- 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
CTC logoCTC critical of police response to death of Merseyside cyclist
CTC, the national cycling charity, has reacted strongly to the news that a Merseyside police officer has been given a written warning for deciding not to prosecute a man who hit a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road. Road safety campaigner, Rhia Favero, has described the decision as ‘accusing a victim for their own death’.
In October 2010, Ali Farahani drove 60m on the wrong side of the road and hit 42-year-old Daniel Ayers on Liverpool’s Prescot Road in a manoeuvre that witnesses variously described as being “reckless”, “irresponsible” and “crazy”.
Although Farahani was eventually jailed for 10 months for dangerous driving, he was initially released without charge by PC Simon Lewis. The evidence was only reviewed when Ayers later died in hospital, having been admitted with fractures to his arm and knee and a piece of bone on his spine.
An inquest ruled that the immediate cause of Ayers’ death was a pre-existing condition connected to alcohol dependency, but his sister, Georgina Moore, complained that Lewis had failed to conduct a full and proper investigation. She also alleged that he was “discriminatory” because her brother was drunk at time of the accident.
Lewis was found to have carried out a substandard investigation and was given a written warning. A High Court judge has since ordered a fresh investigation over the discrimination charge as well.
CTC’s Rhia Favero says that while the story is shocking, it comes as no surprise.
“Although I am shocked that a police officer can accuse a victim for their own death when the facts of the case clearly show the driver that hit them was the culprit, this is not the first time this has happened. Nor is it the first time the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) have had to intervene to ensure disciplinary action is taken against an officer.
“CTC's Road Justice campaign has seen these examples of police bias against cyclists happen across the country, from Kent to Leicester to London. The Cyclists' Defence Fund is now having to carry out a private prosecution of a driver who killed a cyclist because the police chose not to prosecute based on quick prejudicial decisions about who was at fault.”
In February 2014, Michael Mason was hit from behind by the driver of a Nissan car on Regent Street and later died from his injuries. No prosecution was brought against the driver and the Cyclists’ Defence Fund said the Metropolitan Police’s decision not to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was a clear breach of CPS guidelines.
In March, the Metropolitan Police said it had referred Mason’s death to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but five days later admitted this was not the case, saying: “We have previously stated that the below matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is incorrect. No referral has been made.”
Mason’s daughter said she felt ‘let down’ by the Met, while the family’s lawyer, Martin Porter QC, said the way they had been treated was "incomprehensibly callous". There are now plans for a private prosecution which will be brought with the help of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Brauchsel 6 min 27 sec ago
Is the basic question of gear hardness/easiness here not equally expressed as "how far will the bike go each time I pedal it?"...
- Born_peddling 26 min 54 sec ago
MCR cycle euro capital???? Have had to read this article very carefully and repeatedly.... I know a good swath of Manchester locals and lovers of...
- Born_peddling 43 min 16 sec ago
You're joking right? Unless it's a bridal path there's very few "quiet" roads and the so called quiet roads are usually used as speed runs for...
- chrisonatrike 2 hours 15 min ago
He's probably busy doing his festive 1000. Apparently some similar-looking fellow is having this Christmas off......
- NOtotheEU 3 hours 43 min ago
I have the same problem with my front facing cameras so I wipe them regularly but the rear ones never seem to get wet. One is mounted on my...
- ktache 4 hours 12 min ago
As the excellent John Crace calls him, Jimmy Dimly, was telling us all not to be obsessed with the whole Rwanda thing a couple of weeks back.
- Bungle_52 4 hours 20 min ago
A better reply would be....
- ktache 4 hours 32 min ago
How come he's riding a bicycle from his 1950s future?
- JL77 5 hours 8 min ago
Think that my Toyota already has this.
- Hirsute 5 hours 48 min ago
Is he trying to put the wall back ?
Add new comment
11 comments
Sorry Guys, this case was misreported. Daniel had been a keen cyclist and just weeks before he was knocked over was badly hurt when he intervened to stop a bike being stolen from a man being attacked by a gang of youths. However, he was crossing the road on foot when the Mercedes travelling at speed on the wrong side of the road hit him. More balanced report under headline 'Grieving family welcome...' albeit still wrongly identifying him as a cyclist. Many thanks for your interest. Stay safe.
Have a read yourself. Because you're not really making sense. A motor vehicle has a prescribed limit, over which you are causing an offence.
Offences relating to alcohol and cycling I quoted above, feel free to read them again.
The police DGAF about cyclists. The Government DGAF about cyclists. It has ever been thus. The UK is a dangerous crap place to ride a bike.
There's no such thing as a cyclist, only a person using a bicycle.
Lets just remind ourselves of the law regarding cycling and drinking.
Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs.
(1)A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
So alcohol in the system is not enough to commit an offence and shouldn't be taken into consideration if there is no evidence to suggest he was not in proper control of his bicycle.
Except you have to read all the rules and not just the ones that make your side of the argument. Being 'over the limit' is the threshold by which you are judged automatically to not have proper control. As with driving, the belief that you are capable of having proper control, or even your ability to demonstrate that control, makes no difference when you pass the legal limit.
Also the charge is 'drunk in charge' of a vehicle and for charging purposes a bicycle does count as a vehicle, in the same way that a horse and cart, a steam roller, or even falling asleep in the driver seat of your car etc all count, despite the reduced chances of causing accidents with them.
Are you certain about that? IANAL but I thought under law a bicycle was not a "vehicle" but a "carriage". Some laws that apply to vehicles do not apply to carriages.
Institutionally anti-cyclist.
It's a tough one, people keep on about assumed liability to be used to protect cyclists, but in motoring terms if one driver is pissed he is assumed liable in almost all cases. Therefore I think cyclists have the same responsibility not to ride under the influence.
However, the fact that no investigation was seemingly carried out is very poor, though sadly not surprising.
At least in this case, the cyclist's (lack of) sobriety played no role.
The driver was going at speed on the wrong side of the road, clearly dangerously as he was convicted for just that.
And no, assumed liability does not work the way you think, not even with drunk drivers.
Imagine if a pedestrian was walking along a pavement and got killed by a vehicle being driven erratically. Now, imagine if the pedestrian was blamed because he was under the influence of alcohol? That'd be completely insane.
That's exactly what has happened here though, except the pedestrian's only fault was being a cyclist.