- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Lorry driver who crushed Boris Bike rider fined £620
The driver of a lorry that last year crushed a cyclist who was riding a ‘Boris Bike’ in London, leaving him with serious injuries to his head, chest and pelvis, has been fined a total of £620 and banned from driving for six months. The case is likely to bring renewed attention on the decision to charge drivers with offences relating to careless, rather than dangerous, driving.
Anthony Farmer, aged 44 and from Dagenham, was fined £420 at Highbury Magistrates Court £420 and given nine penalty points for careless driving, and a separate £200 fine for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition, reports the Camden New Journal.
According to a BBC report at the time of the incident in April 2013, which involved a male cyclist aged in his 20s who continues to receive medical treatment for his injuries, Farmer was originally arrested on suspicion of the more serious offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
That legislation creating that offence, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, came into force in May 2012 under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act.
When the government confirmed in October 2011 that it planned to introduce the legislation, Ellen Booth, senior campaigns officer at the road safety charity Brake said: “This new offence finally means that serious injury is recognised within the title of the offence, and this recognition is vitally important to victims and their families.
“It also means that dangerous drivers who inflict serious injuries can expect to see higher sentences to better reflect the terrible trauma and injuries they have caused.”
As far as we are aware, no-one has yet stood trial on the charge of causing serious injury through dangerous driving in a case in which a cyclist was the victim, although a milkman from Cumbria who allegdly knocked a rider off his bike will go on trial for the offence in April.
While it is unclear why the decision was made to charge Farmer with careless driving rather than causing serious injury by dangerous driving, the case is likely to lead to further calls for reform of the law and sentencing, and for the Crown Prosecution Service to press more serious charges where appropriate.
The charge of careless driving, or driving without due care and attention, is defined as “'driving below the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent driver in the circumstances.”
In dangerous driving offences, the prosecution must establish that the way the motorist was driving “falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
Following lobbying by British Cycling and national cyclists’ organisation CTC, among others, the government said in its response last October to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s Get Britain Cycling report that it has ordered a review of sentencing in cases where the victim is a vulnerable road user.
It also said it would examine the investigation and prosecution of cases in which vulnerable road users including cyclists are the victims, which CTC called for in its Road Justice campaign, launched in June last year.
Brake itself has called for careless driving offences to be abolished, saying: “’Careless’ is an inappropriate and offensive term to use for bad driving, particularly where it has resulted in horrendous suffering. Driving that is bad (especially if it has already resulted in injury or death or could easily have done so) is dangerous.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- john_smith 1 sec ago
Straight into the sun is perhaps an exaggeration, but at that time it would be about ESE, and there are bits of the road which head roughly SSE, so...
- john_smith 8 min 45 sec ago
7 October was just a bit of harmless fun until the "msm" ramped it up.
- hawkinspeter 8 min 58 sec ago
It's not censored if you just pirate it
- stonojnr 1 hour 13 min ago
an example of Kesgraves "best cycling infrastructure in the country" https://maps.app.goo.gl/GsCMbzDUTPdq59qS9
- ktache 1 hour 16 min ago
They are not going full gas at every point. They would destroy themselves. And tactics, they save themselves for when effort is really needed....
- wookey 1 hour 21 min ago
It turns out that that is national police policy. We found out from this process that there is national 'secured by design' policy which causes...
- mtbtomo 2 hours 1 min ago
Been available for quite a while, full GRX mechanical 12 speed. Probably around the same time as 105 mechanical 12 speed if I were to guess.
- TheBillder 2 hours 6 min ago
Less harmful citrus degreaser is easy to find at £8 or less for 5 litres. Works ok for me, even diluted up to 4:1. Both paraffin and white spirit...
- Veganpotter 2 hours 12 min ago
Nope, it's to keep your straps down and quieter. Plus most sunglasses are polycarbonate and aren't going to shatter like glass anyway
- Steve K 2 hours 43 min ago
And, more seriously, where's the coverage of the closure of the cycle lane which forces you to cycle on the Totton bypass.
Add new comment
22 comments
A majority of driving offences need taking off the books. The whole idea that "driving offences" some how are less serious than other criminal acts is a corrosive one. Assault, ABH, GBH, Manslaughter, Murder - these are all perfectly suitable offences to charge people with. Why does using your car as the weapon make it not a deliberate violent offence?. If I ran you over with a forklift truck because I was not paying attention I would be jailed for manslaughter. Why does that not apply if it's a car?
OK! How about this,
A driver, cyclist etc. causes an accident and the result is damage to property, slight injury or injury then lets charge them with 'careless' driving, cycling etc. with the option of charging with 'dangerous' driving, cycling, etc.
However:
If the accident results in a 'Killed or Serious Injured' then lets charge them with an automatic 'dangerous' driving, cycling, etc. with no option of plea bargaining down to 'careless'.
I commend this idea to the house and look forward to your comments.
Same old, same old.......
IMHO custodial sentences should be reserved for those cases where there was intent to do harm or such levels of recklessness/aggression were involved that the only possible outcome was going to be injury or death.
As for the rest: where harm has already been caused, the "careless driving" charge should not be an option (as Brake says, it is inappropriate and downright offensive) and get these berks off the road. Too many see the piloting of a huge lump of self-propelled machinery as a god given right rather than the privilege it is, and that attitude badly needs adjusting.
Hello Japan, this is London
When tonnes of metal are being shifted about, I don't think 'carelessness' and 'dangerousness' can be treated as different things. Carelessly propelling a lethal amount of mass around a IS dangerous.
To have a law that somehow divides the two up does not reflect the real costs, and therefore does not effect further decisions or perceptions as it should.
Killing is killing, and everyone should be prevented from doing it. Not just the 'bad guys' who do it on purpose.
No doubt we are going to have 30 or 40 indignant comments as usual and if everyone seems to agrees it a disgrace.
So who's responsible for using driving without care and attention or careless driving, when it clearly is dangerous driving or assault?
Can we ask them to explain their decisions?
Simple answer its the CPS. But its the court bench who decide on the sentence.
As for getting them to explain their decision, dont hold your breath but when the court papers are released have a read through them and make up your own mind.
Amazing how the 'Individuals' running our courts seemingly hand out widely varying sentences.
I'm off of nick a car, with no insurance or MoT, drive in the city at 80mph knock over some street furniture then run over a cyclist, when I get caught I'll plead guilty and repent my sins and ask for a lenient sentence as I was depressed at the time and offer to do some 'community'. Oh I forgot I was stoned too.
What do you reckon....about 120 hours on the broom.
That's a stupid analogy to make.
A gun is designed for one job only, a lorry is for many things, although it could be used as a deadly weapon. I dare say the driver in this instance was not using it deliberately as a "weapon" and was just careless as the ruling found
And, yes, I have been crushed by an articulated car transporter 30 years ago on a bike and it still hurts.
What about a dog? Take a large dog onto a street, "lose control" of it and it savages a member of the public causing life changing injuries. Would you only get a fine?
But no one 'needs' a dog. We've constructed a society in which many people, particularly people who are likely to be lawyers, magistrates, judges; and indeed to do jury service; believe that motor vehicles are essential, and so fear any possibility of being deprived of theirs. So given any excuse they will minimise the charges and sentences, or let people off if at all possible, because 'there but for the grace of God...'.
Answering my own question, the law allows for a fine up to £5000 and/or up to two years in prison.
So about the same as Careless Driving.
However the sentencing seems as pathetic as well...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-owner-whose-japanese-akita-3011...
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2014/01/19/dog-owner-sets-staffie-on-...
Ah, that's nice, I join a new community and get called stupid on only my second posting, thanks.
All analogies break down, that's why analogous and identical are separate words, but the point is valid. Of course guns and lorries are different, but they can still be compared.
Users of each should be subject to the same standard of care.
Allowing something in your charge to kill another human being without outside interference is not careless, it's negligent.
A mate of mine got banned for 12 months, fined £900 and had to do 120 hours community service for hitting a central light bollard in his car, he was found guilty of dangerous driving.
No injury's to him or anybody else, no other 3rd party involved, he wrote his car off and damaged the central light.
Of course he was lucky he walked away, he was also lucky that nobody else was involved and he fully accepts the blame and his stupidity and it shook him up, it was his first accident in 30 years of driving, he had no points and no convictions, car was insured, had an MOT and taxed.
Now lets say my friend deserved this punishment, then how come this lorry driver gets a lesser sentence, the law and the people who practice it are a bloody joke and they wonder why people have no faith any more.
Damaging public property tho innit?
That's a proper crime.
I fainted while walking, due to my GP thinking it was an epiletic fit and sending me for tests (which were negative) I lost my licence for six months. I think that is wholly appropriate.
Six months for causing an accident and an injury is a joke.
If it wasn't a fit how did you lose your licence, or was it another illness that's on the dvla list ?
Nope, no fit just fainted, I'd felt faint prior to actually fainting and made a mistake in my description to my GP (who wasn't even my GP just a stand in while mine was on holiday) by using the Yogi Berra's comment "it was like déjà vu all over again" to describe the 2nd incident in which I actually fainted.
I didn't know but a patient using the term déjà vu is a red flag to GP's for the identification of undiagnosed epilepsy.
He sent me to a consultant to be investigated for epilepsy and the tests were negative but the fact that I'd fainted & then been investigated for epilepsy meant that the DVLA withdrew my licence for a six month period to see if I'd had any further incidents.
I was lucky the consultant wrote a letter of support to the DVLA otherwise it would have been 12.
Lorries and guns are both deadly weapons.
Would you get away with a fine if you were careless with a gun and shot someone?
Thanks VeNT, corrected
"at the time of the incident in April 2014, which involved a male cyclist"
quick! there's still time to warn him!