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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

> 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.

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 "!

Sorry but the Judge is a Twat.

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.

“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!

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.