Home
Also failed to stop at the scene or inform the police of the collision

A woman has been charged with killing a teenage cyclist while under the influence of alcohol, leaving the scene of the collision and failing to inform police of what happened.

The unnamed 67-year-old woman from Knedlington, near Howden in Yorkshire, will appear before Beverley Magistrates Court later this month.

Sam Brown, 15, and his friend Luke Wheel, were cycling home from a friend's house at 8.50pm on September 6 last year when they were hit by the woman on the B1230.

Sam later died in hospital, and Luke suffered broken bones.

The woman has been charged with causing death by careless driving while over the limit for alcohol, failing to stop at the scene of a collision and failing to report a collision.

Although Sam's family and friends campaigned for improvements to the cycling provision along the stretch of road where he was killed, nothing has yet been done to improve it.

East Riding Council organised a group, the B1230 Howden to North Cave Corridor Safety Strategy, to examine what improvements could be made.

At Sam's funeral, school headteacher Garry Garghan said his smile "lit up the school", This Is Hull reported.

He said: "Like everyone who knew Sam, we are all pretty much in shock that we are not going to see him around school wearing that cheesy grin that was pretty much always on his face.

"Sam loved school. He didn't always like lessons, but he loved school.

"He was always talking to his friends, staff and other students with that big grin on his face.

"He lit up the place with his winning smile and wicked sense of humour.

"He possessed that rare gift of genuine charm. He was a happy-go-lucky, friendly person, an honest, nice lad.

"He could also be a modest, shy person, and didn't talk much about the things he was good at."

 

 

After an unpromising start, having to be bribed by her parents to learn to ride without stabilisers, Sarah became rather keener on cycling in her university years, and was eventually persuaded to upgrade to proper road cycling by the prospect of a shiny red Italian bike, which she promptly destroyed by trapping a pair of knickers in the rear derailleur. Sarah writes about about cycling every weekend on road.cc.

18 comments

Avatar
Hamster [95 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

East Riding Council organised a group, the B1230 Howden to North Cave Corridor Safety Strategy

So they aren't doing anything then! A talking shop to use up any budget and not changes because "there's no money left"

Avatar
b3nharris [44 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

This is tragic - but how is driving when over the limit 'careless'. Did you carelessly drink that 5th pint then carelessly pick up your keys and carelessly drive off after hitting a cyclist? They're all deliberate acts.
CPS under-charging yet again?

Avatar
cidermart [488 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

They are more interested in charging for DUI than a childs life  14 14 Nice one CPS lets hope it doesn't happen to any of your family. No doubt the insurance company will blame the child for not wearing hi-viz clothing  14

Avatar
Mostyn [396 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Drink and drive costs lives! She's GUILTY of Manslaughter at least; and certainly premeditated dangerous driving. it's time for the law to get tough with people who cause death, because of their selfish indulgence.

Avatar
Carl [136 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

She'll probably get more a sentence for the DUI than causing death.

Avatar
Updesh [9 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I firmly believe that drink driving should be regarded as attempted murder, even if you don't injure anyone

It's the same as carrying a gun. And if you kill someone - same sentence as gun crime

You can't accidentally get drunk and drive

Avatar
A V Lowe [575 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Updesh The sooner the law and society at large equate the duty of care when using a gun, a chainsaw or other dangerous device with an equivalent responsibility when using a motor vehicle, the faster we'll eradicate such inequitable outcomes.

You were driving a vehicle which caused injury or damage then you carry a liability for the outcome, not necessarily the event. This has in fact been reflected in motoring law since 1903, and is now seen from the wording of Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act, even when someone is injured of property damaged with no actual contact taking place - the wording sets out that it is the PRESENCE of a motor vehicle causing damage or injury. Worth remembering if you are forced off the road and can nail the keeper, or driver with clear evidence of this.

Avatar
Owen Rogers [24 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

To explain, the offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence was introduced because dangerous driving has a high threshold of proof and offenders were only being convicted of one offence for each incident, more often drink drive as its the more serious and simple. This offence is more serious still. If she clipped someone because of inattentiveness that's not dangerous, it's careless. If she did the same thing whilst drunk the individual action is now much more serious and she CAN be sentenced more harshly. We'll see if she is…
As for manslaughter, you may be right, but juries (that's you and me folks) are historically reluctant to convict of what is perceived as a serious offence for driving offences. In truth, she's likely to get a similar sentence anyway.

Avatar
CycleBear [3 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

As Owen said, this could actually result in a genuine conviction but I do hope the sentencing properly reflects the incident. Too often drivers just aren't getting sentences that are commensurate with their actions.

Avatar
crash144019 [45 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I do hope Owen is right what consistently amzes me iz the number of repeat offenders on our roads

Avatar
Argos74 [390 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Repeats to self "The death penalty is still wrong". Several f***ing times. Difficult to see her getting off this one without a substantial spell inside.

Avatar
pepita1 [175 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

STRING...HER...UP. NO EXCUSES. DRUNK AT WHEEL. VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

Avatar
PJ McNally [591 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

"drink driving should be regarded as attempted murder"

+1 for that. Unfortunately the CPS seem to have sent another case to Magistrate's Court, because the driver "carelessly" drank and drove, and drove her car into someone's child, killing them. Whoops.

Avatar
a.jumper [846 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

And too many magistrates are crazy old upper middle class bats more concerned with how good people's addresses are than the facts of the case. They may well empathise with a 67-year-old drink-driver more than a teenager on a bike.

Avatar
Fatbagman [21 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I'm willing to bet that she does no jail time. I cannot see a judge sending a 67 year old to jail for any amount of time regardless of the circumstances. I'm expecting the phrase " she has suffered enough" to pop up before a ban, 3 years, a fine £500 & some community service or suspended sentence. The family of the young lad will suffer for the rest of their lives but will not be able to do a thing about it. Welcome to "justice" English style.

Avatar
Tongietr8 [9 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

This is another interesting one. I would like to compare and contrast if there is any difference between the sentence handed out if this was two young pedestrians versus the same lads on their bikes. PLEASE tell me that there is no difference!! If there is a difference then we are all right and there is a massive prejudice against us cycling scum!

I really really wish we could be treated equally but the cyclist racism we are all reacting against is just awful! I will be riding in Spain next week - I know I will be treated with respect and have a great time!

Avatar
tired old fart [77 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I was pulled over by one of the pricks in blue for not having a red rear reflector I HAVE FOUR RED REAR LIGHTS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD if someone cannot see me they ought not be driving the red rear reflector is only required if you are going to put the bike on a prop stand an the side of the road if you are riding then you need lights the police are just anti-cyclist  14

Avatar
a.jumper [846 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
tired old fart wrote:

the red rear reflector is only required if you are going to put the bike on a prop stand an the side of the road if you are riding then you need lights the police are just anti-cyclist  14

Sounds more like being a tit and they are nearly always anti-tit!

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 18 and Schedule 1 Table 3 gives no exceptions to having a red rear reflector. After all, if your rear light fails while you're riding, it'll be all you've got.

Of course, it would be nice if the police would treat cyclists as leniently as all the cars and vans with defective lights - or maybe they did and tired old fart argued the above stupid point so they decided to throw the book at him/her.