- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Oakfield Street roundabout in Kelty, Scotland (Google Maps)“Expert” driver who does “stunts for Channel 4” banned from driving for a year and fined £300 for causing serious injuries to cyclist
A stunt driver for Channel 4 TV who described his driving proficiency as “advanced” was found guilty of causing serious injuries to a cyclist by careless driving, fined £300 and banned from driving for year, after he repeatedly denied his involvement in the collision despite a witness claiming otherwise.
61-year-old Stuart Penman was riding his custom-built carbon Look bike which cost over £6,000 and was a retirement present, as he approached a mini-roundabout from from Oakfield Street, Kelty in Scotland on 13 October 2022 at around 2pm, when he was hit by a Luton van driven by 56-year-old James Cunningham of Edinburgh.
Penman said that he was riding between speeds of 5 and 10mph while wearing a hi-vis helmet with an LED flasher on at the front, and described the conditions as “dry and fair”.
He said: “As I proceeded across the roundabout I thought, ‘he has not seen me’. I just knew he had not seen me, so it was a case of do I stop and he is over the top of me or do I accelerate?
“He caught me at the back of the bike, spun me round and I was lying outside The Kings (pub), facing the direction I came from. It spun me round, flew me up into the air and I came down heavily on the right shoulder.”
Penman, a retired project manager, was taken to hospital with a broken shoulder blade, road rash and bruising to his hips. He added that the bike wasn’t insured and was no longer in a reparable condition, but a new one wa paid for after he contacted a “no win, no fee” company.
The Courier reports that Ellie Garvie, an events manager, who was driving behind Mr Penman, said that after he slowed naturally at the roundabout, the van came from the left and she thought “he has not seen the cyclist”.
She said: “The van [driver] just continued over the roundabout. There was a collision with the cyclist.”
Mrs Garvie recalled Cunningham being shaken and upset afterwards and him saying “I did not see him, I did not see him.” She said she stayed with Mr Penman and other members of the public phoned for an ambulance.
However, Cunningham told the court that there had been no collision, and that he saw nothing coming when he looked right at the mini-roundabout.
He said he stopped the van on the roundabout about halfway across as a cyclist came “flying” down at speed before trying to correct the bicycle but ended up falling as his bike slid along the ground.
A police officer who attended the scene of the collision was questioned by the defence lawyer about why she did not inspect the accused’s van for damage. Cunningham also repeatedly voiced concerns about police not inspecting his van for damage at the time.
The officer said she did not know why she didn’t inspect the van, and agreed that it would have been a good idea.
Sheriff Krista Johnston convicted Cunningham of causing serious injury by careless driving by failing to take proper heed of his surroundings and failing to slow down for a cyclist travelling ahead of him.
The sheriff said she found the prosecution witnesses to be credible and reliable and rejected Cunningham’s evidence where it differed. However, Cunningham interrupted to say this was “impossible” and “crazy” and was warned about potentially being in contempt of court.
In mitigation, defence lawyer Mr Winning argued the conviction was at the “lower end” of the careless driving scale, suggesting a “momentary lapse”.
He stressed there was no question of excessive speed on Cunningham’s part and stressed his client responded in the way most people would by being shaken and upset.
Sheriff Johnston banned Cunningham from driving for a year and fined him £300.
Earlier this week, two of Shetland’s most renowned and successful cyclists claimed that there is “definitely less tolerance” shown by drivers towards cyclists on the Scottish archipelago in recent years, putting people on bikes in increasing danger, just weeks after an MSP raised “concerns” in the Scottish Parliament over e-bike tours in the Northern Isles, arguing that cyclists are “more focused on the scenery than the road and other traffic”.
In May, a survey done by Cycling Scotland found that over a quarter of motorists in the country didn't know driving dangerously around cyclists could lead to driving ban or prison sentence.
Meanwhile, 58 per cent of drivers said that knowing they were being filmed would change their behaviour around people cycling, while 62 per cent said the risk of killing someone would make them drive more safely.
According to new Police Scotland data, on average four people a week in Scotland suffer serious, potentially life-changing injuries in collisions involving motorists while cycling.
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- S.E. 27 min 3 sec ago
That made me think of that "Hot Fuzz" comedy movie... so many truths in it.
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 19 min ago
Good to see a V-brake option available for all those people who ride Cosmic Elites with V-brakes...seriously, you must know really that the answer...
- mattw 2 hours 57 min ago
Get thyself over to Buildhub - a community owned forum where I am on the moderation team ("Ferdinand") which is about self-build and renovation....
- Destroyer666 12 hours 6 min ago
Ahem, the recommended lockring is just a common through-axle specific lockring, so nothing Miche specific there, and the required tool for it is an...
- Destroyer666 13 hours 1 min ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 13 hours 10 min ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
- qwerty360 13 hours 40 min ago
Arguably sticking it in a bank account is bad....
- Sredlums 14 hours 39 min ago
I'd counter that those brakes were in fact so inadequate that they eventually developed a whole new type of bicycle that was actually suited for it...
- levestane 14 hours 41 min ago
Unfortunately, Africa is heavily exploited both for resource extraction...
Add new comment
36 comments
'The officer said she did not know why she didn’t inspect the van, and agreed that it would have been a good idea'
most likely becuase the officer a) instinctively thought the cyclist was in the 'wrong' and b) only listened to and believed the van driver's version.
Did the article suggest that or did you just make it up?
I think it's called an "Opinion"
"The officer said she did not know why she didn’t inspect the van.'' Which says about all that needs to be said about the investigations of collisions involving cyclists in much of the Western world.
Except that she was most likely lying, given that the honest answer would be "becuase we consider this sorts of things accidents."
Sadly, the roads aren't going to get any safer until that attitude changes. Mr. Penman is lucky others were willing to testify.
Chambers says:
accident noun 1 an unexpected event which causes damage or harm. 2 something which happens without planning or intention; chance
If you drive onto a roundabout without looking for oncoming traffic, hitting something is hardly unexpected; not paying proper attention when in charge of a motor vehicle is a choice so although one could argue that the motorist did not plan or intend to hit a cyclist they have made a choice which makes it much more likely that they will, so that is arguably intent by neglect.
Indeed - and in the driving case I recall hearing talk of a book of guidelines which spells out what is hoped, expected and indeed required of you as a driver. No doubt few well have encountered it (as pointed out to me here "you just buy a theory test book - sorry app"). I doubt such a pamphlet would be cited in a respectable court of law of course - unlikely here in Scotland anyway!
And you have summarised driving in a nutshell. We don't consider inattention to really be an issue. Its just one of those things. Oh well. These things happen.
Funnily enough, in any dangerous industry you would be hauled over the coals if you engaged in a dangerous activity and didn't take adequite precautions. Its not treated as "one of those unavoidable things" becaus its 100% avoidable. There just has to be the will and the enforcement.
Agree - but a) workers in dangerous industries are currently a small subset of the adult population and b) they are employees - so several levels of feedback are available.
Mass motoring - after the motor vehicle expanded beyond "plaything of the richest" and specialist uses essentially the feedback loop is "sell everyone one" (status can then depend on which ones / how many you own).
Without getting that genie back in the bottle (good luck...) any attempt to make it safer without a whole different approach (eg. sustainable safety) has a side effect: swapping safety for convenience for pedestrians/cyclists. The direction we have gone in UK in fact. Don't redirect or limit drivers or encourage reduction in journeys driven! Divert and reduce the numbers of vulnerable road users!
Exactly.
Driving without paying attention is fully expected to lead to a collision which is why it shouldn't be described as an "accident". Similarly, driving too fast for the conditions or driving whilst inebriated is also expected to lead to a collision. Arguably, someone who drinks alcohol before driving has the intention to have a collision as the two are well known to be highly correlated.
Accident - A feeble excuse for lack of anticipation.
Through the Looking Glass -
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
There once was a term in the military called "Accidental discharge," describing the situation where a firearm was discharged inadvertently.
The term was, long ago, replaced with the more accurate term, Negligent discharge." The difference being that once you are in charge of such a deadly instrument, and have been correctly subjected to the rigorous training required and have passed the necessary handling skills tests for it, anything short of the highest standards of application of that training and those skills is considered negligence.
Why is it then that drivers are allowed to have accidents when, by their own claims they have carried out extensive training and passed a nationally sanctioned driving test? Please do not say that cars are less dangerous than guns, they are not. It is the people who use them who are dangerous, and there are a lot more car users in the UK than gun users.
Soldiers, Royal Marines, Sailors and Airmen must carry out periodic retraining and testing of their Skill At Arms abilities whereas drivers get a one shot (pardon the pun) driving test which, for a significant proportion will be the best days driving they ever do, everything from then on is a trail back to mediocrity for some and downright self entitled aggression for the mindless minority.
For those who think the comparison is specious, please bear the following statistics in mind:
1. The muzzle energy of the current 5.56 x 45mm NATO bullet is 1796 Joules.
2. The kinetic energy of a 1.5 tonne car travelling at 62MPH is 1499 Joules.
Not a lot of difference I feel, and the difference is narrowing markedly with the introduction of heavier battery operated vehicles. Rant over!
Why did we, or the court, need to know any of this?
Presumably a sarong would be considered inappropriate attire for cycling such a bike and we don't want to give the defence anything to shift the blame with...
What's going on with that sentence - it does not even reach the very bottom of the scale in England, which starts at a Low Level Community order and 12 month ban?
What are the sentencing guidelines in Scotland?
Has the judge actually given an absolute minimum sentence to a driver who lied his head off in Court, forcing his victim to go through a full trial?
"....the cyclist who broke his shoulder blade...."
No: "....the cyclist, whose shoulder blade was broken......"
"Sheriff Johnston banned Cunningham from driving for a year and fined him £300."
Good to see such action north of the border. I wonder if such bans will become more common in England?
Also good that the conviction was achieved by witnesses without cameras being involved. So many convictions are based on video footage these days, and would never have occurred twenty years ago because the driver would lie and avoid responsibility.
"In mitigation, defence lawyer Mr Winning argued the conviction was at the “lower end” of the careless driving scale, suggesting a “momentary lapse”."
Given that the driver claims to be highly skilled, they must have been aware that roads are dangerous places, and roundabouts the most dangerous, but they had a momentary lapse? Not quite as skilled as they thought, and it isn't lower end: someone has had their life changed. I do hope he has to do a retest.
<quote>
"....the cyclist who broke his shoulder blade...."
No: "....the cyclist, whose shoulder blade was broken......"
</quote>
My kid broke his leg last year. I pleaded with him not to, but he was resolute. "It's what I've got to do, dad", he screamed, as he swung the sledge hammer at his femur.
"Meanwhile, 58 per cent of drivers said that knowing they were being filmed would change their behaviour around people cycling, while 62 per cent said the risk of killing someone would make them drive more safely."
The worrying thing here is what is the behaviour of the other 42% and 38% respectively.
One would hope that 42% drive safely whether they are being recorded/watched or not, and even if not risking killing someone. Clearly this is at odds with rates of speeding, disatracted driving etc!
Not altogether. If you drive as carefully as you should, it should make no difference whether you are being filmed or not. And the risk of killing someone is pretty much inherent to driving. If you think that risk "would" make you drive more safely, you would appear not to have recognized that fact.
I think you might be looking at those stats in the wrong way. If you don't think you have anything to worry about with your driving then why would you worry if someone is filming you. I always give cyclists plenty of room so why would my behaviour change if I knew I was being filmed?
Its only people who know they don't behave correctly that would change their behaviour if they thought they would be in trouble.
As so often in cases like this, I fail to see why the accused is not subsequently sanctioned for perjury on top of the other charges, given that the court has clearly accepted that he was lying under oath about what happened.
Removed double post.
It's built into the sentence, it's assumed that at the very least the accused will attempt to misrepresent events and, probably more often, straight up lie.
Doesn't seem like there's very much space in that sentence for much extra punishment - or even any for the main offence...
This is one of those where I'd be tempted to apply what is the reverse of the common logic and say "because they're a 'professional driver' (according to them...) they should get extra time away from driving. Not only have they been further from the 'higher standards' they should have been capable of but we positively should stop them doing their job for a bit - because as it's driving the public will be more exposed to them / they would need to drive to higher standards than the common motorist..."
That's not actually the case, under the Perjury Act 1911 it is an offence for any person in a legal proceeding "to make a statement which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true". It is not assumed or accepted that the accused will lie under oath and the mechanism exists, even if it is rarely employed, to sanction them for it.
Don't you know perjury is perfectly acceptable in Scotland.
A high profile court case a few years back Is an example. Prosecution witnesses, especially one in particular, lied when questioned but no-one has been charged with perjury.
3 years on Polis Scotland have yet to do anything.
I could go on, but you should get the gist of it.
If the defence is allowed to plea mitigation, perhaps the prosecution should also be allowed to plea a 'bullshit factor.'
If only the driver had been found guilty of the much more heinous crime of carrying out a peaceful protest...
It's a strange kind of "peaceful" when you know your actions are likely to result in all kind of harm to countless other people, yet you choose to carry them out nonethless.
Pages