Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Careless driver who left cyclist in coma fined £485

Victim calls for introduction of offence of ‘causing serious injury by careless driving’

A cyclist has called for a new ‘causing serious injury by careless driving’ offence to be introduced after the driver who left her in a coma was handed a £485 fine. Responding to the case, Cycling UK renewed its call for a wider review of traffic offences, warning of the possible unwanted side-effects of merely ‘bolting on new offences’.

Surrey Live reports that Louise Callaghan was left with a brain bleed, a fractured skull and breaks to her collarbone, scapula, elbow and pelvis after she was hit by Matthew McGahan while cycling in Woburn Hill, Addlestone in June 2018.

Her injuries were so serious that she was placed in a medically induced coma for four days and she says she is still suffering the after effects.

McGahan pleaded guilty to careless driving at Guildford Magistrates Court this week and was given a £485 fine and had seven points added to his driving licence. He was also ordered to pay a £47 victim surcharge and £85 in costs.

Callaghan said: "He should've been charged with causing serious injury by careless driving – but that offence doesn't exist, so the police had their hands tied.

"It seems quite a lenient punishment. The points are only on his licence for a finite amount of time, while I will be having physiotherapy for six months to a year or longer."

Callaghan’s MP, Dominic Raab, has contacted the minister of state for transport, Jesse Norman, about the possibility of introducing a new offence for incidents such as this.

In reply, Norman confirmed the government wants to create a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and said this would be brought forward "as soon as Parliamentary time allows."

However, Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, said that it wasn’t as simple as introducing a new offence to fill an apparent gap.

“Introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving sounds commons sense, but when the Government introduced a new offence of causing death by careless driving back in 2008, the number of prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving dropped by 46% in five years.

“Cases which could and should have been charged as dangerous were effectively downgraded to careless, and there’s a risk that this will happen again if we have a new serious injury by careless driving offence without a full review of our careless and dangerous driving laws.”

Dollimore said he expected that serious injury charges would often be downgraded from dangerous to careless because the lesser charge is easier to prove.

“Just bolting on new offences – whether it’s serious injury by careless driving or new careless and dangerous cycling offences, as the Government propose – won’t fix a broken framework for dealing with irresponsible behaviour on our roads. That’s what nearly 14,000 told the Government last year when they supported our campaign for a wider review of traffic offences, but four years on from the announcement that they’d do this, we’re still waiting.”

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.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 5 years ago
0 likes

Can Zwift and GTA just merge then drivers can get it out of their system before entering the real world.

Avatar
freetime101 | 5 years ago
0 likes

How is that not already a crime?!

Avatar
freetime101 | 5 years ago
2 likes

How is that not already a crime?!

Avatar
EK Spinner | 5 years ago
1 like

I must admit I am wary of charging based on the results of someones actions I think I prefer the actions themselves to be what the charges should relate to. I would however be happy for variations in punishment to take in to account the consquences of those actions.

A £485 fine and 7 points is too lenient for a careless driving charge that has resulted in serious injuries. 

Avatar
TedBarnes replied to EK Spinner | 5 years ago
1 like

EK Spinner wrote:

I must admit I am wary of charging based on the results of someones actions I think I prefer the actions themselves to be what the charges should relate to. I would however be happy for variations in punishment to take in to account the consquences of those actions.

A £485 fine and 7 points is too lenient for a careless driving charge that has resulted in serious injuries. 

At the moment though, we don't prosecute based on the actions and "what if" either - that's clear from all of our experience as well as all the near miss videos and Police not giving too hoots. 

So we have the worst of both worlds, where the few that actually are punished usually get very minor punishment as their transgression is not deemed serious enough (notwithstanding the injuries), those that could have caused serious injury usually get no punishment at all leaving a tiny minority getting severe punishment for the severe injuries they actually caused. 

Avatar
PRSboy | 5 years ago
5 likes

Indeed.  Seems absolutely no point in introducing yet more offences when the courts are incapable of delivering penalties that act as punishments, let alone deterrents.

 

Avatar
john1967 | 5 years ago
8 likes

We are supposed to be classed as vulnerable road users not fair game.When will this madness come to an end ???

Avatar
burtthebike replied to john1967 | 5 years ago
1 like

john1967 wrote:

We are supposed to be classed as vulnerable road users not fair game.When will this madness come to an end ???

When we start carrying guns and immediately retaliate for close passes, punishment passes and SMIDSYS?

Which might sound like a bit of a joke, but it isn't.  Massive prison sentences doesn't deter crime, what deters it is immediate, brutal retribution.  If you think that the next person you cut up is going to pull out a gun and shoot you, you're going to think twice.  If you think that the person you cut up might, and only might, report it to the police, and they might, and only might, send it to the CPS, and they might, and only might, send it to court, and the judge might, and only might, find you guilty and might fine you or might put points on your licence, you really don't give a f**k.

Can you ride a bike with a shouder holster?

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
2 likes

How about as an interim measure, and I do appreciate that these reviews take time, keeping the existing offences and their standards of evidence, but increasing the penalties or at least enforcing the current penalties at their maximum. Especially with respect to revocation of driving licence becoming the norm in the abscence of exceptional circumstances.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
0 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

How about as an interim measure, and I do appreciate that these reviews take time, keeping the existing offences and their standards of evidence, but increasing the penalties or at least enforcing the current penalties at their maximum. Especially with respect to revocation of driving licence becoming the norm in the abscence of exceptional circumstances.

Not a bad idea, but no-one ever gets the maximum penalty now, and trying to do that will bring down the wrath of the great god of driving.

Duncan Dollimore is right, and we need the complete review of road offences promised in 2014.

Avatar
the little onion | 5 years ago
8 likes

Aaargh, another driver who doesn't even get a ban, but a paltry number of points (and we know that, when it comes to deterring dangerous drivers, points mean f*** all).

 

It is absolutely right that the government is reminded once again of their failure to deliver the review promised in 2014. I also wonder what Matt Briggs has to say on the matter......

Latest Comments