Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Report into road death investigations makes scathing findings about training, processes and victim support

CTC says findings even highlight CPS belief that drivers aren't to blame if they can't see people at night...

A report into the handling of road deaths in six police forces has criticised how officers and the CPS handle cases - but a leading cycling group has said it should have been even stronger.

The report was written by the HM Inspectorates of Constabulary (HMIC) and of the Crown Prosecution Service (HMCPSI) and found that support of victims was lacking in 75 per cent of cases, prosecutors needed more training, CPS decisions were badly kept in internal records and those taking the lead on cases were frequently swapped around - in fact they were only constant in 38 per cent of cases.

The worst part of the report, according to the CTC, was the finding that there were eight 'incorrect' decisions were to prosecute cases where the inspectors felt there was insufficient evidence, including four where pedestrians were killed at night and inspectors felt the driver could not have been expected to see the victim.

CTC’s Campaigns & Policy Director Roger Geffen said: “Today’s report backs up what CTC’s Road Justice campaign has been saying about the need to improve the training of both police and CPS staff involved in road crashes.

“However, the CPS watchdog is repeating the legal system’s persistent failure to recognise that, in law, driving which causes obviously foreseeable danger should be charged as ‘dangerous’ driving, not ignored or dismissed as mere ‘carelessness’.”

The report comes as CTC’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF) prepares to decide whether further action is needed to secure justice for the bereaved family of Michael Mason, the 70-year-old cyclist killed after being hit from behind by a car on Regent Street. 

Although the driver admitted at inquest that she could not explain her failure to see Mason when he was directly in front of her, the Police have so far declined even to refer the file to the CPS.

With CDF’s backing, CTC Ambassador Martin Porter QC has written to the Metropolitan Police and the CPS on behalf of Mason’s family, urging them to reconsider. However, CDF has launched a £30,000 'Justice for Michael' funding appeal in anticipation of the need for further legal action, including the possibility of a private prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving.

Since the introduction of a new offence of causing death by careless driving (CDCD), prosecutions and convictions for the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving have nose-dived. By 2011, just 6.5% of road deaths resulted in a driver being convicted for causing death by dangerous driving.

Recently we reported how sentences imposed for death by dangerous driving may become open to challenge under plans being drawn up by government law officers. The Times reports that the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC is currently reviewing the scheme under which people can appeal sentences they perceive to be too lenient.

Currently only a limited number of sentences can be challenged, but a host of other offences tried in magistrates’ courts may be added to the list.

A spokesperson for the law officers said: “The scheme is under review. Lots of new offences have been added over the years because it’s important that the public can challenge exceptionally low sentences.

“We have not yet made any decisions, but the attorney general has said before that he is thinking about whether the extent of the present scheme is right.”

If the attorney general receives a complaint within 28 days, a sentence must be examined. If it is ‘manifestly not sufficiently severe’ it is then referred to the Court of Appeal. Around 400 sentences a year are now the subject of complaints from victims or others with about a quarter of sentences that are referred then increased.

Wright told The Times that the scheme should not operate as a prosecution right of appeal but should be used only in exceptional cases where the judge may have got it wrong.

Earlier this year, the families of John Morland and Kris Jarvis – two cyclists killed as a result of the dangerous driving of Alexander Walter – launched an online petition to increase the sentencing in dangerous driving cases.

Walter had been driving without insurance, at 70mph in a 30mph zone and whilst already disqualified from driving. He was nearly two and a half times over the alcohol limit and was being pursued by police. He had also taken cocaine less than 24 hours prior to the incident and had 67 previous criminal convictions, including a bomb hoax only days after 9/11. After pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, he was sentenced to 10 years and three months imprisonment. Walter appealed to have the sentence shortened, but lost.

In 2013, CTC launched its Road Justice Campaign. The organisation believes that some bad drivers are treated leniently due to what it perceives as occasional failings on the part of police, prosecutors and the courts. The Road Justice Campaign aims to get the justice system to take a more rigorous approach to investigating, prosecuting, and sentencing incidents of bad driving on Britain's roads.

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
OldnSlo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Aside from the badly written third paragraph
( review before pressing enter...) from personal experience, I'm interested in the police/cps process for prosecution (or not) of drivers.

Without going into gory detail, I was knocked off last year which left me totally incontinent and unable to ride. One surgical procedure done one to go - hopefully with no complications. A insurance claim can take up to five years to resolve. However, the one days alertness training the driver got struck me as rather a light sentence. So before I consider suing the police for negligence I need to know what 'job' they should have been doing.

Regards,
Oldnslo

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 9 years ago
0 likes

I have to say I agree with the general sentiment... whilst anyone cycling without lights is clearly a fool, I have never had a challenge seeing them.

Strike that, I did have trouble seeing a few for a bit, then I realised that I was getting old, popped down the opticians and got some glasses. Now I simply can't understand how pedestrians and cyclists get missed...

Avatar
LinusLarrabee | 9 years ago
0 likes

Some people really don't help themselves. I left the office late on Friday night - around 8pm - and passed 2 almost invisible cyclists decked head to toe in black. They both had the tiniest least effectual LED type rear lights and one had flashing bands around his leg - neither of which stopped these people blending completely in to the background as we went over a busy bridge.

Avatar
Airzound replied to LinusLarrabee | 9 years ago
0 likes
LinusLarrabee wrote:

Some people really don't help themselves. I left the office late on Friday night - around 8pm - and passed 2 almost invisible cyclists decked head to toe in black. They both had the tiniest least effectual LED type rear lights and one had flashing bands around his leg - neither of which stopped these people blending completely in to the background as we went over a busy bridge.

So you saw them then?

Typical SMIDSY defence.

The report is not about seeing or not seeing unlit cyclists at night, but about the plod and CPS who routinely do not gather evidence or charge drivers who have knocked us down or killed cyclists with the incorrect or lesser offences as they are very weak clueless prosecutors and in any case biased towards the vehicle driver as they are likely drivers themselves thinking "there go I, but for the grace of God". Also jurors are more often than not drivers so more likely to find a defendant not guilty. Then if they do convict a useless incompetent judge gives the killer driver a slap on the wrist and a small fine. It's a national disgrace that the penalties for not paying your income or council tax are far more than for killing some one when at the wheel of a vehicle. Cyclists' lives are cheap. The government doesn't give a stuff about cyclists' safety. The only one in power who ever did was Ken Livingstone and he was ousted by Boris the buffoon.

Avatar
Hensteeth replied to LinusLarrabee | 9 years ago
0 likes

They blended so well into the background that you managed to get a quite detailed description of them. Amazing

Avatar
freespirit1 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Highway Code rule 60 states;

"At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24"

Notice the word in block capitals. Having lights lit at night is compulsory.

Bellends speed they also ride/drive at night without lights.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's hilarious to read people defending driving at speeds such that they can't see unlit riders, because they "know the road".

Should cyclists have lights, of course. Should drivers be driving down roads at speeds where they can no longer stop in the distance they can see because they "know the road"? Of course not!

Avatar
birzzles | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yesterday I was surprised by a cyclist under dappled shade wearing black. He was positioned correctly in the road, but I was feet away before he was visible. Around me walkers at night would carry lights, and dive in hedges during the day if cars are approaching.

It is hard fro me to be sure if wearing bright clothing and using lights prevents someone hitting me. It is a courtesy to me as a driver though, as I prefer to see cyclists from a long way off.

It is the same as a car emerging from a junction without looking. I have never hit one, but it would make driving nicer if they didn't depend on my margin of safety, but created a bit of a margin for themselves.

Note that I have had the same issue with invisible cyclists and runners when cycling myself at 10mph.

Avatar
johndonnelly replied to birzzles | 9 years ago
0 likes
birzzles wrote:

... Around me walkers ... dive in hedges during the day if cars are approaching.

Pedestrians have a right of way, and yielding it in this way should never have to be normal behaviour. It's a consequence of poor driving standards that pedestrians feel they need to do this, not something you can reasonably expect as a motorist.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to birzzles | 9 years ago
0 likes
birzzles wrote:

...
Note that I have had the same issue with invisible cyclists and runners when cycling myself at 10mph.

How watts or lumen is your front light? I'm guessing not enough. With a 1200 lumen light I can see any cyclists / pedestrian for a considerable distance regardless of street lighting or lack of it.

Avatar
EnglishmanAbroad | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's not rocket science, you drive to the conditions of the road at the time your driving! If its a national speed limit unlit windy country lane, it certainly won't be safe to drive at the speed limit all the time. No amount of prior knowledge will give you the ability to see into the future and know what's around the next bend.

Avatar
Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes

Erm... eh?

I am attempting to make this point: if a driver hits an unlit cyclist, I would imagine that this is a mitigating circumstance in deciding whether or not the driver is entirely to blame. Whilst the CPS leaves a lot to be desired I think they have a point in not pursuing cases where the victim is totally unsightable.

I also think that people who ride bikes without lights, in the dark, are absolute bellends and really can't bleat if someone hits them.

But you can just carry on with a critique of how I drive, not knowing where or how it's done, if you like.

Avatar
atgni replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes

Whilst I agree they're 'absolute bellends'; I certainly don't agree they 'deserves what's coming' or 'if they get clobbered it's their own fault' or they 'can't bleat if someone hits them'.

Perhaps it would have been better if you had just made they point you were attempting to make without the hyperbole.

Even when people recklessly put themselves at risk; they don't 'deserve' to be hit.

It you have a dynamo set, the lights won't be lit when not moving. If you run them down would it still be their fault?

Read racyrich's comment above. Or perhaps the highway code
126
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Avatar
Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

Avatar
atgni replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I don't agree. Think people who are walking (scouts on a hike etc). Think broken down vehicles. You'd have nearly hit them too. I would suggest you're going too fast when driving.

Avatar
Oolon Colluphid replied to atgni | 9 years ago
0 likes
atgni wrote:
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I don't agree. Think people who are walking (scouts on a hike etc). Think broken down vehicles. You'd have nearly hit them too. I would suggest you're going too fast when driving.

Nope, not a chance. Like I say, I drive the roads I ride - I know how fast I should be going.

I guess the difference is that broken down or parked cars are much bigger than unlit cyclists and still have reflectors in their light clusters. Pedestrians I can't comment on, that hasn't happened to me. But three times I have nearly hit an unlit cyclist riding in dark clothing on an unlit lane. In each case the fact that I was driving at a very moderate speed has saved said cyclist from injury or worse.

Riding without lights makes you so vulnerable it just beggars belief that anyone would even consider doing it. Yet once lit up you become so visible the issue, in my experience, vanishes. I don't think I've ever had a problem in the winter months riding in the dark.

Avatar
atgni replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I drive the roads I ride - I know how fast I should be going.

Would you go slower on roads you don't 'know'?

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes
Oolon Colluphid wrote:
atgni wrote:
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I don't agree. Think people who are walking (scouts on a hike etc). Think broken down vehicles. You'd have nearly hit them too. I would suggest you're going too fast when driving.

Nope, not a chance. Like I say, I drive the roads I ride - I know how fast I should be going.

I guess the difference is that broken down or parked cars are much bigger than unlit cyclists and still have reflectors in their light clusters. Pedestrians I can't comment on, that hasn't happened to me. But three times I have nearly hit an unlit cyclist riding in dark clothing on an unlit lane. In each case the fact that I was driving at a very moderate speed has saved said cyclist from injury or worse.

Riding without lights makes you so vulnerable it just beggars belief that anyone would even consider doing it. Yet once lit up you become so visible the issue, in my experience, vanishes. I don't think I've ever had a problem in the winter months riding in the dark.

So having driven down the roads before gives you a supernatural ability to know what's there before you see it? I suggest you contact Nick Fury because you're obviously some sort of superman. Or a twat who's going to kill someone at some point.

Avatar
racyrich replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I hope you also a think a driver who is killed as a result of hitting a rather more solid unlit object is also getting what's coming to them. Fallen trees, abandoned vehicles, large animals, etc. In fact pretty much everything a driver really needs to worry about in the dark does not come equipped with nice bright lights. Hence driving so you can stop within the distance you can see to be safe. Radical, I know!

Avatar
Hensteeth replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

So do you not have headlights fitted to your motor car which effectively light up the area in front of you to a safe distance in which you are able to stop?
Perhaps you'd better get a bigger car with more powerful headlights.

Avatar
atgni replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes
Oolon Colluphid wrote:

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now.

Having thought about this more; you may have Night blindness, sometimes referred to as nyctalopia or impaired dark adaptation. It is due to a disorder of the cells in the retina that are responsible for vision in dim light.

I can honestly say in over 600,000 driven miles I've never nearly hit (or indeed hit) a non-lit-up cyclist and I have passed a few.

I'd recommend you get an eye test and ask them to test for night blindness and colour blindness while there. I was tested for both as part of an airfield driving test.

Ps I still think you should consider driving slower regardless of the test. Hopefully you continue to avoid hitting them.

Avatar
hicki35 replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes

This is nonsense if you are driving within the range of your headlights you should still be able to see cyclists / pedestrian and avoid them.

Avatar
hicki35 replied to Oolon Colluphid | 9 years ago
0 likes

This is nonsense if you are driving within the range of your headlights you should still be able to see cyclists / pedestrian and avoid them.

Avatar
atgni | 9 years ago
0 likes

They do seem quite keen on trying to explain to motorists what the big red cross on overhead signs means on motorways and that is fairly obvious.
So some adverts explaining the Bikeability teaching on taking the lane and riding prime doesn't seem too much to ask.

Avatar
Housecathst | 9 years ago
0 likes

I think some tv ads reminding motorist how the roads are funded and that a cyclist has just as much right to be on the road (and claiming the lane) As any daily mail reading bigot in a Range Rover. It would go a long way to helping the situation. But no political party will do that at the risk of offending the great motoring unwashed.

Avatar
mattsccm | 9 years ago
0 likes

 102
am I surprised?
I do see a very small point in lack of visibility. Several time this week alone I have been surprised by cyclist with no lights, dark clothing and riding in the wrong places. If a paranoid cyclist who knows that these people are about and is actively looking can miss them then what hope does some one less alert of interested have.
I for one object strongly to the idea on contributory negligence in many case but if you are riding without lights again , the wrong way up a one way street on the wrong side of the road, then you get what you deserve.
Same with any road user of course.

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to mattsccm | 9 years ago
0 likes
mattsccm wrote:

 102
am I surprised?
I do see a very small point in lack of visibility. Several time this week alone I have been surprised by cyclist with no lights, dark clothing and riding in the wrong places. If a paranoid cyclist who knows that these people are about and is actively looking can miss them then what hope does some one less alert of interested have.
I for one object strongly to the idea on contributory negligence in many case but if you are riding without lights again , the wrong way up a one way street on the wrong side of the road, then you get what you deserve.
Same with any road user of course.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?!??!!!!!!

Avatar
cqexbesd replied to mattsccm | 9 years ago
0 likes
mattsccm wrote:

I do see a very small point in lack of visibility.

Whilst I agree cyclists should have lights/reflectors at night this isn't what causes people to die. I'm sure someone else will append the link to the report about the number of cases in which the police (who it might be expected to rule against the cyclist more often than not) put down lack of lighting as a cause of a collision - it was very few.

Given that, the main focus (though not the only focus of course) must be on motorised traffic.

How much enforcement of traffic laws helps I can't say. I do however recall a concerted campaign against drink driving when I was a kid (in another country). It was education (TV ads, billboards etc) and quite visible enforcement - some Saturday nights you would see 3 or 4 "police checkpoints" with queues of drivers being pulled over and breathalysed. Not only do the statistics show a big drop in the number of accidents in which alcohol was detected it also appears to have become socially unacceptable to drink drive in most parts of society.

Avatar
james-o | 9 years ago
0 likes

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture...

Worth a read in this context. An old post now but still relevant.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 9 years ago
0 likes

The third paragraph of this article, which seems to contain the main thrust of the story, is unclear and badly written. Maybe I'm being daft, but because of the way it's written, I'm not sure what it means.

Pages

Latest Comments