".
My blood is actually boiling at this.
I'm a human being, God damn it! My life has value. I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.
"No longer felt able to drive"? I should damn well think so.
Scott Sportster '08 | Cannondale CAAD8 '12
again! really, we need lots more cyclists friendly magistrates!
for me - The ride is about adventure, camaraderie and the sense of accomplishment that comes after a long day in the saddle.
To compound the sense of injustice I saw this as I logged out of my webmail:
As many as 2 million drivers could face £1,000 fines for failing to update the photo on their driving licence, according to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/two-million-drivers-may-face-141603133....
£1,000 for not updating your photo for Big Brother to keep tabs on you, £35 for killing someone and dragging the body down the road. F**k me!
In mitigation the court was told that Mr Bhamra has since voluntarily given up his taxi licence and that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and no longer felt able to drive.
He may have handed his taxi licence back BUT NOT his driving licence To me this is just a load of BS generated by his legal team to get HIM off.
I hope that the family of the victim appeal the sentence and get some real justice I know this will not bring him back but, maybe this could be used as a campaign vehicle to change the law. In the past such things like Sarah's law etc have come about so that somebodies tragedy can be used to stop these things happening in the future
I feel a little bit sick.
if I'm unfortunate to get taken out by a box dweller and they get a slap on the wrists my life insurance is to be used to hire a team of ninja assassins.
I got tagged by a brave policeman hiding behind a wall in a country town doing just over 30 in a 30 mph zone (driving carefully, well-maintained vehicle recently serviced, new tyres, no furry toys hanging from the rear view mirror or a fucking Sat Nav stuck in the middle of the windscreen to obscure eyeline), and I have to pay 100 quid to do a speed awareness course. You kill a cyclist and it's 35 quid fine. Did this man have a valid licence? I see he's only given up his taxi licence.
MP written too with a link to this.
Please write to them! if every MP gets an email, and another, and another... Maybe we can start to change the system.
MP letter send.....its the only way we'll get change.
Utterly atrocious decision both at the start with the CPS decision and afterwards with the court result.
Going to add this link to my facebook page so more people are aware of how bad these decisions are.
Stumpy
I will be asking my MP to raise this appalling issue.
I have a vague recollection that in Holland, when a motorist hits a cyclist, it is automatically the driver's fault. I imagine that a rule like that would change driver's attitudes and may engender a perception that cyclists are vulnerable.
If you accidentally kill someone with your car, it should be manslaughter. Same as if you accidentally shot them while cleaning your gun. If intent is determined, then it should be murder.
Not so much a six pack as a barrel!
I got tagged by a brave policeman hiding behind a wall in a country town doing just over 30 in a 30 mph zone
If you don't like getting caught DON'T BREAK THE RULES.
The speed limit is a maximum, not a target.
dullard wrote:I got tagged by a brave policeman hiding behind a wall in a country town doing just over 30 in a 30 mph zoneIf you don't like getting caught DON'T BREAK THE RULES.
The speed limit is a maximum, not a target.
Exactly, as the adverts say its 30 for a reason. 
Stumpy
Martin Porter has written about this in his blog. There's a comment that appears to be from the victim's mum, and one from his aunt.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/update-from-court-cps-v-bha...
to quote the comment
The fact that the driver has not been able to drive since and has issued a statement of remorse to the family is all the justice we need to try to put this horrible aspect behind us, and for friends and family to continue in our private grief for our precious Tom. If others wish to continue to push for a change in legal processes, that is for them to do and is fine. But our loss is not helped at all by persuing a higher fine or penalty.
This seems to be a recurring theme, the relatives accepting the courts results, which have provoked outrage in others. To me the problem seems bigger than the family of the victim though. By issuing leniant punishment, the court has failed in its duty to discourage wrong doing (and hitting a cyclist while driving a vehicle *is* wrong, no matter whether you intended it or not).
The court should send a message that hitting vulnerable road users is serious and if drivers don't take the necessary care, then they will be punished severely. In this case the court did not send that message and the relatives are in no moral position to forgive and forget. The mother's loss is tragic and although her son can't be hurt any more, there are thousands of other cyclists who can and will be victims of careless driving in the future.
Finally, I'd like to make it clear now that if anyone kills me while I'm on my bike then I'd like the courts to take them to the fucking cleaners - max sentence and then hounded by the press when they get out, none of this 'prison sentence not in the public interest' bollocks - I'd want the book thrown at them, followed by the printing press and the print works, brick by brick.
Tags |
Singletrack MTB mag
road.cc on YouTube
42 comments