- 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
Cenotaph on Carleon Road, Newport (via Google Street View).PNGSpeeding driver who killed cyclist in hit-and-run crash jailed for six years
A speeding driver who killed a cyclist then fled the scene has been jailed for six years.
Dominik Jablonicky, aged 27 and from Newport, pleaded guilty last month to causing the death by dangerous driving of 37-year-old Matthew Brimble.
The Audi A3 driver crashed into Mr Brimble on Carleon Road, Newport at around 2am on 31 March this year. The cyclist died in the Grange hospital from his injuries.
Jablonicky (pictured above), originally from the Czech Republic, was sentenced today at Newport Crown Court, where he was also banned from driving for nine years.
Passing sentence, Judge Daniel Williams said: “You were not fit to drive and your driving in the build up to that collision reflects that. I have seen footage of the collision and it defies description.
“You were driving in such a condition and at such speed it left you in no condition to react to any hazard on the road.
“Mr Brimble in no way contributed to the collision, he was entirely blameless.
“You are entirely to blame for the collision and so callously made off afterwards leaving Mr Brimble to his fate.”
In a statement released via Gwent Police following today’s hearing, Mr Brimble's mother said: “With the loss of my son Matthew, it has absolutely physically and mentally exhausted me to the extent I suffer with insomnia, anxiety and panic attacks – no mother should outlive their child.
“I have lost both my children and I cannot bear the thought of a future without them – I feel empty, hopeless and helpless, it is so overwhelming.
“Matthew was loved and will forever be missed by family and friends. Everyone loved his cheeky smile and sense of humour.
“I constantly wonder that if the driver had stopped and called the emergency services, that my son may have survived,” she added.
“No prison sentence will ever bring my son back and I am heartbroken, I will never be called ‘Mum’ again.”
PC Spencer Clease, of Gwent Police’s serious collision investigation unit, said: “Our thoughts are with the family of Matthew Brimble and I hope the sentence imposed by the court today provides some closure for them.
“The dangerous driving the defendant displayed on that morning in March 2021 was truly shocking. Jablonicky was driving at high speeds on a 30mph road when he collided with Mr Brimble’s bike.
“He then showed no concern for Mr Brimble as he fled the scene without stopping to help. Jablonicky will have to spend the rest of his life with the knowledge that his driving has resulted in the death of Mr Brimble.
“At Gwent Police, we’re committed to making our roads safer and we will take action against anyone who puts the lives of others at risk by dangerous driving,” he added.
“This tragic case highlights the dreadful consequences dangerous driving can have and should serve as a warning to all road users of the lifelong impact your actions can have on families.”
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
- mattw 13 min 51 sec ago
The cycle path issue illustrates a really difficult problem....
- mattw 58 min 6 sec ago
It's owned by the same company. It is hyper-junk.
- mark1a 51 min 46 sec ago
Yes, I agree, and thanks for replying, what I was trying to say (badly) was that Look wasn't really a bike company back then. ...
- kingleo 3 hours 56 min ago
You never mentioned that a cyclist was stabbed to death by a pedestrian a few years ago in Richmond Park. Also when the park was left open...
- George Hill 4 hours 55 min ago
Foxcote Hill in Ilmington - it's steep, it's not too long, and once you get to the top you can see the for miles across the Cotswolds....
- stonojnr 5 hours 3 min ago
well at least they didnt go for British Racing Green as well ,as then theyd have two trademark licensing cases up against them....
- Laz 6 hours 1 min ago
I think the best solution would be to automatically charge every driver who hits a cyclist on the road with attempted murder, and plain murder in...
- David9694 7 hours 14 min ago
Car crashes into front of home in Briggs Mead, Wymondham...
- nowasps 7 hours 26 min ago
I've worked my way through a gifted box of these, and the review tallies exactly with my own experience.
- E6toSE3 7 hours 57 min ago
Quite wrong. The really interesting stuff was good goggles for under £80 - my budget and I was previously limited to Tifosi. Had to ask about...
Add new comment
17 comments
Meanwhile burgle the rich and famous and get 9 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59253057
Mutilple crimes rather than just one.
But certainly gives the impression that property is more important than injury.
It is, and always has been.
It's a prison sentence of greater length than we're used to seeing, no doubt helped by the incident and manner of driving being captured on CCTV. But still leaves me wondering what you've got to do to get near to the maximum 14 years.
Well you have to plead not guilty for a start, as you get an automatic discount for pleading guilty.
Don't know whether that applied in this case but my guess is yes
Wow, a prison sentence for killing a cyclist? His Lawer must be incompetent as we all know a short ban & small fine is the usual punishment! Or maybe this was the one decent judge this country has?
check again
was the driver
A) Intoxicated
B) Foreign
C) driving something other than a car
If any of these apply prison can follow. It seems one for sure, and the judges comments suggest he strongly suspects a second.
I notice that he was only convicted of DbDD, and not additionally of failing to stop. Is this an omission in reporting, or was he really not charged with failing to stop. Leaving someone for dead in the road should be treated seriously.
Think we had this before (or was it perjury + DbDD?) Can't recall if anyone answered that then but if they think they'll land a main charge it looks like they don't always bother with all the possible charges carrying lesser penalties. I suppose they'd run concurrently anyway.
I'd be happy to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about on this question!
2 options :
1. Wales has the most cyclist friendly magistrates in the country.
2. Wales magistrates hate those foreigner's coming over here shagging our jobs and drinking our women even more than the usual gammon magistrate.
I'm not hopeful as to which.
Not the magistrates if he got more than a year...
Actually only just found this:
The Sentencing council - death by dangerous driving. Also a leaftlet. (You might not want to read the drink driving one either).
. I rather wish I hadn't - because it sounds more like the legal system is doing what it can to minimise the punishment:
Is it we want an impossibly high proof of some "level of lethal intent"? I believe the charges of dangerous / careless driving exists at all because it wasn't seen as murder / manslaughter / no-one was actually ever convicted. It seems that some of that "have to show they meant it" has carried over though. It's pretty clear both juries (for conviction) and judges (for sentence) have a natural bias to presume that this is an "accident" - if not at least as much the victim's fault*. Not good but that I can at least understand. What I don't is what our sentencing / the judge is doing in the likes of this case, or the cocaine addicted woman recently.
Take this guy: assuming the not guilty plea was early enough - not sure who judges that and how - you get 1/3 off so maximum could be 9 1/3 years. He's got 6. so that's a 1/3rd less. Where did that go?
So he'll serve 3 years before release, all being equal. I don't want to get hung up on absolute numbers but I just don't get it. Is the law not an ass but a troll? Do you have to be Jimmy Saville, snorting coke off one of your victims, waving the banner of the Islamic State, driving an unlicenced illegally modified tank with no brakes the wrong way down a school street at 60 miles an hour while out on licence for the same offence and mow down a pregnant police officer?
* Witness the recent Scottish case where the woman got a "not proven" verdict because though her car clearly hit a cyclist, and she was in it at the time, because she "couldn't remember" everyone shrugged.
That was the strangest one, just answering "I can't remember" stopped being effective early in primary school. How a jury of adults accepted it as defence against driving into a human being is baffling.
It worked for Rupert Murdoch. Indeed I believe our current leader has had good mileage out of playing the idiot when confronted. What's truly awful is that you can even say you thought the safest thing was to continue to drive towards people on the wrong side of the road and still walk free. Dr. Helen Measures.
So if anyone hits someone with the car, fleeing the scene is a no risk proposition? If tey get away they get away, and if they get caught, then no worse than if they had stayed?
Doesn't give a good outlook for people injured by drivers on remote roads or at quiet times, no incentive to call for urgent medical attention.
Yep - I think we're in danger of setting up "perverse incentives". I hope not as far as the "make sure they're dead and can't be a witness" or the suggestion that if you hit someone on a bike you should leave the scene as there is no effective penalty for that. Anyway that's why I signed the Ryan's Law petition. That should have been debated yesterday, I can't find the records from that yet.
I am prepared to believe that most MPs have no idea of the scale of the problem or the lack of punishment. Whether finding that out triggers any reaction other than than "oh, these cases are so sad. Very sad" is something else. One would have thought that under a Conservative majority goverment it would be a good point in time for looking at increased penalties (well - for things other than lobbying...). BBC reported: "Transport minister Andrew Stephenson told a debate in parliament: 'We agree there may be something wrong with the law as it stands' " but then put the brakes on: "any change in the law should fit the driving offences framework".
No I think it's a mistake in reporting or there are some key details been missed out. As leaving the scene, and not leaving and coming back a bit later claiming you panicked, or turned yourself in much later, actual hit & run is taken very seriously by the courts, often more so than DbDD if they catch you.
I know of instances where a driver was given a fair chunk of jail time, 18months iirc, for it in a case where it was only a causing injury driving charge against a cyclist.
If anything given the length of this sentence versus the norm, if it hadnt been mentioned at all I'd just have assumed the majority of that came from the leaving the scene charge not the DbDD
I'm not seeing that having read through this. Obviously that's not the final word but the only place that appears is:
"Additional aggravating factors ... The offender’s irresponsible behaviour such as failing to stop, falsely claiming that one of the victims was responsible for the collision, or trying to throw the victim off the car by swerving in order to escape"
That can potentially "substantially increase" the sentence. However again it all seems rather subjective. In other cases the most that was achieved was just failure to stop / failure to report an accident under The Road Traffic Act 1988 s 170 - which is a much less serious charge, I believe max 26 weeks in prison or an unlimited fine, in addition to up to ten penalty points or a disqualification.
As far as penalties - it's the usual plus for bad / minus for good system. To get a baseline you need to determine one of 3 levels for this offense. I'm all in favour of some lattitude allowed to the judges to do their job in a complex world. However although criteria are given few are anything measurable / quantifiable. This is possibly one reason for the observed variability in sentences. The document is lengthy - probably if you're interested the only fair thing would be to try to read it. However an example: "Consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment" would put you in level 1 (highest punishment) but how much are "substantial amounts"? Clearly more than "consumption of alcohol or drugs" which is "only" a level 2...
Its often placed as a separate charge of failing to stop to go along with the driving offence.
And yes I was wrong it wasnt months but weeks as per the guidelines,but that's still often more in custody terms than the driver would get just on the driving charge alone, and it definitely impacts the sentencing except for it having loopholes people do exploit,but it is taken more seriously by the courts even if it's hard to see sometimes.
Clearly DbDD allows you to take account of hit & run so maybe it was simpler to let the court handle it as one thing and it pushes the sentence up as a result, I'm sure most would agree 6 years should be starting point for DbDD before aggravating factors are accounted for.