Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

£55 fine and three points for driver who left cyclist with broken leg, elbow & weeks in hospital

CTC slams lenient punishment for careless driving

Cycle campaigning charity CTC has strongly criticised Preston magistrates after they handed down a £55 fine to motorist who caused a crash that left a cyclist with a broken leg, fractured elbow and soft tissue damage.

The driver, 49-year-old Thomas McAteer, from Grimsargh, near Preston, admitted a charge of careless driving, according to the Lancashire Evening Post. On November 14 last year, McAteer hit the cyclist – who is not named in the reports – on D’Urton Lane, Preston.

The court heard that McAteer had intended to turn left at the junction with Haighton Green Lane, but failed to give way. He hit the rider who was travelling ahead on the road.

Prosecutors said, “The cyclist was knocked off his bike and sustained a broken femur, a fractured elbow and soft tissue damage to his back.

“He also spent a number of weeks in hospital due to the seriousness of his injuries.”

The road was dry and the weather described as “fine”.

McAteer was ordered to pay a £55 fine, £43 costs and a victim surcharge of £20. He was also handed three penalty points.

Rhia Weston, of the CTC, said the decision was “ridiculous” and the rider could sue for compensation in a civil case.

“Unfortunately I’m not surprised,” she said. “This is extremely common and one of the reasons why we set up our Road Justice Campaign.

“Why was the guy charged with careless driving? It should be dangerous driving.

“He is putting another person’s life in danger.”

The average fine for careless driving in 2011 was £138. The maximum punishment magistrates can give is a £5,000 fine and nine penalty points.

Weston said, “When you compare what he got to what he could have got, it’s absolutely absurd. £55 is laughable. It is ridiculous for the amount of damage he has caused.”

The CTC’s Road Justice Campaign aims to fix the justice system by pressuring the police, the prosecution services, the courts and the law itself to improve the handling of bad driving and bad drivers.

Why are sentences lenient?

These cases are depressingly common. The CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen puts the problem down to a combination of factors including the fuzzy boundary between careless and dangerous driving; the reluctance of juries to convict for dangerous driving; and the resulting unwillingness of the Crown Prosecution Service to try and bring a charge of dangerous driving.

Writing about the Mary Bowers and Sam Harding cases last year, Geffen said, “In neither case can one simply blame the police or Crown Prosecution Service for the failed outcomes. In the Mary Bowers case, the CPS did bring a dangerous driving prosecution, only to have it rejected by a jury, i.e. by ordinary members of the public. Similarly in the Sam Harding case, the CPS didn’t really have the option of bringing a dangerous (or even a careless) driving prosecution, given that a jury would almost certainly have been persuaded that opening a car door doesn’t count as driving.”

Sam Harding was killed after Kenan Aydogdu opened his car door into the cyclist’s path, causing Sam to fall into the path of a following bus. Aydogdu’s car had tinted windows that reduced visibility to 17% of normal levels. He was acquitted of manslaughter.

“It’s true that [the CPS] could have prosecuted Aydogdu with offences relating to the tinted window or with opening a car door when it was unsafe to do so - but neither offence would have attracted more than a small penalty at most,” said Geffen.

“The Mary Bowers raises much wider issues. CTC has long been concerned that the law, and the CPS’s prosecution policies, fail to distinguish clearly between “dangerous” and “careless” driving. Faced with a fuzzy boundary between the two – and with the thought “there but for the grace of God” also in the back of their minds – it often seems that jurors opt for the more lenient offence, in order to spare the driver what they feel might be an unjustly harsh prison sentence.”

The CTC continues to campaign for more approriate sentences for drivers who kill and injure cyclists and pedestrians. The recent Audrey Fyfe case demonstrates that there is strong public feeling that sentences are often too light.

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
comm88 | 11 years ago
0 likes

We can bleat all we want ... but no one ever listens. We can campaign all we like ... but nothing will ever change. We can bang on all we want on sites just like this ... talking only to ourselves.

BBC Berkshire radio tried to do a programme last week about cycle safety in Berkshire. They were so ill-informed it was excruciating! No one had done the research necessary to provide a "balanced and informative view". Who did they call and contact to get relevant a information on rider and accident statistics? No one, as fas as I could hear!!

There was a sad story about a guy on his way to work one morning who was "driven through" by white van man. He spent a week of his life in a coma and, after an 8 hour operation, he also lost his leg. The driver was "sorry". It's not about anger, revenge and retribution. The point surely is that it should not have happened. How can you not "see" a cyclist? How dare you presume to take liberties with his/her safety?

Yet practically every damned motorist does.

They think they can squeeze through every gap. They happily overtake you on blind corners. They often fail to signal their intentions when turning right across the road in front of a cyclist.

Believe me, all the fines in all the world won't change a thing. They simply don't pay 'em. Heard a statistic last week that something like 40% of people living in the Thames Valley - a fairly affluent part of the country - do not pay their water rates!!!! Yet you can't turn off their water to make 'em pay up. They simply don't care. And that's the point - they simply don't care. Not about you, me, or anyone else at all ... except themselves.

Same with motorists - "Fine me all you want - I simply don't care." Can pay - won't pay - that's today's modern mantra.

So how do you "educate" these imbeciles? You can only really do it at the time they take their tests and reinforce the messaging with constant public awareness TV, press and poster advertising. You may even get to BMW drivers!!! (Though I doubt it. BMW should adopt a new slogan: Arrogance As Standard - or perhaps - Wanker At The Wheel!!!)

I don't ever want to be another cycling statistic - wrong place, wrong time, buddy. But i fear for the future and the safety of all cyclists because, without a concerted and consistent Government effort to "educate" drivers - like that slapper from Norfolk - the statistics will go on rising inexorably ... and we'll still be shaking our heads and moaning - still without a voice - in 10, 20 and 50 years' time.

Avatar
fuzzywuzzy | 11 years ago
0 likes

I hope the victim sues in the civil courts at least. There needs to be some compulsory driving course attached attached to cases like these, as it stands the penalty isn't much more significant than one for speeding, using a mobile or the new middle-lane hogging thing yet this person has actually hit someone and caused them significant injury. Where it's a genuine accident and there's no aggravating circumstances (drink, road rage, no MOT, no insurance, no licence etc.) I don't think driver's should be jailed or even banned (1st offence) but the total cost of just over £100 and 3 points is meaningless and just gives the message they weren't really doing anything wrong.

Avatar
Roger Geffen | 11 years ago
0 likes

Bez is correct. There is nothing in the statutory definition of 'careless' driving to suggest that it means a "momentary lapse of attention".

Until 1991, the difference between the (now abolished) offence of 'reckless' and 'dangerous' driving was all about the state of mind of the driver. Moreover, one can understand in principle why the law might want to distinguish between the seriousness of offences that arose from a momentary lapse and those involving a greater degree of conscious risk-taking. However there were obvious difficulties in proving a 'reckless' mindset 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the courts. So a lot of drivers were able to argue that they had merely been 'careless', resulting in derisory sentences.

The 1991 Road Traffic Act was a genuinely well-intentioned attempt to correct this (even though it too has clearly failed). The aim was to completely remove the concept of 'mens rea' (i.e. the state of mind of the driver) from the definitions of bad driving offences. Instead, the distinction between the new offences of 'dangerous' driving and 'driving without due care and attention' (to give it its correct name) was supposed to be purely about the degree of danger caused that would/should have been foreseen by 'a competent and careful driver'.

As Bex says, the definitions of 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving are driving which respectively falls "below" and "far below" what would be expected of a "competent and careful driver" (which is obviously a very imprecise and subjective distinction), but the latter also includes the requirement that "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous". And in this last sentence, "dangerous" is then defined as "danger of injury or serious property damage".

Hence the distinction under the present law is supposed to be an objective one, and should rest on whether the way in which the vehicle was driven caused "danger" that would have been "obvious to a careful and competent driver". It has nothing to do with the driver's state of mind.

Yet the legal system persists in calling the lesser offence "careless" driving, thereby perpetuating the belief (among police, prosecutors, judges, magistrates and the general public) that momentary lapses of attention can be excused as mere 'carelessness' even when they have caused obviously foreseeable 'danger' Hence the derisory sentences continue.

CTC argues that this is wrong in law. So a key aim of CTC's Road Justice campaign (www.roadjustice.org.uk) is to either change prosecution policy on this point, or else to get the law itself changed.

CTC's briefing on prosecutors and the courts explains how things could be made to work better within the current legal framework, while our briefing on the legal framework and sentencing explains how the statutory framework itself could be strengthened.

CTC's Road Justice campaign is also calling for much greater priority and resourcing given to roads policing, and substantially increased use of driving bans as a sentencing option. And generally for the legal system to function much more efficiently and transparently in all sorts of respects.

Other CTC campaigns briefings on road safety and legal issues can be accessed here.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director
CTC, the national cycling charity

Avatar
K Stand Ken | 11 years ago
0 likes

1) Is it right that the costs of staying in hospital and other necessary NHS treatment can be recovered from guilty drivers? I sure hope so. But why haven't we heard of this being done?
2) If David Cameron or any other senior political or establishment figures or a member of their families were injured like this rider there would be the most unholy stink.
Are their limbs and wellbeing any more valuable than mine, or yours? Do they have more right to the protection of the law than you or I?
3) There should be the legal assumption that the driver is at fault when killing or injuring cyclists or pedestrians, unless it can be proved otherwise. I understand this is common in continental Europe. Is the UK still part of the European Community? Go figure.
4) I repeat my suggestion for the need of a cyclists militia to 'pay a visit' to those who thumb their noses at killing/injuring vulnerable road users.

Avatar
Sustransoftie | 11 years ago
0 likes

It's the same ol' story...

Cyclist gets knocked off.
Driver walks, scott free.
Lots of cyclists go on cycling forums and have a moan.
Laws don't change.

Another cyclist gets knocked off.
Driver walks, scott free.
Lots of cyclists go on cycling forums and have a moan.
Laws don't change.

Cyclist gets knocked off... etc. etc.

If you lot on here actually got off your arse and contacted your MP and kicked up a storm about the lenient sentences dished out by so called British Justice, then things may change?

I recently contacted MP Robert Halfon and he said it was the first letter he had ever received from a cyclist about road safety!  13

More cyclists will be killed, more maimed and seriously injured until the law is changed.

So don't F*****G MOAN on here and do something about it!  45

Avatar
balbardie | 11 years ago
0 likes

Why the lack of consistency? The legal system has to address this one.

The idiot who knocked me off last year was fined £240 and got eight points on his licence and I was "only" in hospital overnight.

It has to be a lengthy ban for this type of case.

Avatar
ch | 11 years ago
0 likes

Furthermore, drivers will never be prevented from carelessly turning left into bicycle .... unless cyclists are permitted to take the lane at junctions and whenever they see it is required for safety. Again, the only option is to educate the public via the tele and newspapers that this is necessary for bicyclists, and drivers are obliged to give way. In addition a law to penalize threats and threatening driving towards cyclists will be required to handle the yobbo backlash.

Avatar
ch | 11 years ago
0 likes

> The problem is, plenty of people in life are careless and society (as a whole) wont stand for normal people being put in prison for being a bit dim and useless.

It's quite true that `door`ing cyclists is impossible to eliminate ... as long as cyclist feel they have to ride close to doors. The only option is to educate the public via the tele and newspapers that bicyclists must ride at least 4 feet from parked cars, and drivers are obliged to give way. In addition a law to penalize threats and threatening driving towards cyclists will be required.

Avatar
skippy | 11 years ago
0 likes

Are there any members of the Judiciary that ride a bike , would their colleagues allow this pitiful response to that colleague*s suffering ?

One law for the victims , another for the perpetrator ?

Oz currently is trying to decide on a " safe passing Law ", even possible they may follow European Law of 1 1|2M ?

Why have Police , when you can throw a Cyclist off their bike under a bus or send them to an Under resourced Hospital System for a few weeks , knowing that a "slap on the wrist " will be the penalty levied by a " Caring ( there but for the grace of God ) Jury "!

Avatar
Davetillyer | 11 years ago
0 likes

Sorry but the Judge is a Twat.  2

Avatar
Stumps | 11 years ago
0 likes

Careless driving - is a momentary loss / lapse of concentration.

Dangerous driving - standard of driving which falls way below that of a safe and competent driver.

These come under the road traffic act so i wish people would stop saying its an assault when you use a car to hit someone, its not.

If you banjo someone or use an item to inflict an injury it comes under the offences against the person act 1861.

Avatar
Bez replied to Stumps | 11 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

Careless driving - is a momentary loss / lapse of concentration.

Dangerous driving - standard of driving which falls way below that of a safe and competent driver.

This may be a little pedantic, but careless is actually driving that "falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver", whilst dangerous is that which "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous." The definitions and the difference between them are obviously extremely vague and this is the root of much that is wrong with prosecution for road offences.

I wish the phrase "momentary lapse of concentration" would curl up and die. The truth is generally that it's a chronic bad habit that's just this once happened to kill or injure someone.

It's true to say that road collisions are very rarely assault, but I think "momentary lapse of concentration" excuses and trivialises what should really be described as negligence and which should really at the very least trigger an extended retest to (at least in spirit) ensure that the person in question is still considered capable of driving in a non-negligent manner.

Avatar
middlering | 11 years ago
0 likes

“In neither case can one simply blame the police or Crown Prosecution Service for the failed outcomes. In the Mary Bowers case, the CPS did bring a dangerous driving prosecution, only to have it rejected by a jury, i.e. by ordinary members of the public. Similarly in the Sam Harding case, the CPS didn’t really have the option of bringing a dangerous (or even a careless) driving prosecution, given that a jury would almost certainly have been persuaded that opening a car door doesn’t count as driving.”

If we accept this rationale, doesn't it show the judges across the country to be the most committed anti-bike/pro-car campaigners? What else could explain handing out paltry £55 fines when maximum allowed even under careless driving convictions is £5000?

A few multi-thousand fine for careless driving against the cyclists, and even the worst sighted drivers will suddenly start seeing cyclists as big as a lorry!

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'm surprised that the driver even went to court. At the moment it looks like the guy who hit me will be offered a Driver Alertness Course: it's a police decision whether to prosecute or not.

Apparently the courts don't actually have the power to insist on driver training, all they can do is hand out (stupidly insignificant) fines and points.

Avatar
SideBurn replied to jollygoodvelo | 11 years ago
0 likes
Gizmo_ wrote:

I'm surprised that the driver even went to court. At the moment it looks like the guy who hit me will be offered a Driver Alertness Course: it's a police decision whether to prosecute or not.

Apparently the courts don't actually have the power to insist on driver training, all they can do is hand out (stupidly insignificant) fines and points.

It is up to the Police to investigate and hand their case to the Crown Prosecution Service, they have to decide;
(a) if there is a reasonable chance of successful prosecution and if yes
(b) whether it is in the public interest to do so

The opinion of the investigating officer is relevant here but not decisive.

But this driver admitted the offence; so no court case, just sentencing which will take into account a prompt guilty plea

Avatar
SideBurn | 11 years ago
0 likes

He turned left out of a junction and hit a cyclist riding ahead? So he crashed into the back of a cyclist? That is an interesting one....

But did he stop at the time? Did he provide assistance to the injured party? The potential mitigating factors have been missed. It says he pleaded guilty, this would normally mean a reduced sentence. OK so £55 is a piss take, but the effect of the injuries can be mitigated by compensation.
If he had driven off or denied the offence that could mean the rider could have died, not received compensation and as we have seen with the ridiculous 'blacked out windows incident' mentioned above he could have been found innocent!!

Avatar
Krazyfrenchkanuck | 11 years ago
0 likes

 13 What amazes me is that lenient sentences for such cases is a worldwide phenomenon!

I live in Canada and it is the same b....s...
Its also the same in USA.

The sentence should be proportional to the harm done and such that, it has a dissuasive effect on other drivers.

But, imagine if the victim had been someone with a high visibility profile, you can bet the outcome would have been totally different.

Avatar
Sustransoftie replied to Krazyfrenchkanuck | 11 years ago
0 likes
Krazyfrenchkanuck wrote:

But, imagine if the victim had been someone with a high visibility profile, you can bet the outcome would have been totally different.

Er, no.

Sir Wiggo got knocked off and the driver received a slap on the wrist.

If feck all happened to the irresponsible driver whom did this to our national treasure, then what chance has Joe Soap on a bike got?

Write to your MP or whomever is the force behind change in your country.

Cyclists are there own worst enemy because they won't stick together as one voice.

Avatar
IanW1968 | 11 years ago
0 likes

As predicted above, the law isn't working for cyclist so given the opportunity I will resolve incidents on the spot.

Not ideal, but evidence and my personal experience suggests its the only way to get any kind of recourse.

Avatar
kiwiglider | 11 years ago
0 likes

Send the judge out on a bike in rush hour and see if his perspective changes. No confidence in the criminal just system. If the law won't protect us, who will?

Avatar
harrybav replied to kiwiglider | 11 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Cycle campaigning charity CTC has strongly criticised Preston magistrates after they handed down a £55 fine

Isn't the story really "No-one notices as Driver only gets £55 fine"? I'm just not sure we're achieving what we want to with the current campaigning. I mean, strong criticism isn't really strong if the only readers of it are cyclists. Sorry to sound defeatist.

Avatar
jasecd | 11 years ago
0 likes

The law and its enforcement are clearly flawed - it's time to make drivers automatically liable when they cause injury to vulnerable road users. Only then will cyclists and pedestrians be treated properly.

Avatar
arowland replied to jasecd | 11 years ago
0 likes
jasecd wrote:

The law and its enforcement are clearly flawed - it's time to make drivers automatically liable when they cause injury to vulnerable road users. Only then will cyclists and pedestrians be treated properly.

Liability isn't the same as a fine.
Assumed liability would mean that the driver has to prove he was not to blame when/if the victim sues him for damages.
It doesn't mean you would automatically get fined.
(Just in case there was any confusion in anyone's mind following your post  3 )

Avatar
solkanofastera | 11 years ago
0 likes

Magistrate was probably a car dealer in his/her day job, about time this country started electing its judiciary rather than rewarding membership in the chamber of commerce.

Avatar
paulfrank | 11 years ago
0 likes

Just a message for the judge "What the FUCK were you thinking?" a bit blunt I know but just completely flabbergasted.

Avatar
Whirlio | 11 years ago
0 likes

Quite a few of us have been clobbered by cars turning left into our paths, it's not a nice feeling to be flying through the air over a bonnet with oncoming traffic in the corner of your eye. I've had it myself and was actually berated by a screaming driver who was concerned about his grill being scratched.

However, not every driver is the same. I suppose the fine / 3 points would sound normal if the driver had clipped a car instead of the poor cyclist - as was quoted above, its actually a simple case of not giving way, ie SMIDSY. He wasn't malicious, wasn't speeding, wasn't drunk, had insurance / tax / MOT... so it's treated as an accident.

It does seem a bit objectionable that, for instance, I received triple the fine for driving 86mph on a 50mph stretch of 3-lane motorway with light traffic at 2:25am in good night time conditions(M8 coming into Glasgow) without causing any accidents. (At least I wasn't in the middle lane eh?). But then I was deliberately breaking the law, rather than this guy who was just careless... you can see where it comes from.

Avatar
gazza_d replied to Whirlio | 11 years ago
0 likes

"this guy who was just careless" - managed to break multiple bones in another human's body and hospitalise him for several weeks, and be off the bike and probably work for a lot longer.

The driver pulled out of a side road without stopping or looking. That's not careless, that is negligent pure and simple.

Would you say that if it was one of your close family that was seriously injured by someone being so negligent?

Avatar
Bez replied to Whirlio | 11 years ago
0 likes
Whirlio wrote:

...its actually a simple case of not giving way, ie SMIDSY. He wasn't malicious, wasn't speeding, wasn't drunk, had insurance / tax / MOT... so it's treated as an accident ...this guy who was just careless... you can see where it comes from.

So it's ok to be insufficiently competent to operate a ton or so of machinery that can do 70mph or more, provided you're not actively trying to kill and injure people?

It's really damned simple to not hit people on bikes or on horseback or on foot. You just have to give them space and assume they might make a mistake (hey, like people on bikes need to do with HGVs). It's so easy it makes you want to scream. It just takes a little bit of patience and consideration for others, which some people just seem not to have.

Excusing it as "just careless" trivialises what is outright negligence and/or incompetence in operating a potentially lethal machine. The purpose of licensing the use of vehicle use is, in theory, to ensure that people are competent enough to do it without injuring and killing others, and - even though the licensing system falls pretty short there - the law really should back that up by at least forcing short bans and extended retests for anyone who causes injury.

Avatar
Bez | 11 years ago
0 likes

"I don't really care about the size of the fine."

You don't care that failing to move out of the middle lane attracts a £100 fine and 6 points, whereas seriously injuring someone through negligence attracts almost exactly half of that?

You don't care about what that says about your worth on the road? That your getting home in one piece is considered half as valuable as someone not having to move out two lanes to pass another car?

If so then fine, but I'm pretty fucked off about it.

Avatar
antonio | 11 years ago
0 likes

My blood's on the boil again. I believe there is something seriously wrong in the CPS, I think it was last year an employee was prosecuted for manipulating cases saying there was not sufficient evidence to proceed. When glaring cases like the above are unjustified conclusions then it really is time for a root and branch clearout at the CPS.

Pages

Latest Comments