Suspended sentence for lorry driver who killed cyclist and claimed he was unable to avoid hitting him

Very sad. Nothing would posess me to cycle on a dual carriageway. Tried it commuting 18 years ago, on the advice that it was a quicker route, and it scared the cr#p out of me. I can still remember the feeling of cars and lorries thundering past me at 70mph.

He admits he saw the victim, and claims (incorrectly) he could not move out to overtake, so did nothing to try and slow down and avoid a collision. The fact he was up on a careless driving charge seems like little more than they didn't think one of dangerous driving would stick.

Dangerous Driving;
(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if —

(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

If the CPS opted not to go with a dangerous driving charge, because they felt that a jury would not find that his actions fell far below what is expected of a careful and competent driver, then something really has to change.

if this boils your piss then i urge you to write to your MP.
google it, its free, its quick and its easy.
no point moaning on the internet if you are not going to try and change things.

A lot of comments on here talk of his decision to continue driving rather than slow down or change lane.

Witness statements suggest he didn't not brake or deviate, and that the second lane was clear.

Doesn't this suggest that he didn't see the cyclist (i.e. wasn't looking)?

Why should we encourage new people to cycle when we read crap like this on a weekly basis?

I commented on another story where i could offer my services as a hitman and wait for my target to cycle. The worst that would happen is what this guy got away with. Payoff is great since i will be rich once i get out in 6 months time. Any takers?

Screw up on the road and come up with some BS excuse that the prosecution will swallow. Sad day for this persons family and the rest of us, yet again.

He was found guilty of the wrong offence. He saw the cyclist from more than 200 meters away, he had plenty of time to change lane if he was concerned about safely passing him - but instead due to his own arrogance and sense of self importance he decided to plow on regardless and run another human being down. It's murder, not some semi criminal "driving offence". He made a deliberate and premeditated decision to run a man over, it's not a poxy driving offence in any shape or form.

He had time, he didn't stop...then he LIED about it. WTF do you have to do to get the full force of the law.

Whatever spin the lawyers put on this verdict, the sentence is a non sentence. The joint submissions by CTC BC and other high profile cycling organisations to the government with concerns of judicial sentences is obviously falling on deaf ears.

What concerns me the most is that despite the witness evidence not corroborating the drivers story, he was still only given a suspended sentence.

What on earth has to happen in order for drivers to face worse?!

I can't help but think, if he saw him, and chose not to take any form of action to avoid running over him, the driver made the choice that slowing down and risking being rear ended by a much smaller vehicle (assuming a car) is more unpleasant than killing a person. That is what's wrong with the attitude to drivers in this country. The sentencing guidlines are clearly unfit fot eh purpose, and the charge was inadequate. This wsn't careless driving (although the driver clearly didn't care about killing) it was dangerous, he made the decision to risk the life of another person because he couldn't be bothered to do anything else. That alone, should be grounds for a much harsher sentence than 6 months suspended and a 30 month driving ban. If it wasn't so tragic, this would be laughable.

Condolences to the family

This is insane. There was no excuse for the killing of this man. If the weapon had been a knife it would have been years in jail, but because it was a motor vehicle, the killer gets to walk away.

The laws need to be revised and the CPS needs some backbone.

Until these drivers are banged up for significant periods of time, drivers will continue to drive like knobs endangering other road users. Getting away with murder is perfectly OK as long as you are driving the weapon!

Outraged and stupefied at the sentencing, not because Mr Ruff was riding a bike, but that he's human, with family and friends who loved him, and whom he loved. The loss would have been no less had he been walking, driving a car or a van, or riding a motorbike.

A six month sentence, suspended for two and a half years, and driving ban for the same length of time, is a grotesque slap in the face for justice. I'm not talking out of a petty sense of vengeance or retribution here - more deterrence, both general and specific, rehabilitation and prevention. Which this sentence in no way addresses.

My condolences to the family.

Down with this sort of thing

Another detail many seem to not have picked up on, the prosecution no less seems to think that there was enough space for him to pass safely in lane 1 of a Dual Carriageway.

The ONLY place to pass a vehicle (of any type) is surely lane 2

Also, never mind didn't have time t slow down, all road users have a responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see is clear in front of them. Is that not why as kids we were't allowed to run in the school corridors.

An utter farce again, I'm always shocked that a victims family in these situation haven't reacted more strongly given how appallingly the courts let them down.

I just read about this on BBC website and was so incensed that I felt compelled to post on here. It is utterly outrageous reading the mitigating circumstances, if you can call it that, how the driver walks away after such a crime.
As somebody said previously, what sort of planet do these judges live on.

We use the word "collision" now not accident. Not meaning to ruffle feathers but it was the prosecution who said 9 seconds.

However regardless of this its a bloody disgrace he was done for careless and not dangerous after admitting he saw him but kept on going in anycase.

The whole sentencing system needs to be overhauled massively though.

Maybe we should all be starting to think:

1. Do we really want car licence holders driving vans up to 7.5t?

2. Should we really be allowing such vehicles to drive at up to 60mph on dual carriageways, when HGVs are limited to 50, especially when "hi cube" 7.5t vans can be so enormous?

3. Isn't it about time we had compulsory cameras in commercial vehicles, pointing not only forward but rearwards as well, so that the behaviour of the driver can be more readily evaluated in a court of law?

4. And shouldn't we be starting to appreciate that if a lifetime ban was mandatory, for any "at fault" incident that involved loss of life, the number of collisions (major and minor) would fall dramatically?

Why do we persist in using this word 'accident'? There is no such thing!

Accident implies that nothing could be done. This was not an accident as the impact and resulting death was totally avoidable.

Sorry, anger is making me a little incoherent! I work in the construction industry and I'm sick of hearing "It was a terrible accident!", "No-one could expect this would happen!"

'Accidents' do not exist, only 'Unforeseen Events'. If it's unforeseen, then why? What had you missed? Why were there no safe-systems of work in place? What could have been done to prevent this happening?

Something can always be learnt from an unforeseen event. Mainly how to prevent it happening again. Accidents teach you nothing other than how to say "It was just one of those things".

Dear oh dear, where will it end. Judges who offer the obligatory "Nothing I can say...." line make my blood boil. As soon as you hear that you just know that the sentence is going to be a joke. Judges really do have stop saying this at the sentencing point its said so much on 'auto-pilot' these days its an offence to the family concerned.

It would not suprise me if the driver was eating/smoking and was distracted with food or dropped his cigarette, or was fatigued and had one of those micro-sleeps. Hell of an assumption to make but something that could never be established by Police unless seen by a witness/es and I also assume phone use was ruled out, the Police would not overlook that and they can check easily enough.

How else do you hit someone on a dual carriageway having seen them for 9 seconds. You stop. Even on a motorway you stop. You just stop.