Fail to stop driver who hit Ironman cyclist during closed road event sentenced

The victim surcharge (which doesn't go to the victim in the case but to victim support services) is calculated in cases where a fine is the only sanction (apart from points) as 10% of the fine, with a minimum charge of £34. As 10% of £200 falls below the minimum, £34 was applied here. 

Thanks for the info.

Indeed.  I have some sympathy with this lady.  Waved onto the course by a steward and chased off the course by a steward when she tries to comply with her legal duty to stop.   It doesnt absolve her for failure to give way but taking into account she was probably in shock when waved off it 10pts seems a little harsh.

A weird one where driving off attracts more points than stopping after seriously injuring someone would have, in principle thats fine to punish people who flee the scene - in practise in this particular case it seems excessive.

I agree the points compared to other does seem excessive (although mainly because those aren't higher in the first place), especially as she didn't seem to be charged with any other driving offence. 

I wonder if the contestant has claimed off the organisers as well. 

If I was the victim I'd go for the easy win on her insurance.  Let the Car Insurer and Event Insurer fight it out.

I just wouldn't blame him for suing the organisers for putting him in unneccesary danger etc. 

It is a real problem with large public events, the fact that marshalls and security staff have an important role in ensuring everyone's safety, but in many cases the training they are given is woefully inadequate bordering on non-existent.

As for the penalty given, I came here thinking it was another "driver gets off scott-free story" but it seems harsh given the circumstances. 

SimoninSpalding wrote:

It is a real problem with large public events, the fact that marshalls and security staff have an important role in ensuring everyone's safety, but in many cases the training they are given is woefully inadequate bordering on non-existent.

As for the penalty given, I came here thinking it was another "driver gets off scott-free story" but it seems harsh given the circumstances. 

The biggest problem is less about the training that the marshalls are given, but more about a lack of authority to do anything.  I have marshalled on the Triathlon at the Glasgow 2018 European Championships.  The training for marshals was basic but sufficient for what was needed.  It boiled down to "your job is to direct the public along these designated routes and be polite, but if anyone chooses to ignore your instructions contact race HQ and advise that the clean zone has been compromised".

The event was over a number of days with permanent road closures but the biggest issue was a local who basically said "I ride my bike here every day of the week and you can't stop me" and he was an absolute tool.  He was of course right there was nothing we could do if he chose to ignore our directions

The final day of the event was a day of closed road triathlon racing with multiple events including a "Novice" Event for people who hadn't done a triathlon before and a Super Sprint Event (double the distance of the Novice) .... and Mr Tool rocks up to the Novice event with a £5k + Scott Plasma Bike with DI2 and basically has a time for the Novice Triathlon about 50% faster than the next nearest competitor.

He could easily have taken on the Super Sprint event, but his time would have put him in the bottom 1/3 but he was all about the glory

I suspect that in large part, she's been done because she didn't report the accident to the police within 24 hours - which is a legal requirement if you don't give your insurance details at the scene.

If she'd finished her journey and relayed events to the police in the form we've been given - "I was told by the stewards that I could cross. I hit a cyclist and stopped at the scene, but before I could give him my details, the stewards demanded that I drove off the scene. There was no room to park nearby, so I've driven home and now I'm reporting it to you" - she'd have been absolutely fine.

As it is, though, it's just luck that the stewards and/or the cyclist had enough details recorded to make her traceable. In other situations, there's a good chance that she'd have become a mystery driver instead, and been untraceable.

farnz wrote:

I suspect that in large part, she's been done because she didn't report the accident to the police within 24 hours - which is a legal requirement if you don't give your insurance details at the scene.

In only part. She was only pleading guilty to leaving the scene and not reporting. No other charges were laid against her. 

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Indeed.  I have some sympathy with this lady.  Waved onto the course by a steward and chased off the course by a steward when she tries to comply with her legal duty to stop.   It doesnt absolve her for failure to give way but taking into account she was probably in shock when waved off it 10pts seems a little harsh.

But, presumably she does own a telephone, and could have called the police after getting home, having a cup of tea and calming down a bit ...

The issue is that there's no real detail given about how the collision occurred, so it's hard to assess the basis for the judgement.

Yes the marshals waved her onto to the course - but that obviously doesn't absolve someone of responsibilty to drive safely, and indeed you could argue that in the circumstances the driver should be taking additional care.

Velo-drone wrote:

The issue is that there's no real detail given about how the collision occurred, so it's hard to assess the basis for the judgement. Yes the marshals waved her onto to the course - but that obviously doesn't absolve someone of responsibilty to drive safely, and indeed you could argue that in the circumstances the driver should be taking additional care.

Yeah, but we know what people drive like when they've been flashed to cut across a queue of traffic.  Same rules apply, I suspect...

However she wasn't done for any bad driving, just for not reporting it. 

Perhaps the 10 pts, which does seem excessive given the circumstances, was probably more to do with the not turning up?  The courts seem to take a dim view of anyone who is seen to be disrespecting them in anyway (see recent 'failure to comply with court injunctions' as a good example).

I asked someone if that was the same Ironman he did and he said it was. He also said the organisers started opening the "closed" route an hour ahead of the scheduled time. So it seems the whole organisation was a bit farcical.

Part of the problem is marshalls get aggression from motorists for having it shut, and seem to get limited support for prosecuting motorists who ignore the closure...

The councils and police want it reopened as early as possible (i.e. as soon as the participants are through) but don't (can't) support enforcement so that the marshall can make sure it is safe... Open early and drivers can get aggressive about other parts being shut.

(n.b. same applies to roadworks... we are bad at prosecuting drivers for ignoring closures; something that should be trivial...)

Although surely if the organisers state to the competitors it is closed roads until 1pm, it is something that has been agreed to by the council/Police already and has been paid for. To then open it up an hour early puts the competitors at risk as they are not expecting cars. 

As for limited support for prosecuting motorists, I don't think it was ever reported what happened to this guy or the one who broke the marshalls leg at the same event.