A professional footballer has been sentenced to 14 months in prison and banned from driving for two years for killing a 33-year-old cyclist after failing to give way at a junction.
Last month, Lucas Akins, who currently plays for League One club Mansfield Town, admitted causing the death of Adrian Daniel by careless or inconsiderate driving.
Akins, who has also played for Huddersfield Town, Burton Albion, and various other professional clubs in England and Scotland, struck the cyclist on Huddersfield Road in the village of Netherton on 17 March 2022, leaving him with a serious head injury. Mr Daniel was treated by paramedics and rushed to hospital but died ten days later.
This week, Leeds Crown Court heard that Akins, driving a Mercedes G350, was taking his young daughter, along with his seven-month-old baby, to a piano class when he approached the junction at Huddersfield Road, failing to give way before pulling out and striking Mr Daniel.
“Traffic is obliged to give way at Huddersfield Road, which is what the defendant should have done,” prosecutor Carmel Pearson told the court.
“He intended to turn right into Huddersfield Road, the defendant didn’t give way at a Give Way sign. There is no stop sign or white line at that junction but there is an obligation to give way.
“The defendant on the footage, albeit was driving slowly, pulled out at the give way junction and struck Adrian Daniel. It was too late for Adrian Daniel to brake and he suffered a catastrophic head injury.”
Pearson added that Akins had knowledge of the road so should have known that he was required to give way at the junction. During his police interview, the 36-year-old Mansfield Town player claimed that he had not seen the cyclist before the collision.
Sentencing him to 14 months in prison and banning him from driving for two years, Judge Alexander Menary told Akins: “You failed to see Mr Daniel and you drove into collision with him. The impact was devastating and he was thrown from his bicycle.
“It was apparent to the emergency workers that he had sustained grave injuries.”
Speaking in court this week, the cyclist’s wife, Savanna Daniel, said that her life “changed forever” when her husband was killed.
She said she was alerted to the collision by her husband’s bike computer, and was able to reach the scene before Mr Daniel was taken to hospital.
“I was told the adrenaline junkie I knew and loved wasn’t coming back,” she said, reflecting on Mr Daniel’s death 10 days later on 27 April.
“Since that day, it has been like hell and a nightmare I’m not waking up from. I know it has happened, I’m not living in a fairytale, but it was avoidable. I was unable to talk about Adrian without falling apart.
“I was angry with him for leaving us, I was angry because there was no reason for Adrian to leave us that day. This was too simple a collision to take his life.”
Footballer Akins, who has made four international appearances for Grenada, joined Mansfield Town in January 2022 after eight years with Burton Albion.
The Huddersfield-born forward has made 49 appearances for the League One side this season, scoring 14 goals, and most recently played for the team in their 5-1 defeat to Reading on Monday 21 April, just three days before his sentencing.
After being questioned about Akins’ continued presence in the side following his guilty plea, Mansfield manager Nigel Clough refused to comment.
“We’ve known about it for some time, it’s not just happened, but we’re not in a position to comment,” Clough said following last month’s 0-0 draw with Wigan, which took place just hours after Akins’ guilty plea.
This afternoon, Mansfield Town said in a statement that it was “considering its position” in the wake of their forward’s sentencing.
“Mansfield Town Football Club acknowledges today’s decision by Leeds Crown Court concerning Lucas Akins following a tragic road traffic accident in March 2022,” a spokesperson said.
“Mansfield Town Football Club offers its sincere and deepest condolences to the family of Adrian Daniel at this difficult time.
“The club is considering its position with regards to Lucas and will be making no further comment at this stage.”
109 thoughts on “Professional footballer jailed for 14 months for killing cyclist in “avoidable” crash after failing to give way at junction”
I am wondering what possible
I am wondering what possible benefit taking away this man’s livelihood would be on top of a prison sentence.
He admitted guilt. It was careless and the consequences were horrific. He’s been sentenced according to the law. Should he be jobless for the rest of his life? Being guilty of carelesss driving is not something that makes him a danger on a football pitch.
There should be penalities for crime, but also rehabilitation.
Who says he has to be jobless
Who says he has to be jobless for the rest of his life? Professional footballing is a fickle industry in which to earn a livelihood, and could be cut short by injury at any moment. Any professional sportsperson should be prepared for that fact, and have contingencies in mind.
In this case the injury wasn’t his own.
Feels like this came up only
Feels like this came up only a few months back, but google Luke McCormick.
Agreed, but are there may/any
Agreed, but are there many/any employers who would keep a job open whilst an employee did a fourteen-month stretch? If when he gets out there’s still room for him at the club, or another club, fine, he certainly shouldn’t be banned from football for life (in my opinion, if he was drink/drug driving or guilty of a crime like rape I’d say different) and I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that, just his current employers are considering their options. Depending on his contract conditions they might be in a position where if they don’t terminate his employment they would have to carry on paying his salary whilst he was in prison, which would clearly be damaging from both a PR and financial standpoint.
The article makes quite clear
The article makes quite clear that the club was being pressured to take him off the side as soon as he made the guilty plea.
At 36 y.o. he probably has a pretty limited number of years left playing professionally in any case.
Yes injuries can end careers, but that is different to choosing to end someone’s career, and that is the whole point.
Once you start taking away people’s livelihoods on top of their punishment in law, you do effectively sentence them to additional punishment. Rape and drink driving are both deliberate acts, and that is fundamentally different..
But where do you draw the line? What are acceptable jobs for him to hold once he finishes his sentence? Who is the arbiter of that? How long afterwards should he be a pariah as far as playing professional football is concerned?
There are certain crimes where the punishment should just be the punishment. The focus should be on ensuring that penalty is appropriate and is consistently applied, rather than seeking additional arbitrary ways to levy further punishment according to the level of public awareness of the case.
He killed through
He killed through irresponsible use of a vehicle. A life driving ban should be imposed on him.
Other transport modes are available when he gets released. He presumably likes to keep fit. Maybe he could cycle places rather than drive a military spec vehicle.
Velo-drone wrote:
He admitted guilt for taking away another man’s __life__, not livelihood.
Had the defendant selected any other weapon with which to kill the victim, he’d be facing up to life in prison for manslaughter — which is an appropriate consequence for killing another person.
And, to answer your specific question, the benefit from imprisoning killers for the rest of their life is both to assure that they do not kill anyone else, and to provide a disincentive for other individuals to commit the same crime.
Has he, in fact, been sentenced according to the law?
Had the defendant chosen instead to rob the victim, he’d be facing a prison sentence approximately three times longer than the one he received — for killing him.
Your issue is clearly with
Your issue is clearly with the law.
There are obvious and well understood reasons for treating someone who kills in the course of a deliberate act of reckless violence differently than one who accidentally kills someone through careless use of machinery or such.
You seen to want penalities for manslaughter to be identical to those for murder. You are entitled to that view, but your focus should be on getting the law changed to reflect that, not arbitrarily pursuing individuals to try to weak as much damage as you can over and above the punishment in law
Velo-drone wrote:
No, the laws on such topics are generally fine. In this specific case, the law provides for punishment up to and including life in prison.
The problem is that the many people who are handsomely paid to enforce those laws are in criminal dereliction of their duty, and refusing to do so. And this results in thousands of annual deaths.
The perpetrator in this case made an intentional decision to ignore the law — it was specifically observed that the killer was familiar with road in question, and was aware of his duties on it — and that resulted in the death of another human.
That is a deliberate act of reckless violence, and such is punishable by life in prison.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the relevant law. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is already the same as it is for murder.
Perhaps you should focus on becoming familiar with the topic.
dh700 wrote:
I’d disagree with this. From what I have read, the perpertrator failed to give way, claiming that he didn’t see the cyclist. Unless there is evidence to support otherwise that is neglect, not a deliberate, or intentional, act.
tootsie323 wrote:
Those were indeed the facts in this case. I would suggest they did however make a *choice* which was to drive. However that isn’t seen as a choice at all in the UK! That’s because we have not provided convenient alternatives to driving in most places. And rarely made cycling feel safe if you were taking young children with you.
tootsie323 wrote:
The court specifically observed precisely that which you are asking for — that the perpetrator was familiar with road in question and was aware of their responsibility to yield, and that they made the intentional decision not to do so.
“Disagree” with the court, all you like, but you are incorrect.
And it’s still manslaughter, either way.
dh700 wrote:
No, it doesn’t. In this specific case the defendant was charged with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, the maximum penalty for which is five years in prison. Perhaps you should focus on becoming familiar with the topic.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And Harris tries again… with the predictable result of utter failure.
The law actually calls the crime that was committed here, manslaughter, and that is precisely punishable by life in prison. That the prosecutor neglected to charge the perpetrator with the correct crime is exactly my point.
Before attempting to get pithy, explain how manslaughter was not committed in this instance. Since I’m sure that you are unaware, here is the definition of same;
dh700 wrote:
Would you two just get a room already?
mdavidford wrote:
Would you two just get a room already?— dh700
Take your complaint up with the other party, who is irrationally compelled to attempt to argue with me on each thread, despite having found no success in that endeavor yet.
https://wondermark.com/c/1062
This is getting familiar… https://wondermark.com/c/1062/
It’ll be a game of first to “you’re following me around the internet” next…
Oh, our American friend got
Oh, our American friend got to that point long, long ago.
chrisonabike wrote:
If you pay attention, you may notice which individual is doing the following — and it isn’t me.
dh700 wrote:
It’ll be a game of first to “you’re following me around the internet” next…
— dh700 If you pay attention, you may notice which individual is doing the following — and it isn’t me.— chrisonabike
When you’re always going round in circles, who’s sniffing who is a bit of a moot point.
mdavidford wrote:
We’re not going in circles — again, paying attention before commenting may help you.
Your guy follows me around and unsuccessfully attempts to argue with me on every thread here. It’s always the same person initiating the argument, and always that same person being forced to subsequently tuck tail and run off.
If you don’t want to see that continually repeated, lobby Harris to give up.
dh700 wrote:
Oh, Rendel’s not mine, if that’s your concern. Don’t know where you got that idea – never even been a frisson between us.
So go on – be brave – own your feelings, and move past this fight-flirting stage.
mdavidford wrote:
Well I can’t pretend I’m not hurt, MDF…
Gosh – are we now at “Watopia
Gosh – are we now at “Watopia, at dawn”? 😮
More to the point – where exactly does UK law stand on virtual cycle duels? And where are they safest for cyclists? Which virtual frame materials offer the smoothest ride – or is it all in the simulated tyre pressures?
mdavidford wrote:
You can disown him now, if you like, but when you chose to attack me and not him — despite him clearly being the one with the problem(s) here — you betrayed your alliance.
dh700 wrote:
Ah – I think we’ve finally got to the root of the issue – you’ve confused ‘replying to’ with ‘attacking’. It must be very tiring living your whole life like that – seeing every interaction as a threat. But I’ve got good news – discussion isn’t a competition that you have to ‘win’, and not everybody’s out to get you – at least, not until you alienate them all by ‘getting your retaliation in first’. If you try to keep that in mind, it can make it a much nicer experience.
Perhaps they’ve spent too
Perhaps they’ve spent too much time cycling in hostile environments? That’s probably sensitising… Luckily cycling to America is more relaxing now!
dh700 wrote:
One is irresistibly reminded of the game of pigeon chess…
dh700 wrote:
UK law does not call the crime that was committed in this case manslaughter, it calls it causing death by careless driving, in more severe cases causing death by dangerous driving. Even by your own standards of narcissistic egotism an American with, presumably, no legal qualifications even in his own country telling the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK that he knows better than they what charge should have been laid under UK law is extraordinary. Traffic offences that cause death that do not have any aggravating factors above and beyond the offence itself are never charged as manslaughter in the UK and if this case had been it would’ve had no chance whatsoever of succeeding in court.
See the CPS guidelines on charging death by driving as manslaughter:
Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved: R v Governor of Holloway Ex P Jennings [1983] 1 A.C. 624. This will normally be evidence to show a very high degree of negligence, making the case one of the utmost gravity.
The President of the Queen’s Bench Division stated in R v Clayton Williams [2017] EWCA Crim 305: “It is clear that killing another person on the road can be the result of conduct which, in terms of culpability, lies above that contained within the definition of causing death by dangerous driving but short of establishing the intention required for murder. It is in that space that is found the crime of manslaughter. On the authorities, the risk of death involved in such an offence must be very high…”
If this offence is charged, prosecutors should be clear about how the standard of driving fell far below even those examples of dangerous driving above.
Driving over a give way line without stopping and without observing properly, as in this case, in no way meets the standard required as detailed above for manslaughter.
Come on Rendel – we all know
Come on Rendel – we all know that like e.g. official Japanese traffic statistics or (insert country here apart from US) cycling numbers none of these organisations is telling the truth. They’re all motivated to try to make their country look better / cover their own backsides. The CPS / UK Sentencing council are clearly no different and what e.g. they’ve posted officially online is not to be trusted.
Nor are the pronouncements or decisions of the UK legal system in general. They could charge this as manslaughter – or even murder – so why didn’t they?
But despite all this, the only proven way to improve cyclist safety * is to rely on the police and courts (have I got this right?).
* Presumably regardless of whether any cyclists are actually still cycling outside of parks or Zwift.
Rendel Harris wrote:
UK law does not call the crime that was committed in this case manslaughter, it calls it causing death by careless driving, in more severe cases causing death by dangerous driving. Even by your own standards of narcissistic egotism an American with, presumably, no legal qualifications even in his own country telling the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK that he knows better than they what charge should have been laid under UK law is extraordinary. Traffic offences that cause death that do not have any aggravating factors above and beyond the offence itself are never charged as manslaughter in the UK and if this case had been it would’ve had no chance whatsoever of succeeding in court.
See the CPS guidelines on charging death by driving as manslaughter:
Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved: R v Governor of Holloway Ex P Jennings [1983] 1 A.C. 624. This will normally be evidence to show a very high degree of negligence, making the case one of the utmost gravity.
The President of the Queen’s Bench Division stated in R v Clayton Williams [2017] EWCA Crim 305: “It is clear that killing another person on the road can be the result of conduct which, in terms of culpability, lies above that contained within the definition of causing death by dangerous driving but short of establishing the intention required for murder. It is in that space that is found the crime of manslaughter. On the authorities, the risk of death involved in such an offence must be very high…”
If this offence is charged, prosecutors should be clear about how the standard of driving fell far below even those examples of dangerous driving above.
Driving over a give way line without stopping and without observing properly, as in this case, in no way meets the standard required as detailed above for manslaughter.— dh700
“Sentencing guidelines” are not law.
The law calls this crime manslaughter.
As I said, the fact that criminally indolent prosecutors refuse to follow the law, is the problem.
You are confusing the prosecutors’ own statements — which amount to “We cannot be arsed to pursue manslaughter charges in most cases, as that’d be hard work” — with “law”, and they are not the same thing.
Except you aren’t a lawyer
Except you aren’t a lawyer and have not read any case law for a country you don’t even live in.
It quite easy to cherry pickle paragraphs to make assertions but rather harder to have a comprehensive grasp of the subject required to form a valid opinion.
Hirsute wrote:
Mmm… (apologies, I was hungry before I reached the end of the sentence)
Hirsute wrote:
Rather than pathetically attack the messenger, just explain how exactly manslaughter was not committed in this instance.
I already helpfully posted the necessary information for your convenience.
If you cannot do so, that puts paid to your complaints about my position.
And for the record, you have no idea what case law I have read, or not, nor what my qualifications might be. Which is a very good reason to skip the ad hominem angle you chose, and instead attempt to discuss the point.
“I already helpfully posted
“I already helpfully posted the necessary information for your convenience”
If you think you have done that, then that just demonstrates you don’t understand the subject at hand.
Hirsute wrote:
Again — attempt to address the point.
Or, if you cannot — which seems brutally clear at this point — continually resort to attacking the messenger, and thereby confirming that your position is hopelessly lost.
Those are not sentencing
Those are not sentencing guidelines, genius, they are charging guidelines and they follow the applicable UK law which is that in the absence of aggravating factors which place an offence above the standards for causing death by careless or dangerous driving then a charge of manslaughter shall not be laid. It is not the prosecutors saying they “can’t be arsed” to charge manslaughter, there are specific criminal offences, in law, of causing death by careless driving and of causing death by dangerous driving, and manslaughter charges for killing someone when driving a car can only be considered if the offender has exceeded the criteria for either of those charges. I really suggest that you either familiarise yourself with UK law or refrain from commenting upon it as your ignorance is making you look extremely foolish.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Are guidelines law? No.
Are guidelines written by anyone but legislators law? No.
Are guidelines not passed by Parliament law? No.
So you say. Please cite where in your law it says that manslaughter does not apply if the weapon of choice is a motor vehicle.
That is not how criminal charges work, anywhere. A defendant is not charged with the lowest possible crime. If that were so, a murderer would be charged with assault because they also committed that lower level crime.
Still waiting for anyone to propose any sort of rational explanation how this perpetrator did not commit manslaughter, per extant UK law.
I suspect I will wait a long time, while you all get your jollies off attacking the messenger, instead of recognizing the problem.
Which “looks extremely foolish”.
dh700 wrote:
Because the law in the UK is that if you kill someone in an incident with a motor vehicle you will be charged under the Road Traffic Act 1988 with causing death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving (the latter of which now carries the same penalties as manslaughter, up to life imprisonment). Manslaughter is only charged if your actions exceed the criteria for dangerous driving, e.g. if you killed someone whilst trying to intimidate them with your vehicle. That is the law in the UK, however much you repeat that you believe it should be charged as manslaughter that doesn’t change our laws. This has been explained to you as simply and clearly as possible, if you still don’t understand just accept that you don’t understand our law rather than continually repeating the same thing and insulting everyone who has tried to explain it to you.
Rendel Harris wrote:
See below comment for what your prosecutors actually say about their willingness to do their job.
Also, just FYI… “n Seymour [1983] 2 A.C. 493, the House of Lords held that the prosecution may charge both manslaughter and a statutory offence (at the time, causing death by reckless driving; now, causing death by dangerous driving) but where both counts appear on an indictment “it must behove the trial judge to require the prosecution to elect upon which of the two counts in the indictment they wish to proceed and not to allow the trial to proceed upon both counts.” In such cases the prosecution, having determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for an offence of manslaughter, should proceed on that charge. Conviction on alternative offences, including death by dangerous driving, is available by virtue of section 33 Road Safety Act 2006.”
So basically, it often requires too much work to charge manslaughter, so indolent prosecutors typically take the easy way out.
dh700 wrote:
In the UK common law system, the law comprises both statute law and the body of case law decided by the courts. So where the CPS charging guidance refers to the case of R v Clayton Williams, viz that manslaughter has a higher degree of culpability than death by dangerous driving, that *is* law. It’s therefore not a matter of the CPS not being bothered to pursue it; they can only pursue prosecutions in the public interest, which precludes bringing a charge with no prospect of conviction.
quiff wrote:
You are confusing “case law” with “charging guidelines”. Those are not the same thing, and the latter is not “law”.
That said — “The President of the Queen’s Bench Division stated in R v Clayton Williams [2017] EWCA Crim 305: “It is clear that killing another person on the road can be the result of conduct which, in terms of culpability, lies above that contained within the definition of causing death by dangerous driving but short of establishing the intention required for murder. It is in that space that is found the crime of manslaughter. On the authorities, the risk of death involved in such an offence must be very high…”
And “In cases where a death has occurred because of the manner of driving, and it is clear from the available evidence that the standard of driving has been grossly negligent on the part of the driver who owes a duty of care to other road users, a charge of gross negligence manslaughter may be the correct charge. “
But the, prosecutors realize that such statements will require them to actually work hard on a regular basis — around 1500 cases annually — and they decide that they cannot be arsed to work that hard that often… so “Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved: R v Governor of Holloway Ex P Jennings [1983] 1 A.C. 624. This will normally be evidence to show a very high degree of negligence, making the case one of the utmost gravity.”
Does anyone want to bet on whether or not this victim’s family considers this case to be “of the utmost gravity”?
In fact, I bet we will have to look long and hard to find one victim’s family who would not consider their loved-one’s death by manslaughter to be “of the utmost gravity”?
Why, exactly, do you support your prosecutors’ labelling most deaths as unworthy of their concern or time? I bet they get paid to do their job all the time, not just on the rare occasions when they feel like it.
dh700 wrote:
Oh dear lord. This really should not need explaining but it clearly does: “utmost gravity” refers to the events that led to the outcome of the victim’s death, not the death itself. Clearly if you paused to think for one moment before rushing to your keyboard to spew another load of solipsistic nonsense you would be able to see that neither prosecutors nor judges would say that anyone’s death is not “of utmost gravity”.
Once again, for a charge of manslaughter to be upheld the offence has to include elements that surpass the criteria for causing death by careless or dangerous driving. As the judge said in their sentencing remarks, helpfully shared by Bungle_52, the driver’s actions fall into culpability Level B for death by careless driving, so not even approaching a culpability level that would uphold a death by dangerous driving charge, let alone manslaughter.
If a charge of manslaughter had been brought in this case it would undoubtedly have failed and the perpetrator would have been discharged without any penalty and permitted to continue driving. How do you think the victim’s family would feel about that?
You have completely failed to understand how UK law works in such cases. Does it ever occur to you to consider that when every single person (nearly all of them British and with far more familiarity with UK road law than yourself) on these boards disagrees with you, there’s just a chance that you might be wrong? Rhetorical question, of course you don’t. Your cast-iron narcissistic egotism wouldn’t allow that for a moment.
Now go ahead, repeat all your errors over and over and then claim that you’ve won the argument. It’s the formula that appears to salve the desperate and bizarre little cravings for attention that you clearly can’t get in your daily life you have, and it gives everyone else a good laugh.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The conclusion that prosecutors and judges often find deaths to be “not of utmost gravity” is self-evident, and supported, in fact, by the example discussed on page 2 of these comments, in which a female defendant was barely punished at all for committing manslaughter.
Many such cases are treated — by both prosecutors and judges — as unimportant, and unworthy of their time or effort. The judicial branch often considers it sufficient to simply warn the killer not to do that again.
That is not how one responds to a situation of “utmost gravity”.
Which again ignores the several other crimes that this defendant committed but was not charged with — due to the indolence of the prosecutors.
This defendant committed manslaughter, as it is defined. There exists an array of supporting case law — R v Creamer, R v Caldwell, R v Bateman, R v Lawrence, among others. In point of fact, the entire reason why “death by driving” offenses exist is that prosecutors were sufficiently lazy that they could not obtain convictions on manslaughter charges, even when those cases were slam dunks, like this one. So, rather than work hard, prosecutors sought and received a short cut — because they do not consider dead civilians to be “of utmost gravity”, as previously discussed.
This defendant also committed assault with grievous bodily harm — for which they’d have faced vastly more serious punishment than that which they received. This too went uncharged — why, precisely?
There can be no serious defense that this case does not represent manslaughter, as defined in UK law. Any prosecutor who is unable or unwilling to make that case is the problem — as I’ve already explained.
No, I understand that it doesn’t work. Again, explain why, per your specious theories above, murderers are not simply charged with assault. That’d be much easier to convict on, and it was committed. That’s exactly analogous to indolent prosecutors charging killers with low-level driving offenses instead of pursuing the appropriate charge.
There is always the chance — remote though it may be — that I will someday be wrong. But I am not in this case, and that is made quite obvious by all those alleged UK law experts being forced to resort to ad hominem attacks, or, at best, the exceedingly dubious suggestion that ‘the way it has always been done’ is necessarily correct.
If that were the case, there’d be no need to ever amend a law. And hopefully, you and your fellow legal scholars are aware that laws are amended regularly. In most cases, that happens because people realize that ‘the way it has always been done’ is wrong.
Or, how about you explain why manslaughter was not comitted in this case.
You’ve tried to explain it away by claiming that a lower-level offense supercedes manslaughter, but that doesn’t hold any water, as evidenced by the murder/assault example. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, and it is the higher-level offense that supercedes the lower.
If none of the collected legal scholars here can even attempt to explain why this case does not represent an example of manslaughter, then shouldn’t a competent prosecutor be able to make that case to a jury?
Obviously a tragic event and
Obviously a tragic event and I wouldn’t wish to diminish the devestation caused to his friends and family. However the defendant has been very unlucky with the sentencing, becasue as we often see, a white, middle class offender, pleading not guilty, but convicted, would have got a suspended sentence for this.
The punishment probably reflects the crime, but one has to question why so many motorists, of a given demographic, get away lightly, with not guilty decisions and suspended sentences, but those of colour or with “foreign” sounding names often appear not to.
In 2020, the Sentencing Council’s data indicates that approximately 120 offenders were sentenced for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving in England and Wales. Of these, 31% received immediate custodial sentences, while 39% received suspended sentences, 25% community sentences, and the remaining 5% were fined or otherwise dealt with.
It is desperately sad that an
It is desperately sad that an appropriate sentencing for a crime is noteworthy, and a bit concerning as to why it’s an exception rather than the norm.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
That is my point really.
Hmm. Is there any data on the
Hmm. Is there any data on the ethnicity of those 120 offenders? Because the data generally indicates that of defendants convicted of offences that can receive a prison sentence, 37% of Asian ethnicity do, 35% of Black ethnicity do, 34% of mixed race do, and 33% of white ethnicity do – not enormously statistically significant (very different to previous decades where it was a scandalous 29% white, 52% BAME split). Unless the percentages for driving offences are very different I’m not sure your assertion holds true.
It requires an FOI request to
It requires an FOI request to obtain the specific data on this offence. That is why I state, “as we often see”, i.e. the impression I have from reports such as these on Road.CC is there is a disparity. I’d be interested to know where you sourced your statsitics from as it is generally accepted that a disparity in entencing, based on ethnicity, still exists. That is why there has been such furore over the proposed changes to the processes around sentencing that have recently been proposed.
Legin wrote:
I took the figures from the Institute of Race Relations, “Criminal Justice System Statistics”:
Black, Asian and minority ethnic people were more likely than white people to be sentenced to immediate custody for offences which can be tried in the Crown Court (indictable offences). In 2018, according to government statistics, 37% of Asian and Chinese people convicted for indictable offences were sentenced to immediate custody, compared to 35% of black people, 34% of those from a mixed ethnic background and 33% of white people.
It certainly is true that there are disparities in sentencing with people from ethnic minorities receiving, on average, longer prison terms for the same offences, and there are also disparities in the way in which the CPS decides to dispose of offences, with more people from ethnic minorities being brought to court for the same type of offences as opposed to being given warnings or other forms of disposal than white people, but it would appear that there is not a huge disparity between races in terms of the proportion of those who actually get taken to court and tried for imprisonable offences who are actually incarcerated.
Thanks.
Thanks.
The suggestion in the BBC
The suggestion in the BBC article was that at least part of the reason he ended up in jail was his refusal to admit guilt until far too late in the process despite his apparent remorse and acceptance of guilt (I assume when he realised he wasn’t going to get away with it).
I wonder if he left his
I wonder if he left his guilty plee to the last minute in the hope that he could finish the season.
Anyone that says that they didn’t see a cyclist has surely, by default, admitted to careless driving.
Noted that for a careless act
Noted that for a careless act resulting in death he’s got 4 months less than someone who deliberately ran a cyclist down with a Land Rover resulting in very serious injuries (attempted murder), that was sentenced 3 years ago, has sentencing improved or is this down to the other factors Legin has noted?
I’m very much reliant on what
I’m very much reliant on what gets reported on sites like this, but it does seem that sentencing is lighter if the defendant is someone the judge/magistrate can identify with. There will always be factors that are not fully covered in news summaries, and issues around the attitude of the defendant, and at what point they plead guilty is rightly relevant to sentencing.
Unconscious bias is real, but as well as race (which is still too often a factor), it could include things like the profession of the defendant. Footballers don’t have the best reputation, so that could count against him. As could having a very expensive vehicle that is far too big and heavy for the purposes of ferrying kids to music lessons.
Young, white pretty female
Young, white pretty female
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/romney-marsh/news/driver-avoids-jail-after-admitting-causing-cyclists-death-184267/
The prosecutor said Mr Durey, who was cycling at 22mph in the correct lane, would have been visible to the driver for at least 45 seconds prior to the crash.
Young, white pretty female
Young, white pretty female
You reminded me of this woman, who lied initially, but then on the advice of Shyster Lawyer QC went into Full-Killer-As-Victim mode and claimed ‘bad dreams’ as evidence of her ‘genuine remorsefulness’. I especially enjoyed the I felt the lorry and car in front of me were moving slowly and I wanted to overtake them- a justification for reckless overtaking which Mercedes, Audi and BMW drivers everywhere would love to quote as mitigation
Like you I rely on sites like
Like you I rely on sites like this to highlight these cases. I do find it a little wearing that when I see a headline saying “Driver jailed” my initial thought is they’ll be a person of colour or have a foreign sounding name. And blow me I’m usually not dissapointed, not every time, but usually.
I’d like to think that the
I’d like to think that the sentence reflects his choice of vehicle. Ie the hierarchy states that the lager the vehicle the greater the responsibility. However, if that was genuinely true I’m sure the judge would have mentioned it.
Case in point – practically
Case in point – practically identical situation. Pled guilty yo dangerous driving (a more serious offense).
Suspended sentence.
What do you suppose drove the difference in treatment?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14648507/Dentist-40-told-father-dying-hands-free-call-just-moments-ploughed-cyclist.html
Stinks doesn’t it? What the
Stinks doesn’t it? What the judge probably meant was. “the judge said that he was able to suspend the prison term because of Collins’ ‘genuine remorse’ and the fact she is white, upper middle class and in a profession that is of a calibre similar to my own”. Oh… and she is called Lucinda, clearly heading for the aristocracy and you don’t want social mobility impacted by a prison sentence.
Legin wrote:
As I always say mandatory sentencing and strict court guideline makes sense for every traffic offense. No need for jury trial – if the fact meets the bar (and for me, if the motor vehicle cannot claim himself more likely to be innocent than not to the judge), the offender should be sent to a fixed sentence for that traffic crime, and the punishment for a motorist killing anyone not on a motor vehicle, unless he is absoultely not guilty, should be mandatory life imprisonment.
evilcherry wrote:
As far as I can understand – another bad taxi getting away with it then?
Paging mitsky…
Paging mitsky…
Essential for a trip to piano
Essential for a trip to piano lessons…
Only if they had to take
Only if they had to take their own baby grand.
Clearly had a lot of fords to
Clearly had a lot of fords to navigate. I’m sure that fuck off big snorkel makes it really easy to see things coming from your left as well.
Exactly. There is a
Exactly. There is a reasonable case to explore as to whether Adrian would still be alive if Mr Akins were driving a ‘normal’ family car.
also, a 2 year ban is a slap on the wrist, frankly, for killing somebody so recklessly
But one of them might take up
But one of them might take up the ‘cello …
I hear that there’s a
I hear that there’s a particularly good cello tutor somewhere in Kent…
My partner is a professional
My partner is a professional cellist.
She uses a Honda Jazz.
Velo-drone wrote:
I knew Yamaha did pianos, but didn’t know Honda had added another string to their bow.
Is that what he was driving?
Is that what he was driving? Why are these things even permitted on the public highway?
Mercedes wrote:
Just what you need in suburban West Yorkshire.
Rome73 wrote:
Just as stupid as road-legal supersport motorbikes. In my experience they are always ridden at 2x the permitted speed and are 10x more difficult to handle than a car in emergencies. I GTFOW whenever I hear that engine noise when I am out and about on my bicycle.
The snorkel is not a normal
The snorkel is not a normal fitment.
Did his vehicle have one?
Google images mate, I also
Google images mate, I also doubt if he had it in beige, I’m assuming black or grey…
Cheers for the reply.
Cheers for the reply.
It is relevant because the claim was ‘hidden by the A pillar’, which is 3x as wide with the snorkel.
I have noted that in other
I have noted that in other cases of avoidable tragedies the coroner can make recommendations to government to change the law. Why wouldn’t a coroner consider whether the design of the vehicle could have contributed to the outcome and recommend that such vehicles should not be sold / would require additional training or competence.
Presumably because a) it is
Presumably because a) it is legal / type-approved and b) it’s not wildly different from other vehicles – so the question didn’t arise?
I am not disagreeing in general – and I think on a few occasions we have shifted slightly on what we believe constitutes safe (e.g. standards for improved vision from lorries etc.) But given we already accepted mass motoring (with all kinds of shapes and weights of of vehicles) I’m not sure there’s enough here to prompt anyone officially to follow that particular idea.
Do coroners recommend things to government and does that follow any formal mechanism – or is it essentially commentary? I’m aware of “Reports to Prevent Future Deaths” but those simply asking people or organisations to answer questions. AFAIK as long as they send in some answer, even if it’s “we checked our homework and it’s fine” that’s it done.
However if it was then this might be something a Road Safety Investigation Branch would look into, if we had one…
Here’s a recommendation on
Here’s a recommendation on eye sight testing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrv1g2yl0xo
IanMK wrote:
Good spot, I’d missed that even though I’d seen the news… So that’s a RTPFD which they can send anywhere. I was wondering if there was some other channel but presumably not.
Here’s the actual report. They seem to have done a fairly thorough job. I assume this will go nowhere (or committee, which often amounts to the same) – but I hope I’m wrong.
Of course, some folks just plain ignore them… how they live with the shame I do not know.
Complaint lodged with BBC re
Complaint lodged with BBC re inference cyclists must adhere to speed limits posed for motor vehicles. You may want to complain yourself. Cycling doesn’t need ever-more corrosive misinformation seeping into society and being weaponised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint
It’s a national speed limit
It’s a national speed limit road.
WTF are the BBC mushrooms taking?
The BBC are reporting what
The BBC are reporting what was stated in the case, so you could equally ask WTF was it considered necessary to mention there?
Beyond the issue of a court
Beyond the issue of a court/barristers believing cyclists are subject to speed limits to ‘break’, it appears to be a 50mph limit actually between Meltham and Netherton.
I don’t know the context “the court was told” in, but there is ‘a system of streetlighting’ visible in photos which means a default speed limit of 30mph unless contraindicated, even without 30 roundels. Maybe it was to iclarify that a higher vehicular limit was in place.
99% more likely to be the other explanation though.
KiwiMike wrote:
The BBC aren’t claiming cyclists must adhere to the speed limit. They are reporting what happened in court, and there’s no evidence anyone in court was saying cyclists must adhere to the speed limit.
The cyclist wasn’t on trial, so whether or not the speed limit applied to him is irrelevant.
However, some motorists (or their lawyers) will claim that the reason they couldn’t see the cyclist was because they came from no-where. Being able to confirm that the cyclist was not going at a speed that would take a motorist by surprise is relevant. That the information is grouped with the evidence that he was cycling in a good position in the middle of the lane further lends weight to the former being used to confirm that he should have been visible to a competent driver.
You could argue it might have been better if the court talked about appropriate and predictable speed for the road, and maybe they did, and the report condensed that into ‘not breaking the speed limit’ as that’s something most people can make sense of more easily.
FionaJJ wrote:
That’s more to do with intergalactic timey-wimey wormholes than the local speed limit, surely? 😉
They are a menace.
They are a menace.
I’m always amazed that seeing
I’m always amazed that seeing that drivers believe we can defy the laws of physics and can bend both time and space (and pay no taxes..), that we would wish to appear anywhere near them and their unaware dangerousness, rather than to the top of really big hills, or teleport straight to our destination…
And now they’re making the
And now they’re making the jail sentences for cyclists who kill in line with those for motorists, so they won’t be subject to the maximum of two years in prison anymore.
Is there enough prison space?
He wasn’t careless, he
He wasn’t careless, he deliberately drove over a stop line because he couldn’t see anyone coming. If you look at the junction, he would have to look over his shoulder through 3 “blindspots” before pulling out, a quick glance would not be appropriate. So yes he has got off leniantly and should loose his job just like anyone else would do.
“There is no stop sign or
“There is no stop sign or white line at that junction” … that was according to prosecution’s case.
Are you sure he “deliberately drove over a stop line”? Hard to see how that could be if there wasn’t one there.
He did wrong. He plead guilty. He’s been punished according to the law – which includes an automatic reduction for guilty pleas. It is actually among the more severe penalities I’ve seen for such cases (and I do wonder very much the same sentence would have been given to a 70 y.o. white granny …)
If you think the law is wrong, then campaign to change the law … but why demand arbitrary additional punishment for this case? So many other cases where drivers are let off altogether or given non-custodial sentence for same offence.
He took a long while to plead
He took a long while to plead guilty and probably only due to the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr Daniel’s helmet camera.
Also, that camera footage is probably the reason a custodial sentence was given out. Still some way off the maximum 5 years for death by careless driving though.
You are right it’s longer than some – but I would put that down to the video footage rather than anything else.
There were give way markings at that junction. I am surprised the Judge did not make a recommendation for the markings to be upgraded to a ‘stop’ line. The visibility is extremely poor emerging from that junction and it would not be possible in my opinion to perform a safe emerge without coming to a complete halt first.
He pleaded guilty to a lesser
He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of careless driving on the day of the trial, 3 years after the event. The defence tried to argue genuine remorse but the judge, to their credit, chose a custodial sentence anyway.
Mrs Daniel criticised Akins for not pleading guilty at the first opportunity, but said she did not want him to go to jail.
Tim Pole KC, representing Akins, said: “The fact he caused the death of Mr Daniel continues to dominate his thoughts and it’s a burden he will carry for the rest of his life. He understands the frustration and anger at the delay of pleading guilty.
“He’s sorry for any additional distress the delay caused. But his remorse is genuine, and his thoughts and the thoughts of his family remain with the family of Mr Daniel.”
Judge Menary acknowledged Akins’ mitigation, but concluded: “It seems to be the appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody.”
He said he accepted Akins’s remorse was genuine, but said his failure to admit his guilt at an earlier stage prolonged Mrs Daniel’s “heartache and grief”.
In a statement released after sentencing, Mrs Daniel criticised “the farce Akins has made of the justice system”.
“This could all have been resolved sooner and that is the further insult to injury,” she said.
“[It] makes a mockery of any remorse that Akins offers for his actions.”
It’s a dreadful.junction, and
It’s a dreadful.junction, and the give way lines are in terrible state, almost gone.
But that’s obviously no excuse whatsoever, there’s no way anyone should ever emerge from that junction with anything but extreme caution.
That said, there are obviously considerably more dangerous ways to drive.
Strong case to redesign the junction though I would say. I’d be amazed if there haven’t been multiple collisions there already.
Image on the BBC article of
Image on the BBC article of the junction in question.
And yet the footballer allegedly didn’t stop at the line?
Don’t think there is any
Don’t think there is any allegedly about it !
This just cropped up on CUK
This just cropped up on CUK forum. Much more detail.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/R-v-Lucas-Akins.pdf
Bungle_52 wrote:
Personal opinion, manslaughter until proven otherwise. It is irrefutable that the cyclsit was killed and it was unlawful.
It was not accidental and I have serious issues with the HHJudge’s comments where he has used accident a couple of times:
“It is conceded on your behalf that you were familiar with the junction and its idiosyncrasies, and also that you had been the registered keeper of your vehicle for 11 months at the time of the accident,” Collision?
and
“because you did engage in an unsafe manoeuvre by emerging from a minor to a major road across the path of oncoming traffic when it was not safe to do so, and had you been keeping a proper lookout for all road users, not just motor vehicles, then this accident would not have occurred.” Perhaps terrible and wholly avoidable occurence?
And not to get into the bitching and baiting that is going on, which quite frankly detracts from the real point in question, if the Defence feel there is any possible mitigation then they should be prepared to argue it down from manslaughter. But that’s the acceptability of drivers killing people!!
Moreover declaring regret, contrition and empathy with the victim’s family only after realising that you are bang to rights, is extremely hollow and I would have expected HHJ to be much firmer on this point.
As tragic as this is the
As tragic as this is the government need to pull it’s thumb out of its back side…. Potential new law that will have cyclists locked up for life sentencing if they kill a pedestrian but a pedestrian can kill a cyclist and a driver can kill a cyclist with minimum consequential actions taken?… What a farce hope this footballer meets the required karma inside. He waited for three years and the club offering their condolences only after they lost the trial tells you everything you need to know about EVERY football club in the country!
If only a fraction of the
If only a fraction of the time and effort that has been spent on human rights issues and even animal rights issues was expended on protecting humans that decide to cycle the roads would be so much safer!
I mean we give human rights protection to convicted murderers and carte blanche freedoms to enable them to attack others whilst within the custody of the criminal justice system not once but twice! FFS
Where are those human right lawyers now? Why are they not raising all of these weak sentences for the perpetraors of death due to road traffic collisions as a miscarriage of justice?
BikingBud wrote:
Well, Keir Starmer is busy being PM, Shami Chakrabarti is busy being a baroness, Cherie Blair was probably distracted by her husband’s career, as perhaps has been Amal Clooney…
(Probably human rights lawyers have enough on their plates covering human rights issues so they’ve no time for challenging motornormativity. Human rights of course being the things we could happily sleep knowing very bad people don’t get … but which probably mostly cover the backs of the less culpable or entirely innocent. And which ultimately all of us may be reliant on when the bureacracy turns uncaring or vicious).
With less snark – unfortunately motornormativity has to be challenged by its practitioners e.g. all of us. And by seeing that politicians understand that people will back them when they “try to slow the ship down a bit or even turn it around” (as has happened e.g. here).
Isn’t an expectation of
Isn’t an expectation of freedom from harm due to unacceptably low driving standards and behaviour an extension of a very basic human right?
But there are also many more than 4 that are milking the system. If they were really interested in human rights then principally and logically they should be standing up for the fight, in the face of great adversity and even doing the work pro-bono. Yet being cynical it seems that they are more interested in the cash generation potential than fighting the good fight.
Which politicians?
Politicians that are vociferous in hounding cyclists and demanding new legislation despite the fact that the offences as currently proscribed are perfectly adequate for prosecuting the very rare cases.
Those politicians that are seeking the changes because a few people have been killed in impacts with cyclists, even when those cyclists were unable to mitigate the lemming instinct of pedestrians to amble onto the road without regard for thier own safety?
Those very same politicians that could actually use the empowerment the electorate have given them to actually address the significantly greater number of deaths that occur every day on our roads due to inattentive and fundamentally unsafe driving.
This is not Japan and we are not a compliant people, we will not change without being forced. Sending people to jail for significant time when they kill people needs to become the norm, it needs to be a credilbe deterrent. Only then will people understand that being personally responsible for their conduct and the decisions they make while driving a lethel weapon will form part of any consideration of their culpability.
Nothing will change without jepoardy!
BikingBud wrote:
It sounds right, doesn’t it? But though it definitely started with government choices (and is kept going by government funding) we’ve distributed the blame. To everyone to some extent – because almost everything is reliant on motor transport in some way, so none can really get righteous – without e.g. living in a wood from birth, growing one’s own mangold-wurzles, sheep, metal and electricity.
In terms of the overall human rights ideals – in this area this basically comes down to “is there access to and protection by the law”. That’s arguable if police don’t do enough, but the laws are there… Then “is the overall process fair”? More arguable – but as it’s systematically unfair to everyone but you can dodge that simply by getting a vehicle yourself it’s a tricky one.
(Skipping some other bits, interesting but short of time…)
Well … the Dutch managed it (though they’re known for being … very direct). And to some extent they’ve managed it in Scandinavia (though they’re descended from Vikings). And Seville (Spanish folks – they’re not afraid of a battle). And Paris (say no more).
I don’t think any people are in a rush to embrace change just because. It has to be sold as to their advantage somehow (or “you’ll be left behind if you don’t” e.g. fear marketing).
There certainly needs to be some consequence to misbehaviour which is both intimidating and in fact dangerous.
But people don’t feel safe because would-be perpetrators might be discouraged by possible consequences after the fact. (Especially for crimes where the perpetrator didn’t think of committing the crime ahead of time – or it was a crime of “neglect” rather than particular action). They feel safe because … it feels safe (or here – with some “sharing of space” – or even here in a city centre).
That’s when they’re not thinking about e.g. collisions with a motor vehicle – because e.g. they’re not near them. Or if they are there aren’t many vehicles and they are going slowly. Same as people feeling safe on the pavement (and not next to one of the UK’s “urban motorways”).
One point to illustrate the
One point to illustrate the wholesale lack of effectiveness due to police inaction ie very low risk of detection and prosecution – why did we need a specific new law for using a hand held phone when driving and more importantly who is actually enforcing either the original option, driving with out due care and attention, or now using a hand held phone when driving?
Second point why do drivers that get caught on thier phones by Cycling Mikey et al consider him to be the problem? Why not accept they are breaking the law and when challenged desist?
I was called all names under the sun just yesterday when I observed to a driver that was smoking and using the phone that it was inappropriate and when the rear of the car has child seats she really should have a very close and soul searching look at her behaviours and the prejudicial effect they will have on her own cherished little people. Perhaps not as eloquently intially it might have been put your fucking phone down and stop endagering my life but ……
If drivers knew there was a very real risk of losing their priviliges for a considerable period and police were actively enforcing the issue, attitudes would change rapidly. Otherwise while the cat is away etc.
chrisonabike wrote:
Especially the unacceptable high and yet apparently totally ignored slaughter rate!
Want to improve road safety its not about reducing limits to 20 or putting the scamera van alongside the 50 mph dual carriagway. Its about enforcing current perfectly suitable and enforceable laws via effective policing.
Just on here recently the myriad of excuses that seem to be spouted in the cases that do get to caught are in the most not mitigations but admissions where the driver failed to meet the required standard eg:
I had a minor lapse of concentration, the highway code doesn’t say you only need to be attentive 98% of the time.
“ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.”
I couldn’t see my windows were misted, it warns about not setting off on a journey with visibilty through windows being degraded due to mist, rain, fog, snow frost etc.
“You can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
Checks you should carry out
Every time you drive you should check:
the windscreen, windows and mirrors are clean”
and
“Rule 229
Before you set off
you MUST be able to see, so clear all snow and ice from all your windows
you MUST ensure that lights are clean and number plates are clearly visible and legible make sure the mirrors are clear and the windows are demisted thoroughly
remove all snow that might fall off into the path of other road users”
I was dazzled, it provides warnings about sunlight:.
“Rule 237
If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop.”
So counter to these being mititgations they are admissions of failings and should be prosecuted as such. But the incompetent authorities, those that can really enforce changes in behaviour are not interested.
BikingBud wrote:
Well … I want both policing improvements AND other things. e.g. nice, safer environments to cycle in (mostly because others – I already cycle, most don’t)
BUT just as a matter of fact – improving road safety very much is about e.g. those things you mentioned. There’s lots of info shared in previous road.cc debates on this – but e.g. in Wales measurable improvements in driver behaviour and reduction of accident rates / severity for a speed limit reduction – even where we haven’t changed anything else – which surprised me originally – e.g. like changing street designs and reducing through traffic. And even with the UK’s very “light touch” road policing, conviction rates and penalties…
Not disagreeing with your list of pathetic excuses / justifications people / courts / police come up with for the status quo though.
BikingBud wrote:
I quite agree that the “incompetence defense” looks unbelievable.
As always though – it comes down to “how does that change”? Authorities won’t do it without the people. And currently people can’t make it happen themselves (plus most won’t become activitists – they’ll just follow the lead from the top).
We need to both break the current cycle AND get into a new self-reinforcing one.
We need people on board ultimately . At this point it’s worth looking at how this has happened other places – particularly the different paths for e.g. a Netherlands vs. a Paris or Seville. And I also recommend Chris Boardman’s talk on how he worked with the boroughs and local people in Manchester (about 15 minutes worth but I think worth a listen, here).
Ultimately that doesn’t happen unless people think it’s in their interest. Which as far as “better behaviour” goes (or police prioritising things, or the judiciary taking things more seriously) – IMHO amounts in part to “skin in the game”. So “your kids” basically. (Also that’s a feature of where this has happened successfully).
Example: we create pull and push. Pull – wouldn’t it be nice to walk your kids to school? Pull … so we’ll improve e.g. crossings and footpaths. Push – but to do so we’ve stopped through motor traffic near the school and you now can’t park there. So everyone has to lose that convenience because otherwise that makes it feel unsafe and everyone reverts back to their cars.
(AFAIKS none of that starts happening because “there are police so drivers behave”. People won’t trust their kids “on a promise from others” currently. Though it will need policing because people will always try to get around new restrictions…)
Another? Pull – it’s nice if your kids have more independent mobility. Pull … so we’ve started making it so they can cycle to school / green spaces to play. Push … so we’ve reduced speed limits around residential areas / blocked through traffic / removed some parking spaces etc. Bonus side effect – your streets become “nicer”.
(Again – people won’t let their kids cycle simply because we say the courts will now prosecute drivers after the fact. They will if they see that now there are fewer cars and their drivers are behaving more reasonably because it’s only locals now and it’s their own kids out there).
Something like that?