The mother of a motorcyclist who died following a collision with a cyclist has said that she wants to see tougher sentences for cyclists that are similar to sentences available to drivers of motor vehicles.
Last year, we reported that cyclist Garry Kopanycia-Reynolds was found guilty of riding a cycle on a road carelessly without reasonable consideration for others after colliding with Callum Clements in Poole, Dorset, in December 2021.
Now, Bournemouth Echo has reported that the 23-year old maintenance gardener’s mother is now calling for a change in the law after the court handed the 60-year old cyclist a maximum penalty available of £1,000.
Kopanycia-Reynolds was pulling across the Shah of Persia Crossroads in Poole, Dorset in December 2021, when he collided with Clements, who had a green light.
> Cyclist found guilty of riding carelessly in crash which killed motorcyclist
During a trial in November, the judge ruled that Clements had the right of way and Kopanycia-Reynolds failed to properly check the road was clear at the traffic light junction when he went to turn right. As well as the maximum penalty for his crime, Kopanycia-Reynolds was ordered by Poole magistrates to pay £450 costs and a victim surcharge of £190.
Mr Clements’s mother Fiona is now pressing for similar court sentences to be available for cyclists as those who drive motor vehicles. At present, offences for cyclists who are deemd to be at fault in crashes differ to those driving motor vehicles.
“It just feels to me like Callum has been let down, like his life did not matter,” Miss Clements said.
“My goal is to make sure this does not happen again because the trauma of the whole thing itself and then it is like you are reliving that trauma and to have nothing at the end of it,” she said. “Even if it helps just one other family, it would be worth it.”
> Grant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law
However, Miss Clements also mentioned that her son’s crash was ‘unique’. It was also noted that the cyclist suffered significant life-changing injuries as a result of the crash.
During the ruling, prosecutor Stuart Ellacott told the court that while Mr Clements was riding at 40mph in a 30mph zone at the time of the crash, the excess speed could not be used as part of the cyclist’s defence as the road the motorcyclist was travelling on was visible for 150 metres from the centre of the crossroads.
“Either the defendant failed to see Mr Clements, who was there to be seen over a distance of some 150 metres for a period of some seven seconds, or he saw him and decided to risk making the turn following the vehicle in front of him and not pausing and misjudging his ability to make that turn,” Ellacott said.
When questioned as to why he made the right-hand turn with the motorcyclist approaching, Mr Kopanycia-Reynolds – a keen cyclist who knew that particular road “pretty much off by heart” – replied: “I made that turn because I obviously felt that I had the space and time to make that safe manoeuvre.”
“I would not have attempted it unless I would have made it safely.”
He also told the court that he was “totally” sure that the manoeuvre was safe and that he had seen the motorcyclist’s lights coming from the opposite direction but believed that they “were in the distance”.
Police Constable Leanne Howes, of Dorset Police’s serious collision investigation team, said, “This is a demonstration of the truly awful consequences that can be caused by any road user failing to pay sufficient care and attention.”
Recently, London Mayor Sadiq Khan had pledged to “raise awareness” among London cyclists to stop stop at zebra crossings in accordance with the Highway Code, for improving the safety of floating bus stops.
“We need to not just raise awareness, we need to try and ensure there is enforcement as well,” he said last week at the Mayor Question Time, when asked about how was he planning to improve the pedestrian-cyclists interaction in places like floating bus stops.
He added: “What I am willing to do, and what I think we must do, is look into safety concerns raised by not just those who are visually impaired but others to make sure, in the quest to make cyclists safe, we don’t inadvertently, because a minority of cyclists aren’t following the rules, endanger others.”
Last year, the former Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps called for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law, intends to introduce harsher penalties for people on bikes who kill or injure others through “dangerous cycling”. However, such a bill is yet to be put through to the Parliament.





















48 thoughts on “Tougher sentences call for cyclists who cause serious crashes”
Condolences to all involved
Condolences to all involved but isn’t this the case where the motorcyclist exceeding the speed limit was judged not to be a contributing factor in the collision?
IIRC, Yes.
IIRC, Yes.
NotNigel wrote:
It was indeed, where the prosecution stated that the motorcyclist would have been visible from 150 metres away for seven seconds prior to collision, giving a speed of 77 km/h or 47 mph before dawn on a December morning approaching a crossroads. The cyclist stated that he did see the motorcyclist but felt that he had adequate time and space to make his manoeuvre, as indeed he would have done if the motorcyclist had been travelling at the 30 mph limit. The cyclist did not have legal representation in court and was found guilty not by a jury but by a single judge.
It’s only human for the family to want to absolve their loved one of blame but this really was not a case of a reckless cyclist who deserves a higher sentence; the cyclist made an error of judgement which was caused and then tragically exacerbated by the fact that the motorcyclist was riding more than 50% over the legal speed limit.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Sadly, this is a case that demonstrates the old adage that a litigant in person has a fool for a client.
Any of us could find ourselves in court following a mistake (or, indeed, a perceived mistake). Never make the mistake of believing that ‘the truth will out’. The CPS will use a barrister to press a case against you; you need one to bat it away.
It isn’t conspiracy or tin-foil hat territory to recommend not answering any questions beyond the legal minimum until you have had legal advice. Even protesting your innocence can be done in such a way that you state something in innocence that has legal connotations.
Could he have had a barrister
Could he have had a barrister for the £1,640 that it cost him?
I think it was an open and shut case that he made a mistake and that it might be deemed inconsiderate. I do not think that the charge in any way reflects the death of Callum Clements of which I think he was almost entirely innocent.
I am surprised that the police pressed any charges at all given the life changing injuries. Dorset Police told me (albeit over 20 years ago) that they had a policy not to, when a motorcyclist hit one of our company cars and suffered in the process.
I am not against equal treatment of careless or dangerous road users whatever vehicle they use. I do worry that they would not be judged equally but with a favourable bias towards car drivers. I also think that any new charges would not have been brought in this case anyway.
ooldbaker wrote:
Magistrate’s Court (albeit with single judge presiding) so more likely a solicitor but yes, for a single-day hearing almost certainly, and of course he would have been able to claim his costs if found not guilty (if he didn’t qualify for legal aid). It sounds as though he made the error of thinking motorcyclist doing nearly 50 in a 30, how can I possibly be convicted, don’t need counsel for that…as GMBasix wisely says, always get legal representation if accused of anything. I’d sooner give up one of my bikes than my legal expenses insurance.
Isn’t this the one with the
Isn’t this the one with the peculiar judicial ruling, and the victim who has doing 40mph in a 30 mph zone?
Thought it was familiar:
Thought it was familiar: https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-guilty-riding-carelessly-killing-motorcyclist-297631
The cyclist could have been charged with a more serious offence of wanton driving, but the lesser charge was brought. I’m not really sure if increased penalties are the answer here. A lower speed limit, better enforcement for speeding drivers and a change in the traffic light sequence would seem better alternatives.
I think it’s a 30 limit
I think it’s a 30 limit already.
I was thinking a 20mph limit
I was thinking a 20mph limit could be considered
HoarseMann wrote:
If you knew this junction, you’d know that this will never happen, also, it’s been widely discussed that current limit of 30mph made no difference to the alleged 47mph speed of the motorcyclist. So enforcement yes, but the limit is fine as it is at 30mph.
Same case, if you missed the
Same case, if you missed the debate there was plenty on road.cc about this.
Surely manslaughter could
Surely manslaughter could have been considered?
However, reading the cyclist’s testimony, he really thought there was time to make the turn. It doesn’t seem they were being reckless.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/23147462.cyclist-found-guilty-riding-bike-carelessly-fatal-crash/
A better solution would be to improve the traffic light sequence at this junction, as collisions seem to be commonplace.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19964427.petition-improve-traffic-light-junction-safety-poole/
HoarseMann wrote:
Reasons why not:
https://yetanotherbloggingbarrister.wordpress.com/2022/02/14/offences-committed-by-cyclists/
Would the mother be saying
Would the mother be saying the same if it had been a driver who had killed her son?
Or if her son had survived
Or if her son had survived with life changing injuries and the cyclist had died?
Doesn’t she understand that
Doesn’t she understand that when motorists hit other road users, saying, “But I thought they were further away / I didn’t see them but I’m sure I wouldn’t have mader that manoeuvre unless I was sure it was safe to do so / etc / etc” is practically a Get Out of Jail Free card – if Mr Kopanycia-Reynolds had given the same excuses but had been driving a car, I wager that he would not even have been fined.
Lets be fair here, if this
Lets be fair here, if this was a car that caused this they wouldn’t be getting off with a £100- fine. Shes got a point.
mctrials23 wrote:
If it was a car driver involved in the cyclist’s position they almost certainly would have been found not guilty, as I believe the cyclist would have been in a full jury trial or with proper representation; making a legitimate turn, no suggestion of jumping a light, and hit by a motorcyclist doing 47 in a 30 zone before dawn on a winter morning? I’d be surprised if the CPS even bothered taking it to court.
Reminds me of this case,
Reminds me of this case, where a driver pulled out on a speeding motorist:
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-05-03/driver-who-doctored-fatal-crash-dashcam-footage-is-jailed
It was the person who pulled out who was killed in this case, but the speeding was taken into account (plus trying to pervert the course of justice by doctoring the dashcam footage).
then for balance
then for balance
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21371547.professor-admits-causing-death-motorcyclist-duane-cook-a1156-nacton-careless-driving/
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21370191.felixstowe-professor-73-spared-jail-death-ipswich-motorcyclist-duane-cook/
“At present, offences for
“At present, offences for cyclists who are at fault in crashes differ to those driving motor vehicles.”
And so it should be. The risks are much lower, despite the very rare individual cases. If this did meet the standard of Careless Cycling (not Dangerous, or ‘wanton and furious’) then it’s appropriate to look at the corresponding motoring offence of Death by Careless Driving. With the caveat that I don’t know any details, if this was a momentary lapse, and taking into account the inury to the offender, it’s quite possible that a motorist would have been given a community order.
Miss Clements may be
Miss Clements may be horrified to learn that the person held responsible for the collision in which her son was killed has been held to a far higher degree of culpability given the fact of significantly excessive speed on the part of the motorcyclist and has been treated a lot less leniently than many car drivers responsible for causing death in far more clear cut circumstances.
Condolences to all involved.
This is a really bad outcome
This is a really bad outcome because it says that it is okay to speed as even if you do, that won’t be taken into account as part of the defence as to why the colliision occurred.
It seems ridiculous that a speeding motorist who was unable to brake in time to avoid a collision is not held partly responsible. Maybe the motorcyclist thought he would just nudge the cyclist to teach him a lesson and drive on without consequences? Plenty of times I’ve seen others or myself been buzzed by impatient aggressive motorcyclists that rev-limit their engines instead of using the horn in an attempt to intimidate other road users.
While I can understand the
While I can understand the mother’s anger, I can’t understand why she thinks that higher penalties will save anyone’s life.
eburtthebike wrote:
The cyclist suffered significant life-changing injuries, so I can’t see that a financial penalty is going to work as a deterrent when cyclists already have extremely good reasons for not getting involved in collisions.
eburtthebike wrote:
clearly they will not. Is she really arguing that the cyclist saw the motorcycle coming, thought “If I go now there may be a crash, but it will only result in a fine so I’m not going to wait”?
Are life changing injuries not enough of a deterrent?
People pull dangerous manourves all the time, why? because 99% of the time no crash results.
Want to reduce the risk of this happening in the future? then prosecute every dangerous driving incident that does not result in a crash. Because only br cracking down on near misses will collissions be reduced, not be draconian sentances on those unfortunate not to get away with crap driving/cycling.
It is a sad case indeed, as
It is a sad case indeed, as for me a grieving mother has all rights to say anything that could mitigate her loss. A lost child is the worst possible scenario for a parent.
There was an erroneous view on speeding on this case though. Urban speed limit aren’t set low just for visibility reasons. Their primary reason for being low is survivability in an event of a crash as in many cases the driver or rider will have no time to react. A lower speed, means better chances in getting less injured.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf
The scientific explanation is
The scientific explanation is the concept of ‘looming’. The approaching motorbike will only (to cyclist Garry) appeared to have increased in size by 10% when 160m to 140m away but will have doubled in perceived size when 40 to 20m away, when too late to do anything about it. Thus, if the cyclist Garry had based his initial planning on first sight and perception, given the (exessive) speed of the motorbike, it’s not terribly surprising that his assessmnt turned out to be incorrect. So the excess speed was a highly relevant factor in terms of Garry’s perception.
Exactly. Almost every time I
Exactly. Almost every time I leave my neighborhood, I have to either turn onto or cross a road with a 40 MPH speed limit, where I have a stop sign but four lanes of cross traffic do not. To my left, a bend in the road limits my sightline to about 180 metres, or 0.1 mile. That should give me about nine seconds of visibility. If I pull out when a car is just visible in the distance, I’m fine if it’s going about 40 MPH, but as I’m facing straight onto it I really can’t judge its speed. A few drivers like to go about 60 MPH, which turns nine seconds into six seconds, and suddenly there’s a car almost on top of me!
Quote:
which? those seem mutually exclusive.
Whoa! The cyclist cannot use
Whoa! The cyclist cannot use the motorcyclists excessive speed and lawbreaking as defence! But the cyclist must have made a decision to turn based on the distance and the motorcyclist travelling legally. If the motorcyclist had been acting responsibly and obeying the law the collision would never had occurred.
That was my thought, too.
That was my thought, too.
I think I can see some sense
I think I can see some sense in this. The cyclist was just charged with cycling inconsiderately. It seems harsh to get the maximum fine but there it is.
If we make decisions at junctions based on assuming all motorists obey the law so we should be OK, I don’t think we would last too long. On this basis, his actions could be said to be below the standards expected of a cyclist and I think the decision was understandable.
Had he been charged with ‘causing death by careless cycling’, as the mother was asking for, then I think the actions of the motorcyclist would have been relevent to the point I feel the cyclist would be not guilty. i.e. yes he made a mistake but not one that should have led to the consequences that sadly it did.
Where the media coverage of this case is completely wrong in my opinion is comparing this to the Mrs Briggs case. In that case the police made a lot about their lack of choice of charges. In this case I do not think any of the proposed stricter charges would have applied anyway.
Victim’s mother might be
Victim’s mother might be acting more out of spite than concern for other road users. I find English people (and that includes me) have a reserve of spitefulness you don’t see in other Europeans.
joe9090 wrote:
I don’t think that’s necessarily fair, it must be utterly heartbreaking to lose a child and it’s understandable that she might want to try and make some sense of her trauma by creating a narrative where it couldn’t possibly be her child’s fault; the same thing occurred with Kim Briggs’ husband where he is determined to attack cyclists without accepting that if his wife hadn’t stepped into the road without looking the incident would never have occurred. I’ve been lucky enough never to suffer such a traumatic loss and I’m not going to claim that I would necessarily be any different to them if I did, none of us can know how we would react to such tragedies until we experience them. The spite that exists, and that people should be ashamed of, is that coming from the anti-cycling lobby (the Daily Mail have been all over this case without once mentioning the motorcyclist’s speed) who are encouraging and abetting these grief-stricken people in their campaigns.
The Daily Mail also mentioned
The Daily Mail also mentioned that the motorcyclist had a green light and showed a map (clearly wrong) that would have suggested that the light must have been red for the cyclist. In fact reporting at the time made it clear that both had green lights.
ooldbaker wrote:
What’s that, Skippy? You don’t think that mistake was accidental? You think someone should raise it with the press complaints commission? Yes, that’s probably a good idea, Skippy…
The notion that the
The notion that the motorcyclists’s speed could not be used as a defence / mitigating circumstance seems really questionable to me; is this standard practice for these scenarios, or specific to this case?
I personally think that on one level yes, the motorcyclist will have been visible for seven seconds, but equally, travelling at up to 50% above the speed limit, its not hard to understand how the cyclist miscalculated the motorcyclists speed.
To simply dismiss the additional difficulty the excess speed will have placed on other road users decision making just seems odd, arguably biased.
I feel incredibly sorry for the mother, however the fact remains, if her son had been travelling at a legal speed, he would still be with us. On that basis how can you seriously ask for more serious punishments?
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I believe the problem is not that his speed could not be used as a defence/mitigation but, as I and others have noted further down, that it wasn’t put forward as a defence/mitigation because the cyclist chose not to have representation in court. One can only assume he thought it was so obvious that he was not to blame for being hit by a motorcyclist exceeding the speed limit by over 50% that he thought he didn’t need a lawyer. I’m surprised he hasn’t appealed it but maybe after all the trauma, physical and mental, the case must have caused him he just wanted to put it all behind him rather than get involved in further legal battles.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Maybe that’s an invalid reason for appeal – “I didn’t bother mentioning a highly relevant detail”.
It also wouldn’t be fair on the victim’s family.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’ve never been to court as the accused so not 100% sure how it works, but presumably another explanation is that the defendent would have had to pay for any such representation, and with a maximum fine of £1,000, hiring a solicitor would have made no financial sense – he would probably have spent more on legal fees than the maximum fine, and even then is likely to have still been convicted and subject to some penalty (even if the solicitor successfully argued it down from the maximum).
OnYerBike wrote:
Nor have I, I hasten to add! As the accused he could’ve got legal aid if his income was low enough, I think the bar is actually quite generous, somewhere around £30,000 p.a. income IIRC.
Or be a very well off, lying,
Or be a very well off, lying, ex prime minister.
ktache wrote:
Which one did you have in mind?
A cyclist collided with a
A cyclist collided with a motorcylist that was exceeding the speed limit, but the cyclist was found guilty of a traffic offence because in the prosecutions view the cyclist did not look properly. The cyclist didnt have a good lawyer.
A few years back a cyclist collided with a pedestrian who had stepped into the road without looking, the pedestrian died. The cyclist was found guilty because in the prosecutions view they had not looked properly and their lack of a front brake meant they could not stop in time rather than there was no time whatever brakes might have been available. The cyclist didnt have a good lawyer.
Meanwhile, on an almost weekly basis we hear of drivers mowing down cyclists, whilst speeding, and driving away to leave the cyclist to die in the road. The drivers often get a minimal fine or community service at worse, because the sun was in their eyes. The drivers have a good lawyer, or the judicial system is heavily biased.
That is only my opinion, of course.
So lets look at what they
So lets look at what they want – Add cycling to death by careless driving.
Look at sentencing guidelines.
Oh, this would be at the low end, so Band A fine (25-100% weeks income) + 40-80 hours community service is the start point
Add mitigations for : Speeding by motorbike (permitted for DBCD unlike for just careless) and injuries to cyclist.
So the injuries would I expect rule out community service; So basically penalty would be Band A fine.
So to be fined what they were they would need to earn 52k/year or more. (And that assumes the maximum fine permitted)
So basically the only difference to the result would be the offence recorded.
Of course, to get a tougher
Of course, to get a tougher sentence, you have to first secure a conviction:
Carer Charlotte Hardwick cleared of causing death of biker Nuno Gaspar by careless driving after trial at Bournemouth Crown Court
https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/speed-kills-jury-clears-driver-on-trial-over-death-of-sp-9405076/