- 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
broken bike.jpgCyclist hit by unaccompanied learner driver loses leg two years after collision
A cyclist has had his leg amputated two years and 15 operations after he was hit by an unaccompanied learner driver while riding through Gosport.
The News reports that on April 13, 2016, Phil Dyke was about to turn right into Dock Road, when a driver pulled out from the same road and hit him.
Graham Fitzpatrick was driving under a provisional licence without L-plates and was unaccompanied by a qualified driver. He failed to attend a court hearing and was banned from driving for two years.
Dyke said: “As far as life is concerned, it’s completely turned it upside down by the actions of an idiot – a split-second of madness and it nearly cost me my life.
“Initially when I was in the emergency room, I saw a surgeon – I’d seen the damage; basically taken my foot off – I said could we get rid of it? He said: ‘I think we could have a go at saving it’.”
Dyke underwent 15 operations, but five months ago he suffered a collapse in his leg and medics had to carry out a below-the-knee amputation.
Claire Howard from law firm Irwin Mitchell commented: “Phil’s case vividly highlights the devastating consequences that vulnerable road users such as cyclists can be left to face because of the careless actions of others.
“We will continue to support Phil and his family to help him access the specialist care and therapies he needs as he continues to come to terms with how his life has been turned upside down.”
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
- momove 1 sec ago
Cheers for the lesson! Wasn't expecting one so was pleasantly surprised, especially getting to find the origin of "laconic"!
- ktache 46 min 26 sec ago
Isn't it a rights issue?
- antigee 50 min 58 sec ago
I've checked on Facebook and stopping the red light running cyclists was simply revenue raising and police time is better spent chasing real...
- Mikezerodown 1 hour 30 min ago
They were before change all systems, then went downhill due to bad adminstration aka CEO who agree to proceed with the worst system I have seen...
- AidanR 1 hour 36 min ago
Same here - it took me by surprise. 10:30am doesn't feel like a dangerous time to cycle; apparently I'm wrong on that.
- Daddy Feebs 1 hour 49 min ago
If anything, it looks a bit like an SL6
- wtjs 2 hours 26 min ago
Other commenters have different views True!
- Daclu Trelub 2 hours 40 min ago
Incredibly bone-headed.
- Sriracha 4 hours 43 min ago
Lidl have a window poster emblazoned, "Black Friday. Starts Sunday".
Add new comment
19 comments
If I am neglegant/careless in my own profession (electrical power distribution of thousands of volts) and someone is maimed or worse (highly probable outcome), I would not only lose my job and pension but face criminal charges, quite possibly involving the HSE, resulting in jail time etc. ...and I'd deserve it.
Maim or kill in my car and I would get a ban at worst as I was only careless/neglegant.
Precisely why the inquiry promised in 2014 is required; why should we have different rules for drivers than for everyone else?
In other news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46308501
OK, so it was worthy of a conviction, but 15 months when we know killing a cyclist hasn't even resulted in jail is a farce.
Not convinced we read the entire sentence. Everyone gets a victim surcharge, there would be a fine for driving uninsured, without supervision.
As regards the 'hard community service's comment. I did it once and only did half the time.
Basically you have a job for day, do it in record time, go home in record time. Luckily i was with normal people who just cracked on but the dumbos thought they were messing the staff about were simply doing the full day instead of early doors.
That is just so wrong.
A two year fucking ban!
The people who awarded that should really be forced to spend a few minutes with Phil, just to explain their reasoning, like.
Couldn't agree more, and I've had a local discussion with some petrolheads who think that the police shouldn't be targetting road crime and only doing "real" crime. I suggested they visit the nearest emergency hospital ward and then the cemetery to see some of the victims, but such is their obsession that they will not accept it.
Perhaps we need someone with some legal knowledge here, as, even with the current extremely lax laws, the charges and sentences appear ridiculously light.
Why was he not charged with serious injury through dangerous driving? By definition of what occured and what is likely to occur by the action which we see regularly then it cannot be anything but dangerous.
The whole thing relating to downgrading and offering 'careless' when people are seriously hurt of killed is utterly contemptable and weakens the law not to mention making roads less safe. That people are slightly hurt or not hurt at all is mostly down to luck + vulnerable persons reactions, when it comes to motorists brandishing their wespon of choice!
We need to make motoring offences into crimes against the person offences and stop fucking about letting one group do what the fuck they like knowing full well they'll get a slap on the wrist at worst!
Forget about prison, how about we bring in a law that says if you brandish a weapon in such a manner that inflicts serious harm or death then you are for the chopping block. Stops re-offending, saves money through not having to put them in prison and also sorts out the population/housing issue. 20% of their estate to go to the victim or remaining victims families. Something so draconian might, just might make people focus a bit more on not driving like a cunt and if not the punishment solves so many problems in one go it's a win win.
Why the hell we allow peadophiles and other nasty bastards back into society is just fucking mental.
Because the government is refusing to implement its promise made in 2014 for an inquiry into road law. https://road.cc/content/news/252262-where-promised-review-road-traffic-o...
This sentence alone shows that the bloke doesn't give a fuck.
Costing someone else their leg and then showing zero remorse should mean two years in jail, nevermind a two-year "ban", which is meaningless in the context of someone who was caught driving without a licence anyway.
I love the way people jump onto the 'should have been/be sent to jail' statements, forgetting that jail is a fantastic breeding ground for criminals.
Far better to force such people to do some form of hard community service, where they have to fix many issues caused by them and others like them (yes I know they can't fix the poor victims leg in this case, but they could fix stuff that been vandelised/smashed by stupid drivers/etc., or even be made to help the vulnerable and elderly,). This way they might actually learn something useful and start showing respect, instead of gaining qualifications in how to be an even better criminal/idiot/scrounger/etc. Plus the money that would have been put into housing and feeding them (albeit in a small room in a large concrete building) would see societal benefit beyond simply getting them out of everyone's way for a while.
Really not the point, though. Whether some (at present, non-existent) closely-supervised community punishment would be preferable to jail sentences, in general, in a better world, is a completely different topic.
The topic here is what message is sent by consistently giving special extra-lenient treatment for actions taken while behind the wheel of a car (involving serious harm to more vulnerable road-users), versus any other form of harmful behaviour.
We already send people to prison - if you want to argue that in general, pick some other case. Why pick the one kind of offense where people are generally _not_ sent to prison? If you want everyone else to be treated just as leniently as motorists, go argue on reports of people being jailed for the sorts of offenses where they do regularly get sent down.
I share everyone's sympathy for Phil Dyke, and bafflement at the lack of charges and sentence for the driver. This link gives a few more details but nothing about the court case. https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/our-region/gosport/gosport-cyclist-reveals-...
This one gives a few more details:
"He failed to attend the initial court hearing on the August 8 this year and, in his absence, was found guilty of driving without due care and attention, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and driving without insurance."
https://www.irwinmitchell.com/newsandmedia/2016/september/ban-for-provis...
But there appears to be very little reporting of the case or why the charges were so light or why the sentence was so lenient.
If only the government had held the inquiry about road law in 2014.
I hope the victim gets some financial compensation for this.
Clearly the driver doesn’t give a monkeys as he couldn’t be bothered to show up for the hearing. Seems daft that the only punishment is to ban him, when he clearly had no concern about driving illegally before. I suspect he's already back behind the wheel.
I wonder what would happen if I was to take say a fork-lift truck for example (a vehicle which I am not trained, licensed, insured or taxed to drive) and drive into a pedestrian on the open road, and caused life-changing but not fatal injuries?
Can you see the similarities in the circumstance? Can you imagine the difference in pumishment?
The list of offences he "should" have been sharged and convicted of is lengthy. . . and doesn't sound like he denied anything, so a conviction should be straightforward.
Reckless driving (Let's use the term that politicians this week suggested the current careless should be renamed as), Driving without a licence, driving while uninsured (insurance only covered them with a qualified driver), failure to display L-plates as a learner, failure to attend court (should class as contempt of court).
How sad!!! This is just unbelievable.
In all honesty, what difference would it have made if there was a qualified driver sitting next to him? Or an L-plate for that matter?
I really do not understand this driving when not fully qualified. If you are not qualified you do not drive, unless you are with a proper instructor in a driving lessons car!
Awful story, wish him well with moving forward from this.
I fail to understand why there is no mention of any further punishment. Cripple an innocent person using a car you’re not licensed to drive and only apparent punishment is to lose the license for 2 years.
No. That's so wrong. What should have happened, is that Fitzpatrick should never have been given a full licence to drive (I'm assuming he now has, otherwise what's the point of the ban?). If he was given a full licence, he should have had it withdrawn permanently.