A driver described as “completely inattentive” with a “comprehensive loss of concentration” has been jailed for two years and disqualified from driving for six, after he killed a cyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road on a bend in Sheffield.
Long Wan, 33, a teacher from Ash Grove, London, was driving his Mazda from Manchester when he hit 55-year-old Richard Bower who was cycling to his home from the opposite side on Rivelin Valley Road, Sheffield, on 29 September 2023.
Sheffield Crown Court heard it could not be explained why Wan had ended up on the opposite side of the road as neither excessive speed nor phone usage were identified as possible contributing factors.
Witnesses described how Bower, an experienced cyclist who had been wearing hi-vis clothing and a helmet, “stood no chance” when Wan’s car crossed into his path from the opposite direction. He was taken hospital with life-threatening injuries and died three weeks later.
The BBC reports that Wan, who previously pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, was jailed for two years and disqualified from driving for six. He was told that he would have to take an extended driving test before he could drive again after his release.
> Cyclist who swerved to avoid out-of-control driver questions if £500 fine for "driving without due care" an "appropriate" punishment
The prosecutor noted that Wan, who had moved to the UK from Hong Kong, considered himself to be an inexperienced driver, and that he had been maintaining the 40mph speed limit but lost control of his car while navigating the bend.
A collision investigation report said that it couldn’t establish the speed at which the driver was travelling, but added that it should have been possible to drive along the bend safely even at speeds of up to 60mph.
Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, said even if Wan had been travelling above the speed limit, it would not have been "a widely excessive speed" and between 30-40mph.
Judge Richardson said speed had not been “the real issue” but rather Wan’s “complete inattention and a comprehensive loss of concentration”.
Passing sentence, he told him: “Your very bad driving took the life of a decent man, who had a whole life ahead of him with his wife who had that very day retired from work. You have wrecked her life.”
Christopher Aspinall, mitigating, said the events of that day had “haunted” his client, who wished to extend “an unreserved apology” to Mr Bower's family.
> “A close pass isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that”: Police chief’s “odd” claim that cyclists need education on driving offences highlighted as evidence of UK’s current road safety “mess”
Bower’s wife described her partner of 34 years as the heart and soul of the family. She said: “Our world has been destroyed and our grief is overwhelming. He was the kindest soul that any of us had the privilege to meet. We loved him deeply.”
Bower was also the songwriter for the alternative music band RepoMen. Simon Tiller, one of his bandmates, told road.cc that they are hosting a memorial concert for him and also creating a songwriting bursary in his name.
“Ric’s bike was how he got to work every day,” Tiller said. “It was purely transport. But even on a heavy hybrid, he rode up the fearsome Hagg Hill because that was the way home! He was our prolific songwriter and his legacy lives on in the 100 or so recordings we made together.
“So we’re planning to work with local Sheffield music college, Water Bear, to create a songwriting bursary in his name.”
Add new comment
23 comments
Surely, if someone is prone to lose concentration in a situation where death could result from that loss of concentration, they shouldn't be allowed to be in that situation ever again? Not disqualified from it for six years.
But my human rights / Magna Carta / driving is a normal activity / millions do so every day without killing etc. etc.
Lost control of his car doing 40 mph through a 60 mph corner? Sort of begs for some questions as to how Wan obtained a license to drive in the first place. Isn't the whole idea of licensing about ensuring people are capable of controlling a potentially deadly weapon?
Not really sure what the investigators are doing opining that it "should have been possible to drive along the bend safely even at speeds of up to 60mph", when it's been decided that this should be a 40mph limit, presumably because it's not safe to drive faster than that.
In any case, though, there's no such thing as a '60mph corner' - the appropriate speeds for any stretch of road vary depending on the driver and the conditions. That aside, fair point, though.
If the bend is as pictured above it shouldn't even be a 40 mph limit, it appears that driver visibility of their lane ahead would be limited to about 25 metres maximum so anyone taking that bend at 40 mph would have an observational range a good 10 metres below their minimum possible stopping distance. If there was anything – pedestrian, animal, broken down vehicle – around the bend they would have very little chance of avoiding a collision.
A lot of bends in roads are not safe to drive through at the posted speed limit.
I remember having a complete "heart bursting out of chest" moment, years ago, driving my car, when I totally misjudged what appeared at first glance to be quite a gentle uphill bend and nearly (nearly!) ended up on the verge.
To this day, my wife doesn't know about that little incident.
Well, she does now !
Are you Mrs Brooksby, or did you tell her?
Nah - she doesn't read this site
Exactly. Looks like the investigators have also absorbed the common wisdom of "drive at the (minimum) speed limits" and "if the sign say you can then it's fine; any time, any conditions..."
Very disappointing from the professionals - but not unusual (certainly for UK). It seems when we finally get round to making regulations we then pedantically follow the letter of the law, missing the intent. (Leaving aside we just tend to give driving a pass as it's a completely normal activity that anyone can do).
So according to the Death by Dangerous driving sentencing guidelinces he got the bare minimum (3 years) reduced by 1/3 for guilty plea and a smidge over the minimum ban (5 years ban + extended retest)
For something he cant explain.....
Disappointing from the beak.
I think it's worrying that this person could go on the wrong side of the road and kill somebody and we're NOT able to point at phone use or drugs/drink etc. They weren't even a
CIA agentUS diplomat...Seen plenty of dash cam compilations where drivers are on the wrong side and even the wrong side of a dual carriageway.
Surprised the driver didn't plead not guilty given a loss of concentration is often accepted as mitigation.
a loss of concentration is often accepted as mitigation
Yes! 'Only a momentary loss of concentration' was the first Lancashire Constabulary dodge deployed on me when a Freelander came down the wrong side of the Sainsbury's access road in December 2018 and hit the stationary cyclist, me, waiting to leave. I got the camera after I realised that the police will always try to find excuses for their soul-mates: drivers
Some years ago I was talking with a bloke I met through work. He was a bit of a gear head and admitted having driven his sports car very quickly at night along public roads, often taking corners on the wrong side. His justification was that he'd have seen any headlights coming the other way and been able to switch over to the correct side. I was concerned at this as you'd expect and asked him what he'd have done if there was a pedestrian or cyclist there and he went quiet, possibly not having thought about that. I then said that track days are the best way to experience really high speed driving.
People seem unable to comprehend the existence of the odd Skip of Doom round a bend, or poorly signed roadworks etc. Never mind cyclists, pedestrians (because no footways), deer, ponies and other livestock *.
* Who cares ... except the bigger ones might damage your car, and maybe even you if you were very unlucky.
Despite pleading guilty, I think this result (2 years??) should be referred for being unduly lenient.
And given the elements of the case (stated above) it seems evident that the driver should never has his licence returned.
Given his circumstances, he would most likely be sent back to Hong Kong after serving whatever proportion his time he will actually serve.
Probably worse than life imprisonment.
If he was born in Hong Kong before 1997 he will have been able to apply for British National Overseas status as part of the handover agreement and that can then be converted to full British citizenship after a certain period of residence in the UK, so most likely he is no more deportable than you or I.
So highly trained collision investigators couldn't establish the speed at which the driver was travelling but the judge, apparently without any evidence, has decided it was 30-40 mph, so below the speed limit for the road. This would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that he presumably used his decision that the driver wasn't breaking the speed limit to influence his decision on sentencing.
Did he really say that? Because saying that the drivers speed, even if over the limit would have been under the limit does not make it sound like he's entirely on top of things.
Or indeed in possession of all his marbles.
"Witnesses described how Bower, an experienced cyclist who had been wearing hi-vis clothing and a helmet, “stood no chance”
So let's stop considering that they have any substantial affect then and stop blaming cyclists when the road is plagued by “Inattentive” drivers who frequently demonstrate “comprehensive loss of concentration”
I came here to say the same thing. Next time some petrolhead tells me that hi-viz and helmets should be legally required, I'll point them at this case.