- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgTaxi driver who fatally injured cyclist in dooring fined £400
A Glasgow taxi driver has been fined £400 after opening the door of his vehicle “to the endangerment and injury” of a cyclist who later died in hospital of head injuries – with the judge presiding over the case expressing “surprise” the motorist did not face a charge of causing the victim’s death.
David Thompson, aged 67, had been cycling along Keppochhill Road on the evening of 20 May 2015 when Joseph Connelly, aged 54, opened the door of his cab, which he had just parked, reports The Scotsman.
Procurator fiscal depute Wendy McDonald told Glasgow Sheriff Court that Connelly “opened his door of this vehicle and the complainer has been cycling past.
“Contact has been made causing Mr Thomson, now deceased, to fall off his bike. He sustained severe head injuries and later died as a result of the fall.”
Connelly insisted, however, that the victim “didn’t hit the door, he swerved round it and lost control.”
His lawyer, Robert Sheridan, told Sheriff Celia Sanderson that the taxi driver believed at first that it had been Mr Thomson’s satchel that had hit the door. He also said that there was a private hire vehicle double parked on the bend just before Connelly’s taxi.
As a result, Connelly accepted “the responsibility was on him to go further than he would normally to ensure there was no other hazards there,” said Mr Sheridan.
While both English and Scots law share the offences of causing death by careless or dangerous driving, those only apply when the vehicle is actually being driven – meaning it is impossible to prosecute cases such as this one with a driving-related charge.
That was starkly illustrated by a 2012 court case relating to the death the previous year of 25-year-old Sam Harding, who died in North London when a driver opened the door of his car into his path, knocking the cyclist from his bike and into the path of a bus.
> Motorist found not guilty of manslaughter in connection with death of London cyclist
The motorist, 32-year-old Kenan Aydogdu, was acquitted of manslaughter by a jury at the Old Bailey, despite the prosecution saying that visibility through the windows of his Audi car was just 17 per cent of what it should have been due to a tinting film he had applied.
Rule 239 of the Highway Code says that when parking by the roadside
you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic.
One road safety technique aimed at reducing the number of cyclists who fall victim to being doored is to encourage drivers to employ the 'Dutch Reach' - using the hand further away from the door handle to open it, meaning they naturally look round and see any approaching cyclists. Find out more here.
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
- ktache 4 hours 6 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 4 hours 16 min ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
33 comments
£400 for causing the death of a cyclist has understandably enraged many road users. Most people’s first reaction is to feel angry or saddened that we put such little value on a life. Such a meager fine and the Sheriff’s ‘surprise’ as to the charge brought against the taxi driver are hardly a deterrent for the next careless driver.
But let’s take a step back. There is another perspective.
This was carelessness; a simple human error. And do we want to lock people away for such things?
Criminal Law exists to protect the public and if we look at the act of carelessness rather than the consequences of that carelessness, the cabbie is not a danger to wider society. The Sheriff handed out a sentence that matched the ‘crime’ and according to what was in her power to give.
Civil Law, on the other hand, is concerned with compensating those injured and bereaved for their loss. In this case, the cyclist’s family will be compensated as the taxi driver admitted his mistake and his role in the man’s death and while the question ‘what price a life?’ can never be adequately answered, the process of Civil Law will provide some recompense for the loved ones left behind. In Civil Law, there is a right of action if an individual is harmed by another’s negligent act and clearly the taxi driver was negligent.
The very fact that this case was brought to the criminal courts is a good thing. Many such incidents, which may not be as catastrophic in their outcome, but can lead to injury or damage nonetheless, are not. The media attention has highlighted the vulnerability of cyclists on our roads and hopefully will make others more aware.
"This was carelessness; a simple human error. And do we want to lock people away for such things?"
Probably not, but equally, do we want people who display such carelessness to be in charge of large lumps of metal on public roads?
The advantage of 'locking away' people for carelessness is the possibility of encouraging others to think harder before acting.
See, I don't entirely agree with the distinction between 'errors' and 'deliberate choices'. It's not as binary as that.
Becuase where a group have power, indeed the power of life-and-death, over another group, then if that first group make a choice to be habitually careless, leading to a predictable stream of injuries and deaths for the latter, that isn't just an 'error', its a choice.
Still, it would probably be better to save the irresponsible and reckless from their own moral failings, and come up with better infrastructure to make doorings impossible, and also to ban the careless from ever operating a motorised vehicle again.
Worth noting that this happened in Scotland and the laws there do differ in some respects. My comments assume that the law there is the same as English law.
£400 for taking a life is disgusting but sadly unsurprising.
I was doored off by a passenger exiting a taxi as I filtered. The driver had unlocked the door so she could exit as she decided it was quicker to walk. A very low speed crash but still resulted in a fractured scaphoid as I broke my fall with my outstretched hand. The police were completely uninterested.
I urge everyone to write to their MP about the state of the justice system where cyclists are concerned.
I hope Mr Thompson's family are taking comfort from these considered comments. My thoughts are also with the family of James Darby, killed in a similar way in Beckenham in 2012. Driver not arrested.
It is just terrible for someone to cause the death of another, which will bare heavily on the conscience of the person who actually caused the death for whatever reason or excuse. I cannot understand how a they could live with this and stay sane. Accidents happen and it's up to everyone to try to stay safe and expect the unexpected. It's truly sad to hear of such terrible events occurring to cyclists, sincere condolences to the loved ones left behind. Rules and regulations are fine but the reality is it will continue to happen regardless of how harsh penalties are bestowed upon the offenders.
There are people who change once behind a steering wheel and not for the better.
Dan S wrote
In the case of the taxi driver, it seems that his parking was fine, it was just the way he opened the door. Once you've stopped the engine, put the handbrake on etc, you've finished driving. If something you did as part of driving causes the death then you're guilty but subsequent opening of the door isn't part of driving.
So it seems that the getting into or out of the car doesn't form part of the driving? Rubbish. You can't drive without getting in and you can't have finished until you're out.
Seems clear to me.
It can seem as clear to you as you like, but that doesn't render what I wrote rubbish. You may not like the law but it is what it is.
Excuse the language but utter bollocks.
A motorcyclist sitting astride a motorbike that has no engine running is still deemed to be riding and as such can be prosecuted. So by default a driver in a car is still driving.
.
Passengers can open doors too, but are not drivers. Unless you are saying drivers are responsible for that too. Plain old Manslaughter laws would do.
Do you have some actual legal authority for that proposition, or is it just your opinion that the concept should be extended to cover opening a car door and therefore you're prepared to state that my outline of the law is utter bollocks?
The situation is utter bollocks. I have made no reference to your outline of the law and no I have no legal authority.
I do recall a fiend who was warned by a police officer in the circumstances I described as still riding his bike, and as such should be wearnng his helmet or risk prosecution. To then say that someone who has been driving a car has seeming minimal liability when he takes the keys out of the ignition appears fundamentally wrong, which indeed it is. The courts position for someone leaving their vehicle poorly parked where it subseqently kills somebody because they had failed to apply the hand brake is to charge with causing death by dangerous driving, Why is it that a driver approaching a car can (IMHO correctly) be prosecuted for drink driving before he has even put his keys in the lock? I therefore reiterate that the situation is bollocks.
He can't. He can be prosecuted for being in charge of a motor vehicle while over the limit. That's a separate offence that was created precisely to deal with the situation where somebody is about to drive but is stopped before they do.
And the case of not applying the handbrake?
The point is that the where it suits, drivers are prosecuted away from their car, indeed as you point out, where it is deemed important enough appropriate laws are introduced. It is therefore incomprehensible why someone is not prosecuted when inside their car.
The handbrake is an integral part of controlling the speed of the car, so would count as driving. Similar considerations to the lorry case, therefore: leaving the brake off is driving. If the car doesn't roll away for a few minutes (strong wind?) then that wouldn't matter because the thing that caused the problem was part of driving.
Technically they can (see my post earlier about the regulatory offence) but it's a ridiculously minor penalty. You're right: there should be a proper offence with a proper penalty. But there isn't.
Glad to agree.
I'm not convinced that anyone has used their handbrake to control the speed of their car since Starsky & Hutch...
I'm glad that the police can deal with fiends. Small mercies, eh?
Covered by 'manslaughter by gross negligence' as far as I am concerned.
If they are no longer considered to be driving, they the whoops ie driving accident' mitigatoon shouldn't aply.
If I drop something from a high building aiming at a skip, miss and hit someone that's what I would expect the charge to be.
Certainly that would be a better charge than careless or dangerous driving (in that it wouldn't automatically fail). In practice, as has been seen in similar cases, you are unlikely to get a conviction. The bar is set very high in cases of gross negligence manslaughter and you're likely to need something more than this case. That's not so much a legal problem like the question of "driving", it's just a question of persuading the judge to leave the case to the jury and then persuading the jury to convict. Worth a try (subject to the views of the bereaved, obviously) but highly unlikely to succeed.
From the BBC;
"Fining Connelly, Sheriff Celia Sanderson said the incident was "tragic" and she noted her "surprise" at the charge Connelly faced.
She pointed out he had not been charged with causing Mr Thomson's death."
"While both English and Scots law share the offences of causing death by careless or dangerous driving, those only apply when the vehicle is actually being driven – meaning it is impossible to prosecute cases such as this one with a driving-related charge."
That's incorrect. There have been at least two cases of convictions for causing death by careless driving where the vehicle had been parked badly and the driving had ceased some ten minutes prior. See http://www.lloydsloadinglist.com/freight-directory/adviceandinsight/A-cautionary-tale-for-truckers/2973.htm#.WAd0sBGQKM8 The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction
Brill, thanks! The crux of it to save people going through the fluff:
"Jenkins’ defence sought to argue that the only cause of death was the deceased’s own driving, because he was driving too fast for the weather conditions – it was a cold day and though the sky was clear, the sun was low in the sky and visibility was severely impaired. However, it is to be noted that the offence is “causing the death… by driving”. It is not “causing the death while driving”. The question, the judge said, is whether the driving played a part in causing the death.
Although there may be times where a judge might rule that the driving is too remote from the later event to have been the cause of it, this case suggests responsibility for the vehicle does not cease when a driver stops driving."
With this in mind, are we dealing with a spineless procurator fiscal in this article's case. Or just incompetent?
Unfortunately, that case wouldn't help here. The distinction is that the trucker had parked on a busy road. The thing that was careless was the place he left his vehicle, and parking is part of driving. The point of the case is that the death need not occur while the driving is happening, so long as it was the driving that caused it: the offence is causing death BY driving carelessly, not WHILE driving carelessly.
In the case of the taxi driver, it seems that his parking was fine, it was just the way he opened the door. Once you've stopped the engine, put the handbrake on etc, you've finished driving. If something you did as part of driving causes the death then you're guilty but subsequent opening of the door isn't part of driving.
Basically we need an offence of carelessly opening the door (or we need to extend "driving" to cover it but that has complications when considering things like drink driving: if opening the door is driving then a drunk passenger who opens the door could technically be charged with drink driving...).
I still don't get why it needs to be a special offence. There's no special crime for 'dropping rocks in front of oncoming traffic off of a road bridge', I presume, but its still going to be treated as a serious crime if someone does it and kills or injures someone.
Suddenly putting a large metal object in front of a vehicle travelling at speed on the road ought to be covered by some existing law, it seems to me, that the object is a car door is just a detail, I would have said.
The opening of the door, is the act similar to the poor parking. Not the parking and parking.
The precedent here is that RTA offences extend beyond the act of driving. We can look at door opening too.
No it isn't. The precedent is that the act of driving need not be coterminous with the collision that causes the death. Causing death by careless driving still does not extend beyond the act of driving except in the sense that a death caused by your driving need not occur while you are driving. It still has to be caused by the driving and opening the car door is not driving.
Yeah actually on second thoughts. The case is about remoteness of acts after the driving, not how remote acts that can be considered driving are.
I'm puzzled by the distinction between Laws and Offences.
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
"105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person. "
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made
Surely to break that law is to commit an offence.
Which offence?
Edit:
Oh - that is the offence!
It doesn't have to come under 'Careless Driving' or 'Neglience' - it stands by itself ?
Pages