Home
Driver spared jail because he was distracted 'for a split second' by lorry coming the other way...

A driver was spared jail after hitting and killing a 75-year-old cyclist because, the judge said, his 'lapse of concentration' could have happened to anyone.

Peter Barraclough, 30, from East Cowton, admitted a charge of death by careless driving, and said that he had momentarily taken his eyes off the road to look at a lorry coming the other way on the A19 in Thirsk last August.

He hit and killed Leonard Grayson, 75, who was taking part in a 100-mile time trial, but it wasn't until he stopped that he realised he hadn't just hit a bird.

Grayson was 83 miles into the time trial, which he had completed at an average speed of 20mph - an indication of his level of skill as a rider.

According to the Northern Echo, defence barrister, Ian West, told Teesside Crown Court that it was a case of "there but for the grace of God go I", adding: "It's the sort of accident that could happen to anybody".

Police accident investigators said Barraclough would have seen Mr Grayson for at least nine seconds, but the driver admitted he had been looking at a low loader lorry on the opposite carriageway just before the collision.

Witness reports said Barraclough was heard to say at the roadside: "It was a split-second thing. I'm going to jail". He added in a police interview that he had seen signs warning motorists of cyclists taking part in the time trial.

Judge Peter Bowers said Barraclough was a "decent", "outstanding" man, but added his driving fell "substantially below what was acceptable."

He also said that Mr Grayson was "one of the best top veterans in this country." He added: "It is clearly a devastating life-shattering event for his family.

"There are always two tragedies in cases like this. By far the greatest is the victim of this."

Barraclough was given a five-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work, and banned from driving for 18 months.

At the end of last year, in response to representations from cycling organisations and other road safety bodies, Justice Minister, Helen Grant said that the government would look at the issue of sentencing guidelines in cases where drivers kill or seriously injure cyclists or other vulnerable road users. Earlier this year the All Party Cycling Group of MPs also urged a review of sentencing guidelines as part of its Get Britain Cycling Report.

That there is a wide disparity in sentences handed out for driving offences resulting in the death or serious injury of cyclists was further underlined last month when the Crown Office in Scotland announced that it would appeal the "unduly lenient" sentence given to Gary McCourt for causing the death by careless driving of 75 year-old Audrey Fyfe.

McCourt was a repeat offender having served a prison sentence for causing the death of another cyclist, George Dalgity in 1985. McCourt was sentenced to  300 hours community service and a five year driving ban for causing Mrs Fyfe's death.

 

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.

27 comments

Avatar
sean1 [175 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Very poor comments from the Judge.

According to the police Barraclough would have been able to see the cyclist for 'at least' 9 seconds before the collision. And he admitted he had seen the signs indicating the event was taking place.

So hardly a 'momentary lapse' of concentration.

The sentence seems a bit light, a suspended prison sentence and a driving ban for just 18 months. Not enough.

Another example of the courts favouring motorists, even when the evidence is clear.

Avatar
Not KOM [79 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

If you kill using a vehicle, you should receive a mandatory life-time ban from driving again. It doesn't matter why or what the details of the case were.

Driving is a privilege, extend by license. If you kill someone while licensed, you should never be able to have the privilege again. Because you've proven yourself unworthy of it, and a danger to others.

It might concentrate a few minds, too....

Avatar
Whirlio [14 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

As well as working ourselves into a frenzy over the badly judged driving and 'shit happens' judge comments, lets take a minute to admire Grayson's stamina. 83 miles @20mph? Wowzers, I want to do that when I'm 75.

Also at least the driver did everything right after the accident - admitted the charge, accepted it was worthy of prison, etc. it sounds like he'd lined up an overtake without quite having enough room, and the worst happened. If it was a busy road (A19? sounds like it) then it may have been dangerous to brake quickly to 20mph, and the lanes might be big enough to think you can go3 abreast. I'm just guessing.

I hate riding on fast A roads in any case.

Avatar
mrchrispy [434 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Let's say I poison a few people because I have a momentary lapse of concentration in the kitchen and pregnant lady and old fella die. Criminal charge and a fairly tough sentence will follow, you can be sure of that.  39

Avatar
antigee [276 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

? did the judge actually repeat the words of the defence barrister ? or is the headline wrong ?

anyhow very sad sounds like was a great guy and drivers need to learn that life deserves respect - I'm convinced most driver don't believe cyclists are allowed on dual carriageways and absolutely don't know how to deal with them safely
at least the dangerous driving charge stuck and the driver was disqualified probably not a sufficient deterrent to say to others what the impact of bad driving can be - maybe a quality tv documentary (if that is possible) with a few families of bereaved and a few drivers talking about the impact on their lives is needed - need a cultural change that says driving and not respecting other road users is a blight

Avatar
antigee [276 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"then it may have been dangerous to brake quickly to 20mph"

in a car with abs and airbags? - one thing that drivers could learn is that the worst option is to hit the cyclist or pedestrian in these circumstances - hitting other vehicles will be probably be an accident all the vehicle occupants will walk away from

Avatar
fatty [77 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Whirlio wrote:

If it was a busy road (A19? sounds like it) then it may have been dangerous to brake quickly to 20mph, and the lanes might be big enough to think you can go3 abreast. I'm just guessing.

I hate riding on fast A roads in any case.

This bit of road is a dual carriageway...

Avatar
Whirlio [14 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

ah right, I take it all back. Glancing over at basically another road and hitting a cyclist is terrible. Thanks for pointing that out fatty.

Avatar
cidermart [486 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I wonder if Mr. West would use such terms had it been a member of his family? Let’s hope, for his sake, it never happens to him. Disgraceful  14

Avatar
mrmo [2013 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

So, how and who do you complain to about unduly lacx sentences?

Avatar
cidermart [486 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Apparently your MP for the worth that is. By all accounts retribution is frowned upon unless you kill them with your car then it is by the grace of God.  1

Disclaimer: there are other, imaginary, celestial deities that you can worship if you are so inclined.  37

Avatar
abudhabiChris [692 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Not KOM wrote:

If you kill using a vehicle, you should receive a mandatory life-time ban from driving again. It doesn't matter why or what the details of the case were.

Driving is a privilege, extend by license. If you kill someone while licensed, you should never be able to have the privilege again. Because you've proven yourself unworthy of it, and a danger to others.

It might concentrate a few minds, too....

That tends to be my view too.

I'm not in favour of banging up otherwise law-abiding people because of driving offences committed without intent.

I don't see what purpose it serves - prison is for the protection of society and at least theoretically for rehabilitation. Those goals can be achieved by lengthy or lifetime driving bans.

Avatar
700c [817 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
abudhabiChris wrote:

I don't see what purpose it serves - prison is for the protection of society and at least theoretically for rehabilitation. Those goals can be achieved by lengthy or lifetime driving bans.

It would send a message that killing people through careless driving will be treated seriously by the authorities. That would focus the minds of drivers.

Prison serves as a punishment and deterrent as well as rehabilitation. Lifetime ban should be automatic in any case.

As it is, his punishment is effectively the same as some irresponsible idiot driving without insurance, or excessively speeding. Hardly the same category of offence as causing somebody's death.

Avatar
simon F [993 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

9 second views of cyclists from a car ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&feature=youtu.be&t=40s

Does he really claim to be looking at the other carriageway for that long?

Avatar
Ush [584 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"There are always two tragedies in cases like this. By far the greatest is the victim of this." -- Judge Peter Bowers.

Say what you like about the judge, but it is obvious that he has had long, effective legal training, and moreoever is obviously a man of profound philosphical and spiritual insight.

Avatar
banzicyclist2 [299 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Until these senile old bast**ds are pensioned off, the sooner we will see some positive improvement to road safety for everyone not just those using a car, and not just cyclists.

Avatar
fatty [77 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Good link Simon F. I can only guess that this judge was driving the 4x4/people carrier thing. He should be forced to watch the clip...

This whole story is difficult to digest and a very sad state of affairs for our judicial system. A dreadful loss for the friends and family of Leonard Grayson, made even worse by the farcical response of the courts.

Avatar
nod [64 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Do what I do and turn it into "pedestrian killed by driver after lapse of concentration". Do you think the judge would be saying it could've happened to anyone? No way.

Even better - turn it into "pedestrian killed by cyclist after lapse of concentration" and I guarantee you the nation would be up in arms.

Avatar
Cyclic [36 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm lost for words, how sad.

Avatar
Argos74 [369 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The judge has form, if you'll pardon the phrase, for controversial decisions and thought-provoking phrasing of his judicial opinion. Precisely what thoughts they might provoke is something else entirely.

Judge Peter Bowers. Google is not your friend.

Avatar
Bez [584 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It could have happened to anyone.

Any one of us - no matter what we do - could be hit from behind by someone who's driving negligently.

That is the correct end of the stick I've got there, isn't it? *sigh*  22

Avatar
Paul J [836 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This "I didn't see them" stuff is such guff. This particular driver had *9* seconds to see the cyclist - no way can a lapse of concentration explain that.

I have a strong suspicion that many of these "I was distracted / blinded by the sun" excuses from drivers who mow down cyclists in front of them actually are cases where the driver deliberately decided to pass the rider without moving out (i.e. close pass) and misjudged it.

Avatar
zanf [758 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

So, how and who do you complain to about unduly lacx sentences?

The Attorney General, and within two weeks of sentencing.

Anyone can complain about an unduly lenient sentence and they will review it. This is what has happened recently with a couple of cases.

I find it surprising that organisations such as BC & CTC do not have a system in place for people to register their discontent in such cases that are automatically forwarded to the AG. If there were more instances of outrage at lenient sentencing in cases such as this happening, and in a focused manner, then the judiciary would be compelled to review sentencing guidelines.

[edit to add]

It would appear that I am wrong on a couple of counts:

* It can only be made against cases heard in Crown Courts

* The time to appeal lenient sentencing is 28 days

* It can only be made against cases of:

Quote:

murder
rape
robbery
child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion

[Sources:]
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/unduly_lenient_sentences/

Avatar
newtonk [21 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

A terrible tragedy.

The A19 is essentially a two-lane motorway and no place for anyone to be riding a bike, no matter how experienced. I use the road regularly and the average speed on this stretch is probably over 70mph. Why you would want to cycle on it, less so organise a TT on it, is beyond me.

Avatar
Bez [584 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"This "I didn't see them" stuff is such guff."

It's beyond comprehension that the phrase often gets used as some sort of defence. The fact that you didn't see someone or something that you drove into is the bloody problem.

"I have a strong suspicion that many of these "I was distracted / blinded by the sun" excuses..."

I don't have the exact ones to hand, but I noticed one or two fishy-looking defences recently that suggested that "sun in my eyes" is now seen as a relatively safe defence by motoring lawyers.

"Why you would want to cycle on it, less so organise a TT on it, is beyond me."

There are TTs regularly held on the A3 (which is also basically a motorway) and I've driven past them a lot. They're held when the road is relatively quiet (ie after evening rush hour) and are heavily signposted. Under those premises, it seems pretty safe overall. I'd certainly never cycle on that road as a single cyclist and/or when busy, though: it's a lethal environment.

Avatar
joncrel [8 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I think the implication of this is that normal people cannot be considered safe enough to drive a car. So logically this suggests that we should make the driving licence tough enough to reflect the skills needed to drive a car without running the risk of killing someone. ...or is the implication that its quite normal and acceptable to drive for longer than 9 seconds without being able to see the road? Then the highway code needs considerably longer stopping distances factored in, and probably the roads need much slower speed limits to reflect the lack of attention that courts consider to be acceptable.

Avatar
tired old fart [77 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

So every level of the justice system is anti cyclist then.