road.cc live blog: Strava says Zwift activity can count towards challenges, Froome case reportedly sent to anti-doping tribunal, ‘skipping training’? + more

@kil0ran as I understand it he drove while banned for a number of the previous offences. While I don't disagree that there was lots of evidence that he would continue to drive dangerously, and should not have been allowed behind the wheel even before this horrific incident, I think it is naive to think a lifetime driving ban would have kept him off the road.

LIFE DRIVING BANS NOW & get rid of the points system. Banging him up for 25 years is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Time and time again we get this situation where someone dies because a dangerous driver wasn't permanently removed from the road. Implement an instaban for anything which would usually get 3 points and enforce it with a suspended sentence. First breach leads to 3 months jail time. Next 12 months. Next 4 years, and so on. Ankle monitor them to help enforce it. Can be a Cat C/Open prison or some form of home curfew. Driving is a right not a privilege. They should be rightly mindful of the risk of an offence and if it puts them off driving then so be it. I drove like an absolute &(^()^T&_ as a teenager and I guarantee I wouldn't have behaved that way if there was a risk of jail time and a criminal record.

This tragedy was so avoidable and this case, its outcome and its impacts should be a huge wake up call to the CPS and the wider justice system, including Police. Society cannot keep excusing drivers, through the normalising of dangerous behaviour, for law breaking and the justice system must lead the way. Society must accept that law breaking is wrong, no matter where it takes place. I am under no illusion as the cultural and societal leap is a big one however the situation of excusing law breakers cannot continue.

Shirley "Spalding Business Improvement District" should face some sort of reprimand for bring a meritless case (ie without evidence), thus wasting the local authority's time and potentially taxpayer funds that could be used elsewhere? It might certainly help prevent others doing the same in the future.

Heartbreaking for Michael Mullins' family. Deepest condolences to them.

This case has me seriously thinking about whether I should be riding on the road at all. There are safer ways to travel and to keep fit, and I have two small children at home who need me.

From https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/26690352.driver-sentenced-murder-michael-mullins/ “Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial.” Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say “enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time”…? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.

Condolences to Mr Mullins' family. Reading through this article it is beginning to sound like there were opportunities to take Mr Richardson off the road sooner; so many lenient sentences for repeated instances of substandard driving and lawbreaking. The sentences were likely within the rules; perhaps the rules need to change.

“Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial.” Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say “enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time”…? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.

@M20MAMIL Thanks. "Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial." Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say "enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time"...? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.