A 19-year-old driver has been handed 300 hours of community work and been banned from driving for two years after he hit and killed a cyclist near Spalding. Hadley Fisher admitted causing the death of Jason Ingle by careless driving on February 17 last year while attempting to pass him at around 60mph on a narrow road.
Lincolnshire Live reports that the incident occurred on Kellett Gate, a 4.8m wide road with a 60mph speed limit and no street lighting.
Fisher told police that Ingle had been on the right hand side of the road and said he had thought he was going to stay there. However, as he passed him, the cyclist moved across. Prosecuting, Ruth Snodin said “there was no way he could avoid him”.
A witness who heard the collision said that when he arrived on the scene, he saw Ingle lying in the road with his bike nearby and Fisher walking around with his head in his hands, wailing.
An off-duty paramedic attended and an ambulance arrived in five minutes, but Ingle was pronounced dead upon his arrival at hospital.
Mitigating, Daven Naghen said that Fisher had made a “misjudgement” and “should have slowed down more” when he saw the cyclist around 300 metres in front of him.
He said Fisher “wrongly assumed” that Ingle would remain on the right hand side of the road and had not adjusted his speed – estimated at 60 to 66mph – to take account of a vulnerable road user.
Ingle was not wearing a helmet. Naghen said: “We don’t know what difference it would have made.”
Fisher was said to be “inconsolable” over the incident and had given up a job that involved driving all over the country in favour of one where he only drove to his workplace.
Magistrates told Fisher he was “driving too fast for the road conditions, possibly due to your lack of experience,” but did recognise his admissions and the remorse he had expressed.
As well as the community order and driving ban, he was ordered to pay £170 in costs and charges.
31 thoughts on “Teenage driver who killed cyclist after “misjudgement” on narrow road handed community service”
Misjudgement my eye.
Misjudgement my eye.
The little twat was wilfully speeding and didn’t give two hoots in his big, fast, important car.
Another non-punishment from the powers that be.
If i cock up at work and someone is hurt or killed, I’ll likely face prosecution/jail and certainly lose my job and benefits.
Want to kill a person and get away with it?…Use a car. It’s only a motoring offence.
“Speed estimated at 60-66mph”
“Speed estimated at 60-66mph” . Yeah, pull the other one.
I’m almost tempted to get one
I’m almost tempted to get one of my old helmets and place it on the local dual carriageway just to see what it looks like after being hit by a car at 60mph.
How hard is it to drill into all new drivers. If you are unsure of a situation. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!
“Fisher told police that
“Fisher told police that Ingle had been on the right hand side of the road and said he had thought he was going to stay there. However, as he passed him, the cyclist moved across. “
Ah, the old “single witness suicide swerve”. In other words, a desparate lie to pin the blame on the victim, and not on the idiot who was driving. I can’t believe that judges and juries fall for this every time.
The sentence is an absolute joke. This killer driver will be legally allowed to drive again in just 24 months. Outrageous.
RIP Mr Ingle
Ingle was not wearing a
Ingle was not wearing a helmet. Naghen said: “We don’t know what difference it would have made.”
I dunno, how about eff all?
The incident appears to have been at 720 pm and he was arrested for dangerous driving.
Having looked at street view, using that road at 60 mph was reckless given the width and number of houses and small businesses.
hirsute wrote:
Usual thing: just because the speed limit is 60mph, doesn’t mean that it’s safe to drive at that speed under all circumstances.
(And I agree with the h**met comments on here : what possible protection would a cycle helmet provide against a motor car hitting you at 60 mph…?)
Hmm – Hadley Fisher from
Hmm – Hadley Fisher from Spalding, I wonder if he has a social media presence?
lllnorrislll wrote:
Well this seems to be relevant:
https://www.5day.co.uk/passes/hadley-fisher-spalding-lincs/
muhasib wrote:
Hardly – my mate passed his test on his 17th birthday and has never had points or an accident in 30 years of driving since.
But then he doesn’t drive like a dick down narrow country lanes
muhasib wrote:
I wonder how much time was spent teaching how to pass cyclists safely in this 5 day intensive course?
lllnorrislll wrote:
This may shed some light – looks like a bit of boy racer judging by some of the pics of sporty cars….
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009598939814&lst=1596496435%3A100009598939814%3A1548591539&sk=photos
climber wrote:
This may shed some light – looks like a bit of boy racer judging by some of the pics of sporty cars….
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009598939814&lst=1596496435%3A100009598939814%3A1548591539&sk=photos
— lllnorrislll
not sure if your facebook stalking accurate and pretty sure plenty of so called adults as well as impressionable teenss have similar activities….listed under apps and games:
https://www.crazygames.com/game/max-drift-x-car-drift-racing
The longer you drift for, the more points you accumulate – if you hit the sides or barriers however you points are lost.
court reporting always a bit vague but did the magistrate ask police what the top end of their speed estimate was rather than their this will stick in court number?
Like others, the killer’s
Like others, the killer’s description of the collision sounds like fiction to justify their appalling driving. Why would a cyclist have been on the right hand side of the road? Just not credible. Maybe move over a few feet to avoid a pothole, but far out enough for a driver to pass would have been completely on the wrong side in a road that wide. Unless there was a monster of a pothole, the driver was lying.
And as others have said, the implication that a helmet would have helped was crass and insulting.
On the same day, a cyclist who injured no-one but scared a horse and rider gets fined £936.
The review of road law announced in 2014 will surely sort out this disparity in sentencing.
burtthebike wrote:
It might ‘sound like a fiction to justify their appalling driving’ – however that is potentially wrong on two counts:
1. It is possible it is true.
2. In no way can it possibly justify their appalling driving. Seeing someone cycling in an unexpected and unconventional manner does not mitigate, it aggrevates surely.
There are plenty of possible reasons someone might legitimately drive or ride on the wrong side of the road. What I can believe is that someone travelling far over to the right, who hears a car approaching from behind at 66 mph, is liable to move left pretty quick, probably without looking behind them.
Also, whilst not absolutely forbidden, I think most people recognise that driving on such a road at the national speed limit is reckless – unless you can see that it is clear for a long distance. The presence of a cyclist, especially one on the wrong side of the road, would immediately be recognised as a hazard by most drivers.
I’m pretty convinced that
I’m pretty convinced that helmets are not car proof.
Before:
After (small family car at
After: Small family car at walking pace, let alone 60mph.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Obviously a fake picture.
It can’t be real if it doesn’t have a smiling cyclist/first responder/doctor and the caption “helmet saves cyclist from certain death.”
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
Try again…
If he’s up for it, I’d very much like to repeat the experiment with Daven Naghen wearing the test helmet to see what difference it might make.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Helmets are designed to reduce impacts and spread the impace area in a collison. No maker claims it will save you in a 60mph collision, but if you’re involved in a collision, it can very well reduce the severity of an impact of a head against the ground or a vehicle and reduce the severity of the injury.
Wearing a seatbelt won’t save you in ALL collisions, or prevent any inury, but in general it reduces the severity of injuries. If seatbelts won’t save you in all cases should we stop using them?
StuInNorway wrote:
Lose control of a car while not wearing a seatbelt and there’s a good chance you won’t be able to regain control. A seatbelt will at least restrain you, keep you from sliding out of the seat, giving you a chance to regain control – or at least mitigate the worst effects of a collision.
So no, we shouldn’t stop wearing seatbelts.
StuInNorway wrote:
You cannot compare seatbelts and bicycle helmets. Motorists get serious head injuries despite the use of seatbelts, and the use of a car helmet could save many lives. The problem is, that you cannot find and articel on a carcollision asking whether a motorist used a car helmet or not, this question is only asked when it comes to people who ride a bicycle. Asking weather a person used a bicycle helmet becomes even more grotesque when we know, that bicyclehelmets are only approved for speeds below 20 km / h.
StuInNorway wrote:
Yes. Since seatbelts became law driving standards have got worse, see also improved ‘safety ratings’, abs bakes, and on and on. The lesser the risk to the driver, the more risks they are preared to take, after all they will only kill the other road user!
So he was attempting to
So he was attempting to undertake the cyclist at 66mph? That’s not a mis-judgement that’s dangerous driving.
burtthebike wrote:
I might have missed something, either in this or the linked article, but isn’t the other explanation that Mr Ingle was travelling in the opposite direction, and so was on his left of the road?
Obviously that doesn’t really excuse the driving and the ridiculous risk that he was prepared to take with someone else’s life.
TedBarnes wrote:
Not totally conclusive, I’ll grant you, but the phrase “…..while attempting to pass him……” is unlikely to have been used if he was on the other side of the road. If the cyclist was travelling in the opposite direction, then the driver’s claim that he pulled over into his path would be even more inexplicable. No cyclist intentionally pulls in front of a car heading towards them at 60+mph.
TedBarnes wrote:
From the original article “While Fisher and Ingle were level and travelling in the same direction, there was a collision which resulted in Ingle’s death.”
So no, Mr Ingle wasn’t travelling in the opposite direction.
jh27 wrote:
I suspect that the road was so narrow (4.8 metres – that’s pretty narrow, isn’t it?) that Mr Ingle was treating it as a single lane (so that it didn’t matter where on the road he was riding).
It would appear that Mr Fisher was treating it as a motorway…
In the same issue of RoadCC,
In the same issue of RoadCC, there’s a story about a rider who was fined for hitting a horse while riding a triathlon. Is anyone else troubled by the fact that speeding and killing someone results in a sentence of “community service”, while hitting a horse results in a fine??
There’s something to be said
There’s something to be said for reducing the national speed limit to 40. I find it bizarre that many rural A roads now have reduced speed limits but the narrow lanes leading off them have national speed limit signs at the entrance. To idiots like this guy it must be like a green light to put their foot down! And how could anyone think it OK to pass a cyclist on that road even at 30mph.
On roads without white lines
On roads without white lines I’ll often move way over to the right to see around left hand bends – particularly if there are hedges (which doesn’t appear to be the case here).
If traffic is light I’ll ride primary on such roads, in order to stop drivers hooning past, to avoid potholes, and also give a bit of reaction time if something furry/feathery legs it out of the hedge (bloody pheasants)
Roughly two years ago he
Roughly two years ago he would have been taught this surely, section 125
You should always reduce your speed when:
the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists
weather conditions make it safer to do so
driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.
So he failed on two of those, let alone section 163, but yet again prosecution fails to get anywhere and judiciary don’t care.