- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
30mph sign (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Michael Coghlan)Speeding driver justified in breaking 30mph limit to avoid seriously injuring or killing cyclist, say magistrates
Magistrates in Buckinghamshire have said that a driver who three years ago escaped a driving ban despite totting up 12 penalty points and who was charged with speeding “had no option but to speed up” to avoid causing “serious injury and even death” to a cyclist.
Heidi Caple appeared at Wycombe Magistrates’ Court charged with breaking the 30mph speed limit as she drove her Land Rover 4x4 on the A40 West Wycombe Road nearly three years ago on 12 December 2018, reports the Bucks Free Press.
The 56-year-old from Holmer Green, Little Missenden, pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined £66 and ordered to pay £34 in costs.
However, magistrates accepted that she had “special reasons” to break the speed limit and declined to endorse her driving licence with penalty points.
The newspaper says that a note to the court listing stated: “No endorsement. Special reasons: cyclist very close and defendant could only see his helmet.
“Could not reasonably pull over to allow him to pass without causing an accident; risk of serious injury and even death to cyclist giving defendant no option but to speed up to avoid an accident.”
It is not clear from the report why Caple could only see the cyclist’s helmet, given that the road in question is a straight single carriageway with traffic flowing in both directions in a residential area, with some cars parked on the street.
It is not the first time Caple has appeared before High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court.
In October 2018, the Bucks Free Press reported that her driving licence had been endorsed with a total of 12 penalty points after she was convicted of three driving offences.
Three of those penalty points related to failure to give information relating to the driver of a vehicle who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence, and three to driving over the speed limit, and she was fined £50 for each of those offences.
She was also reported to have been fined £140 and given six penalty points for driving without valid insurance.
Usually, 12 or more penalty points within a three-year period (from the date of the first offence to the date of the last one) would result in an automatic disqualification from driving for at least six months, unless the defendant can show that “exceptional hardship” would result.
For reasons that were not reported at that time, however, magistrates did not impose a disqualification under the totting-up procedure.
Speaking on the road.cc Podcast last month, Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox of Lincolnshire Police, the national lead for fatal collision reporting, said he found the exceptional hardship defence “outrageous.”
He said (at 23 minutes 45 seconds into the recording below): “Drivers having the opportunity to continue to drive after their 12 points because of the impact to them financially and their personal circumstances – well, what about the bereaved families and the impact on them, what about other people’s safety?
“That should come first above a driver who has had multiple opportunities to learn their lesson anyway, so I think for exceptional hardship, I’m really pleased to see that Mark James, the PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner in Lincolnshire) is trying to change that and speaking publicly about that.”
DCS Cox also spoke (at 30 minutes 30 seconds) about “drivers’ issues in general around cyclists.”
He said: “They believe – and this isn’t everybody, but it’s a reasonable core of people, I think – that they’re have an absolute entitlement to get past cyclists.
“And when cyclists are riding … and doing absolutely nothing wrong, they [motorists] don’t understand why they can’t get by, and they get frustrated, and they do so often an overtake which presents risk.
“They wouldn’t jump a queue outside a cinema, or outside a restaurant in the way they do, but they do feel obligated and compelled to get past a cyclist, and in doing so present a huge amount of risk to the cyclist. I think it’s just incredible they would do that, and it comes back to driving culture.”
In 2017, the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group – since renamed the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking – published a report entitled Cycling & The Justice System which found that disqualifications under the totting-up procedure had fallen by 62 per cent over the preceding decade.
The report said that 8,500 motorists were allowed to continue driving despite their licences having been endorsed with 12 or more penalty points, which should have resulted in a minimum six-month ban.
The group’s co-chair, Ruth Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, said at the time: “This idea there is a ‘right to drive’, when it is clearly a privilege, is taking precedence over the right to safety on our roads for everyone.
“Lives have been lost because people who should have been taken off the road are granted the leniency not given to those whose lives they then go on to ruin.
“This isn’t a political issue, but a public safety one, which is why this cross party group calls on the next Government in June to address the collapse in the number of disqualifications imposed on irresponsible drivers,” she added.
Alex Chalk, the Conservative MP for Cheltenham, who was co-chair of the group at the time, added: “The decline in the number of disqualifications for irresponsible driving is striking, and requires examination by the next government.
“If we are serious as a country about getting more people on bikes, safety for all road users has got to be a priority. We simply won’t achieve the take up we want to see, particularly among women cyclists, unless the roads become safer.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Chris RideFar 4 hours 18 min ago
I know that in independent tests on 10 and 11 speed chains, the SRAM chains always came out bottom in terms of drivetrain efficiency. Lots of...
- quiff 4 hours 24 min ago
The comparison was between two things never intended to be used on a bike.
- perce 4 hours 55 min ago
You could get knocked down at midnight and the jury would believe a driver who said the sun was in his eyes.
- Simon E 5 hours 10 min ago
We'll have to disagree. It's as ugly as f..k. You can try putting lipstick on a pig but it's always going to be a pig....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 42 min ago
Well, send us a review when you've cycled it!...
- kingleo 6 hours 13 min ago
Two things are certain about the anti-cyclists, they are stupid and make up facts.
- KDee 6 hours 31 min ago
Funnily enough, my experience with Wahoo TCKR is that when that needed a new battery, it would also go in the bin. The battery locating tabs would...
- Backladder 7 hours 5 min ago
Since the driver used similar language it in not "likely" that he was caused harrasment alarm or distress by having it returned to him. (IANAL)
- underworld99 10 hours 55 min ago
Some more local knowledge :...
- eburtthebike 12 hours 12 min ago
“There is a road safety emergency in our region. As Mayor, I’m committed to tackling this issue."...
Add new comment
34 comments
Why are the fines and costs so pitiful? surely if you want to discourage people from these offences the fines should be significant, minimum of the equivalent of a month's salary might work
Her defence just doesn't make sense to me...
Maybe that's the point? If you have no rational argument, don't have one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV6NoNkDGsU
I've just realised, we all assume cyclist because all she saw was a helmet and was going fast.
Did she see this?
I see two helmets...
My guess would be that she saw him in her rear view mirror tailgating (either for slipstream or wanting to overtake?), so sped up to open the gap?
What about her only being able to see the cyclists helmet? Fnarr fnarr.
What. The. Actual. Fack.?
Just when you thought it could not get worse
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/19648591.man-admits-causing-deaths...
(updated this afternoon about 5)
The difference between killing someone carelessly or dangerously is lost on me, as I'm sure it is to most people, especially the relatives and friends of the victims. As has been pointed out many times, anything that kills or injures is by definition dangerous, and should be treated as such, not just carelessness; that's forgetting to put the milk back in the fridge.
EDIT: this will of course be addressed when the report on road law announced all those years ago is issued. Must be any day now.
Yes it's interesting because careless is driving below the standard of a careful and competent driver, while dangerous is far below the standard ... (as defined by the road laws)
So when drivers are convicted of death by careless driving rather than death by dangerous, it suggests that the standard of a careful and competent driver is one whioch only just avoids killing people.
That being the case, rae motor vehicles too dangerous to tolerate? since even the most careful competent driver, only just avoids killing people routinely.
Not necessarily corruption here - as anyone who knows the legal system / read The Secret Barrister can tell you magistrates are just volunteers who fancy a crack at judgement. Some will be excellent, some will be indifferent and some ... but that's not even the issue. Judges are also happy to accept some really specious mitigation on behalf of drivers too and juries are equally lacking in understanding.
I have actually been thinking of applying to be a magistrate once my normal workload eases. One suggestion might be that as all of us on these forums should have an interest in the safety of cyclists then volunteering to be a magistrate might help to gradually change the outcomes of these cases from within the local justice system.
Good for you. Given the small number of cyclists currently and the smaller number of cycling incidents which make it to court I think that you'll mostly just be being a magistrate, dealing with other people's general misery and troubled lives. If you're a thoughtful and careful person that's not a small commitment. If you do get one you may also find it a lonely place as others will likely not be able to see the case same way.
But yes, better to put down the keyboard - or at least get off the internet - and try to improve things. Trying to do more of that myself.
I did just that 30 years ago; they didn't want me.
30 years ago? Considered retrying but as a judge this time?
That's a thought, but I don't think I'm quite senile enough yet; opinions on that may differ.
The magistrates in this case and the abundance of others that help motorists escape driving bans are not just complicit in a potentially dangerous driver being allowed back on the roads, but also reinforce their behaviour not being a serious issue by their complete inaction. So the motorist that should be banned drives again without any deterrent whatsoever and guess what, some of those motorists will end up killing vulnerable road users.
I look at cases like this and wonder how our legal system is envied across the world. Maybe the envy of incompetent and potentially dangerous motorists in other countries?!
Like the quote about democracy, ours isn't envied because it's good but because other places are even more slow, arbitrary and corrupt.
Very true, if our legal system is supposedly one of the best it paints a depressing picture of the injustice served in other countries.
and of course the CPS stop prosecuting and the police stop taking action, because why bother when people are routinely aqquited and allowed to continue driving dangerously on the streets.
Well, perhaps she deserves not to be banned for the originality of her defence:
“Could not reasonably pull over to allow him to pass without causing an accident; risk of serious injury and even death to cyclist giving defendant no option but to speed up to avoid an accident.”
How considerate of her not to kill the cyclist by breaking the speed limit, and surely slowing down was also possible?
Her statement says that the cyclist was overtaking her, so I don't understand how the cyclist was doing that. Was he undertaking her, was she pulling on to the road and the cyclist was already there and she hadn't seen him? We need more information, especially from the cyclist. Since she broke the limit, there must have either been an eyewitness in the form of an officer holding a camera or video evidence, so something ought to be available, and it is strange that there is no mention of it.
Whatever, as others have pointed out, this stinks on several levels.
Where are you reading about the cyclist overtaking her ?
“Could not reasonably pull over to allow him to pass......" not for her to pass him.
That could be as a result of her being on the wrong side of the road.
What I don't get is why she didn't have to provide any video evidence to support her claim (cue wtjs). Can we all say now we had to speed to avoid a cyclist?
If you have got the point where
"giving defendant no option but to speed up to avoid an accident.”
how on earth did you get there without being utterly incompetent?
The scenario has to be
She overtook the cyclist into oncoming traffic and realised that she would have a headon so sped up to avoid a collision.
So that would be careless driving then and 3 points.
I can't think of a different scenario of overtaking a cyclist but having to speed up not to hit them.
The alternative approach would have involved looking past the end of the bonnet or waiting 10-15 seconds.
I suppose she is always in a hurry given her other offences.
The report is lacking key detail but if it was her overtaking the cyclist then I suspect she misjudged the speed the cyclist was going with an oncoming vehicle approaching. However, it's just speculation as we don't have the full information, the bigger question is why?
Cyclist was behind her coming down a very steep hill, and for some reason despite being only able to see his helmet, she knew he had no brakes and sped up to prevent him from rear-ending her? Heroic!
Looks pretty flat.
Another option. She was overtaking a car and realised that she was on course for a head on with the cyclist.
It's the opposite of what happened next though -
What happened before she got to the cyclist ?
my best speed along that road is 46kmh, I was drafting a car all the way down the hill (-2%). KOM is only 52kmh
So the alternative is that she pulled out without looking, and noticed he was about to hit her, and then accelerated until she was going faster than he ever had. Going 0-30 rapidly may have had a benefit, going faster than 30 can't possibly. Defence stinks
either she was overtaking and had misjudged cyclist speed, and rushed forward to get past in which case hitting the brakes and dropping in behind is always a better option. Or he was overtaking her (not sure how) when equally then best response is to slow down.
Pages