You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire-41842050/police-release-cctv-footage-of-infant-mown-down-by-cyclist Seems about right to me . About the same as a motorist would get for killing a cyclist 😥
I hate things like this because they're proper 'shit happens' type scenarios. The cyclist shouldn't of been there or cycling that fast but equally a 4 year old shouldn't be allowed to run full tilt across the road, pedestrianised or not... (IMO)
I think that's fair.
Really suprised by the length of the sentence, not saying it’s unfair.
a 4 year old shouldn't be allowed to run full tilt across the road, pedestrianised or not... (IMO)
It was not a road as such as it was a pedestrianised area. But I am sure the parents s feel guilty for letting him run away from them never the less.
Cyclist is wrong.
He got what he deserved.
He'd even been warned not to cycle in that area!
Idiot 😯
Feel sorry for the child and the parents.
a 4 year old shouldn't be allowed to run full tilt across the road, pedestrianised or not...
If it's a pedestrianised area then it's not really a "road" is it? Also the rider had been warned previously but decided to carry on. If you are going to ride where you shouldn't, then ride defensively and very cautiously. Fully deserved.
Seems a bit harsh for a accident tbh, he is cycling far too fast though and ignoring the warning was probably the biggest decider in length of sentance and that it's a child involved.
It's also a bit mental to ban cycles from the pedestrian area completely, shouldn't really be any issue with cycling on them at a slow pace, get off if it's too crowd, a blanket ban is nuts.
I can't see any mention of a sentence? 😕
It's also a bit mental to ban cycles from the pedestrian area completely, shouldn't really be any issue with cycling on them at a slow pace, get off if it's too crowd, a blanket ban is nuts.
Except you'll always get idiots who don't slow down when they clearly should. The same lot who speed past schools at kicking out time, etc.
Rockape63 - Member
I can't see any mention of a sentence?
27 weeks it says on the video.
Even given that he shouldn't have been there, I don't understand how he hasn't seen and avoided the child.
Rockape - 27 weeks at Her Majesty's...
mogrim - Member
Except you'll always get idiots who don't slow down when they clearly should. The same lot who speed past schools at kicking out time, etc.
Make a reasonable law and enforce it, a blanket ban is silly.
Can't quite read the sign on my phone but is it always pedestrianised? Looks like it's a road sometimes.If it's a pedestrianised area then it's not really a "road" is it?
EDIT:^^ except permit holders and loading 6-11 am 4-8 pm
We have this in town where its both a pedestrian zone and not a pedestrian zone - which is the worst of both options IMHO The vehicles to move at an absolute crawl though but i never went their during these times when my kids were so wee that this sort of thing might have occured.
[quote=Coyote ]
If it's a pedestrianised area then it's not really a "road" is it? Also the rider had been warned previously but decided to carry on. If you are going to ride where you shouldn't, then ride defensively and very cautiously. Fully deserved.
THIS especially as previously warned.
Sentence may be a little harsh but it is criminal to ride at that speed in a shared use space never mind what is basically a footpath
No comment on the sentence handed out, that's what judges are for and I don't know the guidelines used to come to the decision.
As for the scenario: It's a pedestrianised area so you should really ride at walking pace or get off and walk. Most pedestrianised areas round here do actually ban bikes being ridden, doesn't stop it happening (I'll ride down Queen St during delivery access times for example) but it does move the responsibility for being safe to the cyclist which has a bearing on the crime committed.
Not a nasty situation to be put in though, even more when a child is involved.
Can't quite read the sign on my phone but is always pedestrianised? Looks like it's a road sometimes.
According to the signage, it is always a pedestrianised area, but loading is permitted between certain hours. It does look like a street though, probably town planners could do a better job in making it look more pedestrianised. But still the cyclists fault.
No working front brake dragged the boy for 10 meters. once i'm back from court i'm going to look up the offence its one i have never heard of!
Looks like his general demeanor in the court may have contributed to his sentence.
causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct when driving
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years .
probably town planners could do a better job in making it look more pedestrianised
In this case, he was warned the day before that it was a pedestrian zone and bicycles weren't permitted.
Sounds like something a lot of drivers could/should get done forcausing bodily harm by wilful misconduct when driving
Seems fair to me. He was previously warned about cycling there, had faulty brakes, broke a kids arm and tried to do a runner afterwards instead of facing up to his actions.
Just because other punishments don't seem to fit the crime doesn't mean this one should be lenient as well.
Can't quite read the sign on my phone but is it always pedestrianised? Looks like it's a road sometimes
As above, it's "pedestrianised" (with big speech marks) but you can drive a truck down it for 9 hours a day. And those 9 hours are probably the [i]busiest [/i]9 hours of the day, it's not even for overnight deliveries.
[url= http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437 ]27 weeks in jail for injuring a kid, but walk free when you drive your van on a truly pedestrianised area and crush a four year old to death[/url].
the charge of causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct when driving is the same as the "wanton or furious cycling" one I think with a max term of 2 years.
wow, goes to show you - riding on a "pavement", no brake and this time it [i]was[/i] a child's face. Lucky to escape a hanging, though I suppose the daily mail may yet try to force an appeal vs the lenient sentence
What are some of the responses here getting at? Motorists sometimes get off lightly so cyclists should too?
What are some of the responses here getting at? Motorists sometimes get off lightly so cyclists should too?
No, I think it's just the perverseness of the sentences for motorists.
Cyclists can do no wrong here, and even when they do they do less wrong than those evil motorists.
Motorists getting let off lightly by other motorists (in juries etc) is a problem and should rightly be highlighted and fought against. Cyclists can't see that they are guilty of doing the same thing with other cyclists though.
not true.
I hate things like this because they're proper 'shit happens' type scenarios. The cyclist shouldn't of been there or cycling that fast but equally a 4 year old shouldn't be allowed to run full tilt across the road, pedestrianised or not... (IMO)
Nah, not equally, not even close - the Kid didn't do anything wrong other then be a kid.
Drivers seem to get away with murder (literally almost) but if one took to the pavement because they couldn't be bothered to find a legal route and hit someone, I'd expect the book to be thrown too.
Quote on TV last night from the governor of Barlinnie Prison...
"Prison should be for the people we are afraid of, not the ones we are annoyed with"
Certainly this guy should be punished but not sure that jail time is the answer.
He should be made to spend 27 weeks giving cycling proficiency lessons to primary school kids instead.
He should have just claimed he was [url= http://road.cc/content/news/142213-driver-blinded-sun-found-not-guilty-cyclist-death ]dazzled by the sun[/url] or that the child [url= http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-consultant-who-killed-cyclist-while-driving-wrong-side-road ]'fell into his way'[/url].
In this case, he was warned the day before that it was a pedestrian zone and bicycles weren't permitted.
I am not trying to make excuses for the cyclist I think it is a fair sentence. And I know I am going off at a bit of a tangent, but it is surprising how town/urban planning can encourage good behaviour and discourage bad.
Last year I was talking to a town planner from New Zealand, he was saying how he copied the in street parking zone from English market towns because it naturally slowed traffic to below the speed limit without need for enforcement. It is becoming common now in Dutch and German residential areas to remove the distinction between road and pavement instead having one mixed use area, again it just naturally slows down drivers.
In this case they have a pedestrianized zone that looks like a street, and I can imagine cycling down it myself. The fact that they were already having an enforcement drive shows that quite a few people would. But enforcement shouldn't be seen as the only way to modify poor behaviour.
P-Jay - MemberNah, not equally, not even close - the Kid didn't do anything wrong other then be a kid.
Of course the kid didn't do anything wrong - he's 4 years old.
It's the parents who perhaps should of kept a closer grasp on their child.
Just because it's pedestrianised doesn't mean there won't be hazards around, as we've seen in the video. You can't hide behind/use pedestrianisation as a reason to not have your own responsibilities. It's still an open, public space presumably near traffic in a town centre. Not really the same as a Centre Parks play pen is it.
As I said, many factors could of prevented this. In the eyes of the law, the cyclist was in the wrong, and shit has happened.
But enforcement shouldn't be seen as the only way to modify poor behaviour.
Yeah, it's properly interesting how proper design and planning can create behaviours, and how the wrong planning encourages the wrong behaviour.
Shoulda got life. Could be a child's fac.. oh
Anyone who thinks that looks like a road that you would normally drive down should probably take a trip to their local opticians, which may or may not be Specsavers.
Sentence [i]seems[/i] a little harsh, but then I've probably just got used to people almost literally getting away with murder.
One other point:
tried to do a runner afterwards instead of facing up to his actions
This probably prevented further crimes being committed.
Just because it's pedestrianised doesn't mean there won't be hazards around, as we've seen in the video. You can't hide behind/use pedestrianisation as a reason to not have your own responsibilities. It's still an open, public space presumably near traffic in a town centre. Not really the same as a Centre Parks play pen is it.
You would expect it to be free of fast moving vehicles though.
Just because it's pedestrianised doesn't mean there won't be hazards around, as we've seen in the video.
That hazard should not have been there though, hence the gaol sentence.
It is reasonable not to expect a cyclist to come tearing through an area where cycling is strictly forbidden.
You sound like an apologist, IMO.
It is becoming common now in Dutch and German residential areas to remove the distinction between road and pavement instead having one mixed use area, again it just naturally slows down drivers
I'm amazed at how much difference converting a pedestrian crossing to a 'shared space' in my town centre made.
It gets rid of the whole mentality of who has the right to be in the road. Pedestrians can cross safely without lights because traffic moves slower, and traffic spends far less time queuing for lights. And people don't run out in front of buses anywhere near as much.
It is reasonable not to expect a cyclist to come tearing through an area where cycling is strictly forbidden.
In a perfect world yes.
But there are nobbers about, sadly
chip - MemberIn a perfect world yes.
But there are nobbers about, sadly
One less for the next six months.
At the end of the day we can't complain about others being irresponsible unless we are accountable as well, this nob rode in what was clearly a pedestrian area having been warned, near to children and without proper brakes- reckless and selfish .
Wow, I was NOT expecting to see a sentence that I thought was fair
If that had been my little boy I would have been absolutely fuming
27 weeks is very fair, especially as he was warned already
Personally I'm fine with people cycling in an area like that if they're doing so slowly and safely i.e. not far off walking pace, he was going way too fast
It's a lot more the Debra Kelly got
After drinking wine at a party
The court heard Kelly struck the businessman as he cycled home from work, sending him flying into the carriageway and his bike into the bushes.
"Kelly's car overturned on the dual carriageway and ended up on the central reservation. She left the scene after getting a lift from a stranger in a van, but gave herself up to the police seven hours later, the court heard."
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8589152.stm ]Linky[/url]
One less for the next [s]six months[/s]13 weeks with a on eyear supervision order whilst out on licence.[/quote
My shop is on a cross roads which is governed by traffic lights.
There is a sequence where all the lights are red and pedestrians get to cross the road while the safe to cross beeps sound.
12 seconds before the lights turn green again a sign starts a countdown.
We frequently get car drivers going through the pedestrian crossing even when the countdown commences.
Ive moaned to our PCSO and filled out an official moaning form and spoken to our police liason officer.
This week there was a police van stopped while people were crossing and a car drove through on 4 seconds to go.
The police van pulled up outside my shop so I asked the pc why he didn't do anything about the car going through a red light.
He informed me that it wasn't his patch.Why a copper is driving around in an area where he can't arrest people I don't know.
I asked him to report the problem so that pcs who can do stuff could tackle the problem.
He said that people wouldn't go through the lights if cops were there.
I told him that people had just ignored a huge police van and that he shouldn't worry.
THEN...this morning a push bike went beyond a red light a few feet but stopped in a forward position so that lorries could see him.
Plod then blue lighted him and made him come back.
I did intervene but obviously it's only bikes that matter.
"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years .[b]"
so its the "wanton and furious" offence but highlighting the misconduct neglect element. There are no crown court guidelines for this. The only guidelines are magistrates guidelines for Dangerous Driving (which seems to be an analogous offence with the same maximum sentence.) Magistrates powers cut off at 26 weeks imprisonment. The offence clearly is worse than those contemplated by the magistrates guidelines. So the crown court judge has given him a short custodial at the lower end of his powers.
I think a dangerous driver who had knocked a toddler down dragged the child for 10 meters and caused those injuries would be certainly in the 6 month plus bracket particularly if they made off from the scene.
I let my child wander free but close in pedestrian zones they don't learn if you tie them to your apron strings.
Cyclists can do no wrong here, and even when they do they do less wrong than those evil motorists.Motorists getting let off lightly by other motorists (in juries etc) is a problem and should rightly be highlighted and fought against. Cyclists can't see that they are guilty of doing the same thing with other cyclists though.
*sigh*
It's not that at all. It's about bringing the punishments for drivers who kill (children on the pavement) UP to this level, not a single person has said that the guy on the bike did "no wrong", you're just making stuff up there.
P-Jay>
Drivers seem to get away with murder (literally almost) but if one took to the pavement because they couldn't be bothered to find a legal route and hit someone, I'd [b]expect [/b]the book to be thrown too.
As mentioned already, drive along the pavement (illegal) and crush a little girl to death and you can expect to be found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving despite saying "yep, that was me, I did it".
Edit:
I think a dangerous driver who had knocked a toddler down dragged the child for 10 meters and caused those injuries would be certainly in the 6 month plus bracket
Again...van driver killed a four year old. Not guilty, although, admittedly, that's due to the jury, not the judge, who knows what the sentence would have been if it was a guilty verdict.
[b] particularly if they made off from the scene[/b]
It's worth noting that, contemptible as it might be, there is no legal requirement for a bike rider to stay on the scene of a collision. A driver who left the scene would be breaking the law, a rider wouldn't.
Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act makes it an offence for the driver of a [b]motor [/b]vehicle to leave the scene of a crashFrom http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
he was attempting to park on the pavement not drive along it, there is a big difference there.drive along the pavement (illegal) and crush a little girl to death
I dont disagree that , in general, drivers get a light deal from juries because they also drive
he was attempting to park on the pavement not drive along it, there is a big difference there.
Not really. The only fact is that he was on his bike. The reason why he was on his bike is utterly irrelevant.
Debra Kelly was sentenced on the basis of careless driving and she got 24 weeks in prison , that is what the judge thought her offence was worth, his words were " though you richly deserve to go to prison." He then suspended the sentence essentially in the interests of her baby who would otherwise have been born in prison. she also got a high unpaid work order and a massive costs order. Suspended sentence means re-offend or don't do the order then you do the time.
"Again...van driver killed a four year old. Not guilty, although, admittedly, that's due to the jury, not the judge, who knows what the sentence would have been if it was a guilty verdict."
36 weeks in prison on a guilty verdict sorry the guideline does not copy and paste nicely but:-
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving
Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 2B)
Maximum penalty: 5 years imprisonment
minimum disqualification of 12 months, discretionary re-test
Nature of offence Starting Point Sentencing range
Careless or inconsiderate driving falling not far
short of dangerous driving
15 months custody 36 weeks–3 years
custody
Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving 36 weeks custody Community order
(HIGH)–2 years
custody
Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from
momentary inattention with no aggravating
factors
Community order
(MEDIUM)
Community order
(LOW)–Community
order (HIGH)
I know that street well, it's a lot steeper than it looks at the top, so easy to pick up a daft amount of speed. The little shitbag deserves every day of that sentence. Drags a kid along by his front wheel and knocks his teeth out, then cycles off to save his own skin.
knowingly riding an unroadworthy bike.
Not really. The only fact is that he was on his bike. The reason why he was on his bike is utterly irrelevant.
My comment is in relation to the link about the van driver its not a comment on the cyclist- who did not kill anyone and was not trying to park on the pavement.
In addition, only the day before this incident a Police Community Support Officer warned Manners not to ride his bicycle on the pedestrianised area of Peascod Street.“It is a relief that Manners was given a custodial sentence and I hope this goes some way towards helping the family move on from this incident
27 weeks for bad Manners is a bit harsh. What's next, a year for vulgarity ?
If that had been my little boy I would have been absolutely fuming
Indeed I reckon he was lucky to get away without 27 weeks in hospital!!
Certainly this guy should be punished but not sure that jail time is the answer.
He should be made to spend 27 weeks giving cycling proficiency lessons to primary school kids instead
Agree, hail should not be used because doing stuff that helps is too hard. Saying that, he may not be the best person to teach others how to cycle safely.
Saying that, he may not be the best person to teach others how to cycle safely.
Not now maybe, but after 27 solid weeks of repeating himself to school kids. You'd think something would sink in , either cycle safety or an appreciation of little kids, if he was made to do that, which was my point.
[url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15640126.Grief_of_grandmother_s_family_as_coach_driver_found_guilty_of_causing_her_death/ ]http://www..Grief_of_grandmother_s_family_as_coach_driver_found_guilty_of_causing_her_death/[/url]
[i]The 28-year-old was sentenced to a 12-month Community Order and 60 hours of unpaid work, as well as a 12-month driving disqualification and was ordered to pay £625 in court costs and £85 Victim Surcharge.[/i]