A Bournemouth man appeared in court yesterday accused of wanton or furious cycling leading to grievous bodily harm.
According to the Bournmouth Echo, Philip Douglas Benwell, 38, is charged with colliding with a juvenile on Friday July 25, causing the victim life-threatening injuries.
Benwell is also facing a separate charge of causing grievous bodily harm during the incident.
Benwell spoke only to confirm his details. The victim – whose identity is protected by a court order – needed hospital treatment after the collision.
The case was adjourned until November 25, when Mr Benwell will enter a plea.
Wanton and furious cycling is the closest offence to dangerous driving that a cyclist can be charged with. It may sound slightly comical, but it’s usually used only in cases of serious injury or death caused by a cyclist’s actions.
The last conviction in the UK for a wanton and furious riding offence was that of Darren Hall, who was sentenced to seven months in jail after colliding with Ronald Turner in August 2008. Mr Turner later died of his injuries.
Mr Hall had been riding quickly down a hill in Weymouth when he went up on to the pavement on a blind bend to avoid a red traffic light.
Despite popular cycling mythology, a rider cannot be stopped for wanton and furious cycling. For the offence to kick in, an injury has to occur. In the wording of the The wording of Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948):
“Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”
A bike is considered a carriage under highways law.
[Comments have been deactivated for legal reasons.]
16 thoughts on “Man in court on ‘wanton and furious’ cycling charge”
Firstly, the laws need to
Firstly, the laws need to change, if we want equality on the roads, we need to have equal laws.
Secondly, ….. Ok I cant put what I want, but imagine lots of 4 letter words to describe this person
The irony of riders receiving
The irony of riders receiving longer sentences than drivers who kill.
northstar wrote:The irony of
I didn’t find it ironic, I fully expected it. You can kill a cyclist and get off scott free
northstar wrote:The irony of
I guess it is much more difficult to kill with a bicycle than with a car which sort of suggests that the level of negligence / disregard for human life displayed by the rider may in some circumstances be much higher and therefore a lot less excusable?
I wonder what the sentence
I wonder what the sentence for a cyclist killing a cyclist would be?
Curious about the GBH bit though. Assault on a passerby or is it related to the cycling offence?
mrmo wrote:I wonder what the
The legal system would implode, its a similar paradox dropping a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back!!!
“sentenced to seven months in
“sentenced to seven months in jail”
Not to belittle the loss of the family but in the face of convictions handed out to drivers for killing cyclists that is quite extreme. For a car driver to receive the same 7 month sentence he would have to be unlicensed, over the limit and have a child without a seatbelt sitting in the back.
Hopefully he’ll get something
Hopefully he’ll get something more than a small fine.
Could be the start in the change in the law who knows, but I’m not holding my breath ….
So, for someone controlling a
So, for someone controlling a conveyance of approximately 100kgs in such a way as to cause serious injury: 7 months at HM’s pleasure.
Someone controlling a conveyance or ~1500kgs in such a way as to kill a person forming part of a 100kg conveyance: on your way.
At teh end of the day he
At teh end of the day he tried to avoid a red, jumped onto the pavement and has seriously injured a child. Whilst i see the point you’ve all made re car drivers. It is slightly irrelevant. I don’t think anyone should apply the ‘well they get away with it’ argument in this situation. The fact that car drivers get ridiculously lienient sentences is for a different story IMO. I just hope the kid is ok.
md6 wrote:At teh end of the
I think, or I would like to think, everyone agrees that he should have the book thrown at him. Although I’m sure someone will wade in at some point and say “I can’t believe the comments on here, if it was a dr…blah blah blah”.
I think its people being a bit narked off that the legal system in this country leads with “this could have been you/your child” until the perpetrator is behind the wheel, then it tends to change it’s thinking to “It could have been you driving that car”.
yup I agree, I hope they
yup I agree, I hope they throw the book at him and I really hope the child makes a full recovery.
I just with I had the same level of protection under the law from drivers.
Isn’t there some kind of
Isn’t there some kind of legal argument here on equality grounds? Not excusing the cyclist here at all as he’s the sort that gives motorists their supposed justification for injuring us but why so heavy when he’d have probably gotten away with it had he been driving?
Just seems an endless situation of death & injury, which is entirely acceptable as long as you claim it was ‘a brief moment of inattention’ or some other guff and you cause that insult with a motorised carriage.
That recent trial of the doctor who overtook into space she couldn’t see into resulting in that young woman being killed resulted in her effectively being cleared. Her actions were not considered dangerous, neither even considered to be careless.
Given that driving a car (with a recognisable history of lethality) without being able to see where you’re going resulting in the death of an innocent seemingly isn’t a big deal just how can the bench justify a 7 month custodial for a statistically safer transport mode with no loss of life?
To scale to an equivalent this offence would surely warrant little more than a fine of maybe £40?
All the best to the young lad injured of course.
As the case has been
As the case has been adjourned there may be legal issues with people commenting in ways that might prejudice the trial when it gets underway. Any lawyers out there that can clarify?
Due where it’s due. Ride like
Due where it’s due. Ride like a loon and suffer the consequence.
HOWEVER drive a car no license, MOT, No insurance, banned with many previous convictions then run over a cycllist pi55ed up and get 200hours community service….JUSTICE!
Get well soon kiddy, I’m so sorry you got injured by a minority nutter.
If a driver deliberately
If a driver deliberately mounted the pavement and seriously injured a child they would be treated pretty harshly. We are adults and we are on the road, normal rules don’t apply on the road, on the pavement is totally different.