A cyclist in Northern Ireland has been handed a suspended jail sentence under the “rarely used” offence of ‘furious driving’ after colliding with a woman walking her dog on a pavement, leaving her with severe injuries, including a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain.
Shane Coyle, 26, of Kingsmere Gardens in Derry, admitted the charge at Derry Crown Court this week. The incident took place on 14 August 2023 on the Belt Road in the Waterside area of the city.
The court heard that Coyle had been seen riding “extremely fast” downhill on the pavement before striking the pedestrian from behind, knocking her unconscious. She sustained a fractured skull, a blood clot on the brain, bleeding, and seven broken ribs. She was initially treated at Altnagelvin Hospital before being transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast for emergency surgery.
A passing motorist who witnessed the collision placed the woman in the recovery position and urged Coyle to call an ambulance. Both men remained at the scene until emergency services arrived.
> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face life sentences under proposed new ‘dangerous cycling’ law
Judge Neil Rafferty KC said the case was “a significant warning” to those who ride bikes on pavements about “what harm they could cause without intending to do so.”
He added: “This is my first time in almost 36 years of criminal practice that I have encountered the offence of furious driving. This is an offence which is known about but which is rarely used.”
The court heard that Coyle remained at the scene, accepted responsibility and had “demonstrated remorse” and “victim empathy”, the BBC reports. The judge added: “I am satisfied there were no aggravating factors other than he was cycling too fast on a pavement.”
Starting from a nine-month term reduced for an early guilty plea, Judge Rafferty imposed a six-month sentence suspended for two years.
Coyle’s sentencing is the latest case in which prosecutors have turned to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a piece of Victorian legislation that makes it an offence to cause bodily harm by “wanton or furious driving” of a carriage — a provision occasionally applied to cyclists.

In July 2024, Oxford University lecturer Edward Bressan was cleared by a jury after being accused under the same law of causing the death of 81-year-old Polly Friedhoff on a towpath in Oxford.
Bressan had estimated he was travelling at “probably 3mph” when he rang his bell and attempted to pass two women walking side by side, before colliding and knocking Mrs Friedhoff to the ground. She died in the hospital 12 days later. A witness said he believed Mrs Friedhoff lost her balance rather than being struck directly.
The jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict, though the case reignited debate over whether the UK should update its laws. Her sons, both cyclists themselves, argued that prosecutions should only come alongside safe cycling infrastructure, while her brother criticised the use of a 19th-century law written for horse-drawn carts.
A similar debate had followed the conviction of Norfolk rider David Tilley in 2020. Tilley admitted causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving after he rode the wrong way down a one-way street and struck 80-year-old Sally Coutya, who later died. He was sentenced to nine months in jail, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to carry out unpaid work.
That case itself came in the shadow of the 2017 conviction of London courier Charlie Alliston, who was jailed for 18 months after colliding with Kim Briggs while riding a bike with no front brakes. Alliston’s trial also shone a national spotlight on the use of the 1861 Act against cyclists, with Briggs’ widower Matthew campaigning for modern “dangerous cycling” offences to be introduced.
More recently, in September 2024, drunk cyclist Carwyn Thomas pleaded guilty to two counts of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving after ploughing into two women on a pavement in Nantwich, Cheshire, leaving one unconscious with broken teeth and an injury that later required the amputation of a finger. He received a 14-month sentence, suspended for two years.
His case was used by lawyer Nick Freeman, known as “Mr Loophole,” to argue for tougher cycling legislation and the introduction of mandatory bicycle number plates.

In April this year, the Department for Transport confirmed it was seeking to replace the 1861 offence with new criminal offences for cyclists under the government’s Crime and Policing Bill. The proposed legislation would allow life sentences for causing death by dangerous cycling, up to five years for causing serious injury, and lesser terms for causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling.
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander said the proposals would “update legislation that is over 160 years old,” while Matthew Briggs, who has long campaigned for such reforms, welcomed the move as “a victory for all the families who have worked tirelessly through their unbearable tragedies to have these laws changed.”
Critics, however, including former Olympic champion and Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman, argued the focus is misplaced. “This is such a tiny minority. More people are killed by lightning, or cows,” he said last year. “And that same thing [cycling] is joyous. It’s good for society.
“And we put the focus on this minuscule, negative thing. Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road. But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”




-1024x680.jpg)


















7 thoughts on “Cyclist sentenced for ‘furious driving’ offence after pavement crash leaves pedestrian with fractured skull”
Nick Freeman’s comments on
Whilst Nick Freeman can have his views, I wonder what his comments on the case about the lorry driver killing an 11 year old are… “crickets”
https://road.cc/content/news/no-jail-bin-lorry-driver-who-killed-11-year-old-cyclist-315543
Well, it sounds like justice
Well, it sounds like justice was somewhat served here – given that it seems he was at fault and the guy at least didn’t flee the scene or try to deny responsibility.
Wonder what they’d say about this driver who killed multiple people following had a “medical” episode – where it turns out he’d previous such incidents, including in a vehicle, and had actively lied about this and sought further driving work. Plus he was allegedly caught still driving after he’d had his licence revoked. No prison..
“But is this really the best
“But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”
Dunno Chris. When would be a good time? Perhaps you could discuss it with the people who got hit or their relatives? I’m sure they’d agree there are more important things to be talking about.
If you break the law you should be punished. I don’t care if it was a bike, car or pogo stick, if you injured or killed someone you should be held accountable.
Etc, etc
Etc, etc
You can also Google News “hit and run driver”. Perhaps the police caught up to some of these in the end, but hitting someone then using your speed to disappear is an option for drivers that isn’t available to cyclists. It happens so much that people just shrug it off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5vyqmj7pjo
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-hit-run-driver-hunted-31937012
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-hunt-selly-oak-hit-30889753
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/hunt-driver-man-died-hit-30969943
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hit-run-driver-being-hunted-34606876
https://news.sky.com/story/hunt-for-driver-after-woman-70-killed-in-hit-and-run-on-new-years-eve-in-paisley-13282306
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5vyqmj7pjo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgq4502k82o
StevenCrook wrote:
The point is that people are held accountable in the tiny number of cases where cyclists kill and injure others, as this case shows. What Chris is talking about is specifically the amount of time that will be spent on drafting, proposing, amending and passing into law legislation to deal with the minuscule amount of cases when there are so many much more important things for government to address in these absurdly chaotic times. Even within the narrow confines of road legislation, dealing with issues such as lowering the drink drive limit, increasing penalties for mobile use when driving, raising minimum sentences so we don’t get some of the joke sentences for killing cyclists that are reported every week on here, introducing lower speed limits et cetera et cetera are all more important than passing legislation to punish cyclists and would have a far greater effect on reducing fatalities and injuries. The government’s plans are simply a populist measure to address the perceived, rather than real, threat from cyclists that do not justify the disproportionate amount of finite legislative time available it will take to pass them.
Amen. In fact … drafting
Amen. In fact … drafting all the legislation in the world / death penalty for turnip-stealing will make little difference (as I think you’ve noted before) without:
a) Detection / enforcement. There has to be a good chance of being detected – especially where the penalty includes a driving ban. Plenty of debate as to why it’s not happening … *
b) The system shouldn’t have feedback making the offenses more likely to happen. But that is the case for “careless road use”.
The UK has “the roads are unpleasant to be on / driving is dangerous” and “deliberately mixing different modes of vulnerable road users in the scraps of space left over from motoring provision”. That is likely to produce more collisions between vulnerable road users. (I believe most are mobility vehicle / pedestrian – it’s partly a numbers game).
But the biggest issue in ensuring a steady supply of serious crashes is that the system is set up to ensure that most people get to drive – via only training/test once per lifetime. And it makes driving a natural choice – it is very easy and convenient.
* “The police hate cyclists” – maybe, some will; I bet most of this is explained by motornormativity / police all drive / few cyclists. “But we have more police than ever” – but fewer per head of population. “They’re spending all their time policing the internet” – perhaps? “Courts require higher standards / more technical evidence / there’s just more paperwork” – no doubt.
StevenCrook wrote:
Funny how you’re not all over the adjacent article about the negligent bin lorry driver who killed a child yet receives a light slap on the wrist.
Perhaps you’d like to get a speed camera and see how the vast majority of drivers break the law with impunity. Close passes. Dangerous overtakes on double white lines… the degree to which many drivers flout the law puts everyone at risk.
But I suspect that you’re just another cyclist-hating troll.