Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist fined £430 after leaving pedestrian with brain injury

Gary Ibbott had to give up his job after he was hit by Niall Morgan on London's Piccadilly...

A cyclist who knocked over a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, causing him a life-changing brain injury, has been fined £430 after being found guilty of cycling without due care and attention.

Niall Morgan, aged 29 and said to have a history of mental illness, was found guilty of the offence at Bromley Magistrates’ Court earlier this month, reports Mail Online.

The victim, 54-year-old Gary Ibbott from Sevenoaks, Kent, now suffers from memory loss and was forced to give up his job as chief financial officer and partner of a hedge fund as a result of his injuries.

The incident happened on London’s Piccadilly at 8.45am on the morning of 6 March 2017 and left Mr Ibbott with a brain haemorrhage.

Morgan, who was reported to have been working as a bike courier at the time but is now unemployed and in receipt of disability benefit, told the court he suffers from epilepsy and has had mental health issues.

Representing himself, he insisted the collision was a “minor unavoidable accident.”

But District Judge Catherine Moore, after retiring to consider her verdict, said: “A competent and careful cyclist would not have approached the crossing in the way he did – for this reason I find Mr Morgan guilty.”

During the trial, the judge had threatened to exclude Morgan from the court due to what was described as his ‘aggressive behaviour’ towards Mr Ibbott as well as a police witness.

After he was fined, he reportedly told Mr Ibbott, “I have no money – you can’t get blood out of a stone.”

The judge ordered Morgan to pay the fine at the rate of £10 a fortnight. Solicitors for Mr Ibbott have indicated that they plan to launch a civil action for damages and have called for cyclists to be required to have third party liability insurance.

The Mail Online’s report of the case draws comparisons with that of cyclist Charlie Alliston, who was convicted last year of wanton and furious driving in connection with the death in 2017 of pedestrian Kim Briggs.

The case received a huge amount of media attention and has resulted in the government launching a cycle safety review, which may result in the creation of new laws regarding dangerous or careless cycling.

However, cycling campaigners point out that compared to collisions involving motor vehicles, those involving a cyclist which lead to the death or serious injury of a pedestrian are comparatively rare and legislators should focus their road safety efforts on areas of greater harm.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

19 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy | 5 years ago
1 like

""But District Judge Catherine Moore, after retiring to consider her verdict, said: “A competent and careful cyclist would not have approached the crossing in the way he did – for this reason I find Mr Morgan guilty.”"

 

Pretty much every near miss of the day posted on this site could echo Ms Moore's words:

 

“A competent and careful cyclist driver would not have approached the crossing cyclist in the way he (they) did"

 

 

And just to even this out, wasn't this a pedestrian crash or a bike that collided with a pedestrian? Why is it a car not a driver but a cyclist and not a bike...?

 

Avatar
Simon E | 6 years ago
9 likes

Quote:

"Solicitors for Mr Ibbott have indicated that they plan to launch a civil action for damages and have called for cyclists to be required to have third party liability insurance."

Just like the 1,000,000+ drivers in this country that are uninsured despite laws requiring them to do so.

And should they also address the issue that there are 10,000 drivers with more than 12 points on their driving license who are free to continue driving?

26,624 people were killed or seriously injured on UK roads in 2017. How will compulsory insurance for cyclists help reduce that number?

Of course cyclists should be held responsible for their actions but FFS let's address the biggest threats first. According to Laura Laker, writing for Bikebiz earlier this month [source], "people driving motor vehicles are responsible for 99.4 per cent of all pedestrian deaths in the UK".

470 pedestrians died and 23,335 were injured in 2017, virtually all caused by drivers. And what about car occupant deaths, of which there were 787 last year?

The total number of car occupant casulties in 2017 was 100,082. The human and material costs of these incidents are enormous yet nothing ever changes.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Simon E | 6 years ago
6 likes

Simon E wrote:

Quote:

"Solicitors for Mr Ibbott have indicated that they plan to launch a civil action for damages and have called for cyclists to be required to have third party liability insurance."

Just like the 1,000,000+ drivers in this country that are uninsured despite laws requiring them to do so.

And should they also address the issue that there are 10,000 drivers with more than 12 points on their driving license who are free to continue driving?

26,624 people were killed or seriously injured on UK roads in 2017. How will compulsory insurance for cyclists help reduce that number?

Of course cyclists should be held responsible for their actions but FFS let's address the biggest threats first. According to Laura Laker, writing for Bikebiz earlier this month [source], "people driving motor vehicles are responsible for 99.4 per cent of all pedestrian deaths in the UK".

470 pedestrians died and 23,335 were injured in 2017, virtually all caused by drivers. And what about car occupant deaths, of which there were 787 last year?

The total number of car occupant casulties in 2017 was 100,082. The human and material costs of these incidents are enormous yet nothing ever changes.

Thank you.  Nail squarely hit on head.

You have to wonder why the government simply refuses to address this needless slaughter, which happens year after year, with no sign of significant reduction or cessation.  Surely the car lobby and the "war on motorists" reporters and Top Gear fans can't have that much influence can they?  Actually, given the overwhelming bias of the msm, they probably can.

All those deaths and injuries, almost always caused by bad driving, but what makes headlines?  When a cyclist hits a pedestrian, that's what.

Happy new year everyone, and let's all make a resolution to hassle our MPs, shout down the petrolheads and stop this insane slaughter.

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
5 likes

OT warning:

have a zebra crossing that I use at lunchtimes, just down the road from my office. It's next to a junction, just up from another junction, and on a hill.   I hate it.  Queues of motor traffic that approach it and wait all the way across it . Cars speeding up the hill, who have no intention of stopping for bl00dy pedestrians thank you very much. Horrible.

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

Avatar
Pitbull Steelers replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
5 likes

brooksby wrote:

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

 

Probably not considering how many cars jump red lights. However, fit a camera at every set and they'll have paid for themselves in no time. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
3 likes

brooksby wrote:

OT warning:

have a zebra crossing that I use at lunchtimes, just down the road from my office. It's next to a junction, just up from another junction, and on a hill.   I hate it.  Queues of motor traffic that approach it and wait all the way across it . Cars speeding up the hill, who have no intention of stopping for bl00dy pedestrians thank you very much. Horrible.

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

 

Trouble is they then set the timings such that pedestrians have to wait for an eternity for a green man.  So as a pedestrian you give up and rush across on a red.  Then the light turns green for you after you are long gone, and the drivers then have to stop even though there's now nobody there.  Hence both parties get delayed for no purpose!  All because drivers won't obey the rules of the otherwise sensible idea of a zebra crossing.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
4 likes

brooksby wrote:

OT warning:

have a zebra crossing that I use at lunchtimes, just down the road from my office. It's next to a junction, just up from another junction, and on a hill.   I hate it.  Queues of motor traffic that approach it and wait all the way across it . Cars speeding up the hill, who have no intention of stopping for bl00dy pedestrians thank you very much. Horrible.

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

Light controlled crossings give even more power to those in the big metal boxes. As is frequently used now, they have 'beg buttons' so you can ask (beg) to get across the road. Light controlled crossings are used instead of zebra's when a local authority want motorists held up as little as possible and want to control the pedestrians yet even further from using their lawful right to travel unimpeded and without fear of harm. Whilst we all need to give and take, the situation is at the moment all take by motorists and all give by people on bikes and foot!

 The way I see it it's a far worse option than a zebra and doesn't necessarily increase overall safety, not when you have amber gamblers/red light runners anyway. However I fully understand why people might think it's a safer way for people to cross but it's weak governance and police/CPS/jusges/and bias jurists that further weaken the safety of the vulnerable at virtually every avenue by allowing the tin canners to bully everyone else to change, despite those changes not having any or any significant change in safety and certainly less freedoms of movement.

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 The way I see it it's a far worse option than a zebra and doesn't necessarily increase overall safety, not when you have amber gamblers/red light runners anyway. However I fully understand why people might think it's a safer way for people to cross but it's weak governance and police/CPS/jusges/and bias jurists that further weaken the safety of the vulnerable at virtually every avenue by allowing the tin canners to bully everyone else to change, despite those changes not having any or any significant change in safety and certainly less freedoms of movement.

I remember reading a report some time ago, which said that light controlled crossings are not safer that zebras, for the reasons you give.  They also cost probably ten times as much to install and have significant ongoing maintenance costs.  So why do some authorities see them as the preferred answer to the problem of pedestrians wanting to cross the road, which is their right?

Avatar
janusz0 replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
3 likes
burtthebike wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 The way I see it it's a far worse option than a zebra and doesn't necessarily increase overall safety, not when you have amber gamblers/red light runners anyway. However I fully understand why people might think it's a safer way for people to cross but it's weak governance and police/CPS/jusges/and bias jurists that further weaken the safety of the vulnerable at virtually every avenue by allowing the tin canners to bully everyone else to change, despite those changes not having any or any significant change in safety and certainly less freedoms of movement.

I remember reading a report some time ago, which said that light controlled crossings are not safer that zebras, for the reasons you give.  They also cost probably ten times as much to install and have significant ongoing maintenance costs.  So why do some authorities see them as the preferred answer to the problem of pedestrians wanting to cross the road, which is their right?

It should be possible to improve crossings and save money by replacing light controlled crossings with zebra crossings and enforcement cameras. Fitting all traffic lights with crossing lights for pedestrians would also be a boon, but above all I'd like to see a huge increase in enforcement cameras - much better than relying on people to carry video cameras.

Avatar
Capercaillie | 6 years ago
7 likes

This particular rider doesn't appear to be a very pleasant character and probably does deserve harsher punishment but at least he has been found guilty unlike the young lawyer in the link below.  She killed a 91 year old pedestrian in very similar circumstances on a zebra crossing but used a car and was inexplicably was found not guilty of careless driving.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/15578460.lawyer-walks-free-from-c...

 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Capercaillie | 6 years ago
5 likes

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

This particular rider doesn't appear to be a very pleasant character and probably does deserve harsher punishment but at least he has been found guilty unlike the young lawyer in the link below.  She killed a 91 year old pedestrian in very similar circumstances on a zebra crossing but used a car and was inexplicably was found not guilty of careless driving.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/15578460.lawyer-walks-free-from-c...

 

She used the classic defence of the 91 year old pedestrian coming out of knowhere. Plus, was remorseful.

How this can be anything other than careless escapes me. She had just turned left into the road from a side street. I bet it was a glance to the right for traffic before pulling out, but not checking that the road she was turning into was clear.

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
5 likes

I can't help wondering what the punishment would have been if the cyclist had had a decent solicitor, who would have been able to plead that the sun was in his eyes, or that he was momentarily distracted even though he'd seen the pedestrian, etc, etc.  As they say in the legal profession "Someone who represents themselves has a fool for a client."

For the avoidance of doubt, I condemn his actions absolutely, as I do that of the drivers who too often knock us off, but I have to wonder what would have happened if he'd used the same excuses those drivers use.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
8 likes

it's still not lenient when compared to other far worse cases, what have I said that is 'stupid' aside from the obvious sarcasm re helmets and hi-vis, but is actually used by police and defenders of criminals all the time when it comes to victim blaming seriously injured or killed cyclists!

If we are to have a fair and non discriminatory system then we must apply the same rules for everyone should we not?

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

it's still not lenient when compared to other far worse cases, what have I said that is 'stupid' aside from the obvious sarcasm  re helmets and hi-vis, but is actually used by police and defenders of criminals all the time when it comes to victim blaming seriously injured or killed cyclists!

If we are to have a fair and non discriminatory system then we must apply the same rules for everyone should we not?

I would also call out some far worse cases as unduly lenient. This one in particular, an even more extreme example of leniency...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561/Driver-fined-180-for-defective-...

Sure, we don’t have all the facts (do we ever?), but the guy admitted to seeing people on the crossing - it’s a legal requirement to stop if someone is on the crossing.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
5 likes

lenient when compared to other similar and worse crimes by motorists and pedestrians ... I don't think so! This is in line with how others are treated/punished. How many pedestrians are punished in this manner when they seriously hurt people on bikes, have you ever heard of one?

Do we have the facts for the actual case, how long did the cyclist have to react, what way did the convicted 'approach' the crossing and is this any different to how most motorists do so?

There's not enough detail here to make a prudent assessment.of the case, but the charge is is careless cycling, and given the way police treat cyclists as a whole would give an indication as to how the actions are not considered to be that threatening, outcome of injury should never be the deciding factor.

Do we also know if the pedestrian was wearing hi-vis and a helmet, if not, why not, surely everyone knows how a helmet would have saved him from the injury and the cyclist would have seen him if he was wearing the correct garments #sarcasm

Avatar
bigbiker101 replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

lenient when compared to other similar and worse crimes by motorists and pedestrians ... I don't think so! This is in line with how others are treated/punished. How many pedestrians are punished in this manner when they seriously hurt people on bikes, have you ever heard of one?

Do we have the facts for the actual case, how long did the cyclist have to react, what way did the convicted 'approach' the crossing and is this any different to how most motorists do so?

There's not enough detail here to make a prudent assessment.of the case, but the charge is is careless cycling, and given the way police treat cyclists as a whole would give an indication as to how the actions are not considered to be that threatening, outcome of injury should never be the deciding factor.

Do we also know if the pedestrian was wearing hi-vis and a helmet, if not, why not, surely everyone knows how a helmet would have saved him from the injury and the cyclist would have seen him if he was wearing the correct garments #sarcasm

Even you say there are not enough facts in thos report, so before making stupid comments like this which doesn't do anybody any good do some research, perhaps you will find out that the cyclist saw 3 others on the crossing yet still decided to cycle across it hitting this poor guy.

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to bigbiker101 | 6 years ago
5 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

Even you say there are not enough facts in thos report, so before making stupid comments like this which doesn't do anybody any good do some research, perhaps you will find out that the cyclist saw 3 others on the crossing yet still decided to cycle across it hitting this poor guy.

 

 

I think the point is more the facts in all the other reports of killer drivers getting absurdly lenient sentences.  Happens regularly.  By that standard, though it certainly appears lenient, this case does not appear unusual.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course.  But some wrongs do seem to attract more attention than others.

Avatar
BrentDude | 6 years ago
4 likes

Idiot cyclist, he got a lenient fine as well considering the permanence of brain damage.

Another stupid outcome from this is the predictable reactionaries that gradually working towards adding needless bureaucracy to riding the noble bicycle.

I'll be getting insurance as well but it shouldn't be mandatory...

Avatar
HoarseMann | 6 years ago
7 likes

This seems unduly lenient. The cyclist admits he saw other pedestrians on the crossing, so should have stopped, not taken a risk.

Latest Comments