12 months in jail for red light jumping cyclist who left 9-year-old girl with fractured skull

Mark, your account makes for troubling reading. I hope you get adequate physio and also recover psychologically and put the experience behind you.

I hope that the little girl makes a full recovery.
I was the victim of road rage by a motorist who, after side swiping me twice and still not knocking me off; leant out of his window and pulled by bars up, finally putting me on the road. He got out after skidding to a stop to have another go but luckily two other motorists stopped and got out. He got back into his car and left the scene so I took photos of him leaving.
I called the police, I attended the police station; they took my statement and photos of the road rash I'd suffered and details of the damage to my bike. The police told me that they were looking for the driver. He handed himself in later the same day (see a similarity).
He was in court this week, the police told me it was a preliminary hearing, but I thought that I'd go along to see what happened. He didn't bother with a solicitor; it turns out he had been convicted of assault on three previous occasions and had to undergo an anger management, he knew the ropes. He lied, he expressed regret, he walked out with a £490 fine (£300 for assault, £35 victim surcharge, £85 costs and £75 compensation) less than the repairs to my bike. He was smiling. I'm having physiotherapy, luckily I'm in the forces so the Army pay for that.
The bottom line is that justice is not fair or even handed.

I too wondered about the GBH issue.

I understand GBH is where permanent injury has been sustained i.e a scar as opposed to ABH where the injury is fully recoverable i.e not likely to leave a scar. Fractures will always leave some permanent sign of injury so GBH would be appropriate. However, it seems to be an unusual charge because it is not what many people would think of as an assault in the obvious sense. Of course, it is technically an assault because the perp struck the victim in some fashion but it does seem to be stretching the definition of an assault because another suitable charge is not available.

GBH does carry a potential life sentence though, so maybe the perp was advised to plead guilty on the basis that the sentence would be lower given the aggravating factor of leaving the scene. I'm still not sure why the CPS decided to prosecute with GBH and not a traffic offence equivalent of driving dangerously. I suspect the usual road traffic offences, 'Driving without Due care and attention' or 'Driving Dangerously' are not applicable to cycles and are only applicable to motor vehicles.

This case does beg the question why the CPS don't charge drivers, whom seriously injure or kill people in an accident with GBH or manslaughter, respectively. All the debate over insufficient evidence to charge a driver with Dangerous driving when a cyclist or pedestrian is seriously injured would be solved if GBH was more often used. It would be an awful lot better than driving without due care and attention, which more often than not results in an injustice.

When all is said and done these events are very unusual when compared to motoring collisions. Cyclists may well, on occasion, collide with pedestrians but rarely are either party seriously injured. If they were we would hear more of these sorts of accidents. It may be inevitable that with more people cycling and the likelihood that pedestrians and cyclists will have to share the same space more collisions will occur. On this point cyclists should always ride at a speed at which they can stop quickly and safely and pedestrians should also understand that they are more manoeuvrable than cyclists and should be prepared to step aside if they feel in danger, if a cyclists rings his bell or calls out. If both pedestrians and cyclists treat each other with respect and not pig headed belligerence we can get along much better than either group do with motor vehicles.

Lets hope the young victim recovers fully and isn't put off from cycling herself.

Reading the comments about the road layout it sound like road design might have been a contributory factor. Placing a crossing just after a blind bend on a fairly hefty descent seems questionable. I don't know the road and maybe there is nowhere else for the crossing to go and poor road layout doesn't excuse riding too fast or blasting through red lights (even without intending to) but we all know that poor road design has caused a huge number of accidents.

I have never understood why injuring or killing someone with a motor vehicle is treated differently to injuring or killing someone with a knife, pickaxe, D lock, stale malt-loaf or licensed firearm.

The student how threw a fire extinguisher off a roof, injuring nobody got 32 months. The HGV driver who runs a clear red light and could cause even more damage gets 6 points (if caught).

There is no such thing as a "cyclist" there are people riding bikes. There is no such thing as a "motorist" there are people driving cars/vans/lorries. Draw me a Venn diagram of pedestrians/cyclists/motorists and you'll see what I mean.

People, whatever they are doing, must take account of others and be held to account when they don't. This guy did a bad thing, handed himself in, fessed-up and was punished.

This shouldn't be viewed in the light of cars versus motorist. It was plain wrong to jump a red light and morally reprehensible to leave an injured child laying there and ride on. 1 year is WAY to short

I have to say I think that sending this guy to prison, if previously of good character, is a waste of taxpayers' money.

I know the road well and whilst it is easy to be approaching the crossing at over 30mph, due to the descent, you *have* to slow down to under 20mph in order to negotiate the steep bend where the crossing is placed. Benwell obviously over-cooked it and lost control of his bike.

A couple of years ago a cyclist (Rob Jefferies) was killed by an 18 year old motorist down here. The motorist hadn't seen him, despite perfect conditions, and drove into the back of the cyclist. That motorist pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He got 200 hours community service and an 18 month driving ban.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9470538.Student_admits_blame_for_c...

To me both accidents were due to a lack of care and attention. However the cyclist, who HASN'T actually killed anyone, gets charged with GBH and sent to prison. On the other hand the motorist, who HAS killed someone, just gets community service. How is this fair? To me killing someone is much worse than injuring someone.

Before I make any comment on this case I will say that I wish the young girl a full and speedy recovery.

A couple of things seem odd about this. First of all the charge of GBH seems very strange. This was clearly a road accident. I understand the charge of GBH without intent but it still doesn't ring right to me. I certainly can't imaging a GBH charge being brought against a motorist in a similar set of circumstances. That said the resultant sentance seems appropriote.

On the helmet issue, although I'm a little uncomforatable about bringing it up of the back of this story, this is a forum that represents the point of view of cyclists so perhaps it is appropriote. If a cyclist had received injuries after being hit by a RLJing motorist (or even another cyclist) the issue of helmet use would undoubtedly have been mentioned in the reporting of the story. I'm not suggesting that pedestrians should start wearing helmets but there does seem to be a significant imbalance in the way that the media percieves these two vunerable groups (pedestrians and cyclists) who are subject to very similar risks when on the street. Pedestrian safety seems to be the responsibility of everyone but the pedestrian and cyclist safety seems to be the responsibility of the cyclist alone.

In this case it's clear that the cyclist is 100% in the wrong and the reporting of the scenario is very fair.

Hi to you all reading this shocking account.
If this guy was a local lad and knew of the specific location and the risks and potential hazards of this area, then it is a pity that he was not the one, and the only one that was injured and maybe with the injuries that were inflicted upon this totally innocent child.
By all accounts this was a totally wilful act of selfishness and with a total disregard for the unexpected in an area of potential danger.
The only aspect in his defence that would have any baring as to his sentence,was the fact that he surrendered himself to the police. Would he have done the same without an appeal?
That said,the sentence in my view is lenient and his bike should be crushed and therefore rendered totally unusable by anyone, ever again.
Bleeds within the skull cavity and of the brain can result in all sorts of complications,not least of all Epilepsy and Strokes.

This incident is likely to again raise the question of Compulsory Insurance for Cyclists.
What would have happened if this innocent child had died as a direct result of being struck be this cycling lunatic?
Hopefully this incident does not raise issues for the girl in her later life.

I see it as unhelpful to make comparison with a car driver (does anyone on here have motorised transport?) reinforcing this poor downtrodden cyclist schtick.

Had a car driver gone through a red light on the wrong side of the road at 30mph, hit a child and fled the scene of the accident then I'd hope they'd be similarly dealt with whether it be for GBH or some offence under the RTA, with appropriate sentence.

guyz2010 - your right and wrong at the same time mate.

Sect 18 assault - intent
Sect 20 assault - without intent

Both are GBH just one is with intent and the other is without. This male must have been charged with a 20 because the intent part would be very difficult to prove.

I'm no lawyer but I'm surprised the GBH stuck. Isn't GBH a charge where someone intentionally wanted to inflict harm. A cyclist would have the intent to harm. Before the keyboard warriors have a go, this is my best guess.
I believe his sentence was appropriate considering the long term injuries the poor girl suffers.

The GBH charge was of interest to me as well... Clearly a motoring offence was not viable to charge him with to get a custodial sentence... which maybe backs up comments that a car driver maye have received a lighter sentence.

Personally, I think the punishment is fair, he deserves a custodial sentence for the damage done.

However, I would feel a lot happier about this should the same application of justice was rolled out to all road users.

I like the idea of people being charged with GBH if that is what was caused. I have read many situations where 'careless driving' that caused serious injury (not death) can only be tried on the offence caused, and not the implications of that offence.

.

Anyone know why he was charged with GBH and not a traffic offence? (or have I overlooked something in the story?)

I agree that there is undoubtedly a 'favour the motorist' in almost all aspects of Planning/Law/Media.

But in balance, in the news a hit and run van driver who did just get 12 years inside, Ok there are other factors involved such as intent and perversion of justice but still, just a balance to some of the comments above.

He deserved a much heavier sentence, he has left a young kid with serious medical problems, probably for the rest of her life, and its got f*** all to do with "if it was a car crap" that people are coming out with.

Was the girl wearing a helmet?

It's a sad fact that, whatever the crime, many victims in this country fail to get a fitting conclusion. Justice is rarely served.