# Cyclist jailed for pavement death



## MajorMantra (12 Aug 2009)

Don't think this has been posted already:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

He's clearly a knob, but isn't the driving ban a bit odd? Or has he proved himself too much of a liability to be on the road by any means?

Matthew


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 Aug 2009)

> Or has he proved himself too much of a liability to be on the road by any means?


I would have said so, yes. Given the total recklessness he's demonstrated, a driving ban seems perfectly appropriate to me.


----------



## thomas (12 Aug 2009)

MajorMantra said:


> He's clearly a knob, but isn't the driving ban a bit odd? Or has he proved himself too much of a liability to be on the road by any means?



My thoughts too...there are a few threads on this already but someone mentioned that banning him from driving *might* have to happen due to bicycles being classed as a vehicle.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2009)

It has been tried before, giving a cyclist a driving ban/points on driving licence when it's a cycling offence rather than a motoring offence. When challenged, the authorities have backed down. There's been a couple of cases mentioned here in the past but I can't be 4r$3d to look them up right now as I'm knackered. I have no issue at all with the cyclist in question being dealt with harshly(jail if you kill somone though negligence, stupidity seems not too harsh IMO) but it must be done properly. What next - a driving ban beause you've shoplifted in Tesco? The charging & punishment must be done properly. I too feel grounds for appeal in the air. 

Ah yes...

http://news.scotsman.com/south/Charity-cyclist-stopped-on-motorway.5458444.jp


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

I think with respect to the cyclist on the motorway there is a tenuous link for giving him points (not something I agree with) under the various endorsable offences here MW10. I don't know what it means just that it exists. There are a few that aren't to do with driving such as special roads offences (presumably as a ped) and play strees offences MS30. Don't know what that means but presumably means you can be given two points for kicking a football around a quiet cul-de-sac.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2009)

They are still motoring offences though.. I mean if Joe Public, in a drunken stupor walks down a slip road and on to the hard shoulder of a motorway, be charged with a motoring offence? Surely not. And that in no way suggests I condone such behaviour.


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

wafflycat said:


> They are still motoring offences though.. I mean if Joe Public, in a drunken stupor walks down a slip road and on to the hard shoulder of a motorway, be charged with a motoring offence? Surely not. And that in no way suggests I condone such behaviour.



I'm not sure they are motoring offences. I'm more seeking clarification. The vast majority of endorsable offences certainly are motoring ones but when I read the list when I learnt to drive those two stuck out and I seem to remember someone in the past talking about special roads. I'm not sure how play street offences is a motoring offence unless it means fooling around on mini motos and electric scooters, people have certainly been given points for that, just not sure under which endorsement, it's quite possible it was that one.

I agree this fool going down a hill shouldn't be banned from driving, I was just saying that there seems to be no link whatsoever for doing that whereas there's a slight question mark that could be answered in my mind as to what a MW10 is and what an MS10 is.


----------



## thomas (12 Aug 2009)

wafflycat said:


> They are still motoring offences though.. I mean if Joe Public, in a drunken stupor walks down a slip road and on to the hard shoulder of a motorway, be charged with a motoring offence? Surely not. And that in no way suggests I condone such behaviour.



+1. You don't need to condone the behaviour to know that if you did something 'wrong' you wouldn't be unfairly punished for it.



marinyork said:


> I agree this fool going down a hill shouldn't be banned from driving, I was just saying that there seems to be no link whatsoever for doing that whereas there's a slight question mark that could be answered in my mind as to what a MW10 is and what an MS10 is.




What are MW10 and MS10?

On the charity cyclist, if he had no driving licence he could of recieved no endorsements or a penalty notice. Therefore he has not been treated fairly (or was not).

If they want to make a law that says anyone using a motorway on a bicycle can be fined £60 then that is another matter.


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> What are MW10 and MS10?
> 
> On the charity cyclist, if he had no driving licence he could of recieved no endorsements or a penalty notice. Therefore he has not been treated fairly (or was not).
> 
> If they want to make a law that says anyone using a motorway on a bicycle can be fined £60 then that is another matter.



They are endorsements and I forgot it's MS30, not 10. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqualifications/DG_10022425 I'm not really interested in someone's opinion on it. I'm interested in what they mean, as this issue keeps on cropping up.

We've dealt with this giving someone a penalty that has a lack of driving licence and endorsements. It depends entirely on your opinion whether they have been treated fairly. If they learnt to drive and the New Drivers Act 1996 kicks in, then yes you could make a case they've been unfairly treated. OTOH someone who say already had 6 or 9pts would physically have something taken away from them. Not really much to be said on the matter Thomas.

I don't think the cyclist should have been given points or a fine. I was making the point then as now that it's one of only two things I know of where you might be able to get points for non-motoring offences - relevent in the discussion, although I believe there's no case for giving this fool a ban.

There are laws governing peds, cycles and other behaviours on motorways - the special roads act and various SIs and laws since. Normally the cops are bothered about safety, they usually give people a lift off and/or a telling off. It's actually a fairly common thing to happen.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2009)

I know that a 'play street' is one where it is designated as being more for pedestrians & cyclists than motors. Motors are allowed but they do not have priority, there's lots of traffic calming features likely IIRC.


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

Hmmm not heard of them. Also surprised if that is what a play street is and an offence more or less amounts to the same thing as others it gets few penalty points!

Right with that cleared up I should probably re-read the special roads acts and ones since to see if I can work out whether an MW10 applies to peds.


----------



## ComedyPilot (12 Aug 2009)

Don't you hate it when scum like him are called 'cyclists'?

IMO a 'real' cyclist wouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place, let alone riding like a complete knobber.

Sentence not long enough.


----------



## very-near (13 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Don't you hate it when scum like him are called 'cyclists'?
> 
> IMO a 'real' cyclist wouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place, let alone riding like a complete knobber.
> 
> Sentence not long enough.



Given they gave him a driving ban and he was on the pavement, he must have been a car driver in disguise - or perhaps a pedestrian who thought he carried all his 'rights' up through into cycling.


----------



## User482 (13 Aug 2009)

wafflycat said:


> I know that a 'play street' is one where it is designated as being more for pedestrians & cyclists than motors. Motors are allowed but they do not have priority, there's lots of traffic calming features likely IIRC.



Sounds like what are more widely referred to as "Home Zones". There's one near me and it seems much nicer than what was there before. Here's a review of one in Bristol:

http://www.uwe.ac.uk/ishe/docs/southville_home_zone_evaluation.pdf


----------



## byegad (13 Aug 2009)

He is certainly a clown and deserved the spell in jail.

What worries me is the clear discrepancy between his sentence and that of a number of drivers who have killed through malice and/or negligence and either escaped jail altogether or been handed down a lesser sentence. No matter how stupidly, and fast he was riding a bike and man at nearly 40mph in a 30 limit (I doubt he was ridiing that fast anyway.) is far less a weapon than a car at the same speed. In either case however riding or driving on the pavement to avoid a red light is plain asking for an accident to happen. Sadly in this case the very worst happened.

It's a pity the authorities are not as keen on punishing moronic motorists.


----------



## snorri (13 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Don't you hate it when scum like him are called 'cyclists'?


Not in the least bit.


----------



## wafflycat (13 Aug 2009)

User said:


> Hmmm.... It appears that I was wrong. The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) came into force in 2004. This allows a driving ban to be applied in relation to *any* criminal offence.



If that's the case, then that is blatantly unfair - it really does mean you can get a driving ban for shoplifting if it is so...


----------



## PK99 (13 Aug 2009)

wafflycat said:


> If that's the case, then that is blatantly unfair - it really does mean you can get a driving ban for shoplifting if it is so...



IIRC, the argument at the time was that driving is a privilege of modern society, if i breach the rules of society than my losing that privilege for a while is a reasonable punishment - and in some cases a better punishment than a fine.


----------



## thomas (13 Aug 2009)

wafflycat said:


> If that's the case, then that is blatantly unfair - it really does mean you can get a driving ban for shoplifting if it is so...





PK99 said:


> IIRC, the argument at the time was that driving is a privilege of modern society, if i breach the rules of society than my losing that privilege for a while is a reasonable punishment - and in some cases a better punishment than a fine.




Driving is a privilege but justice needs to be equally distributed. If me and wafflycat both hypothetically go shoplifting and get a years driving ban as punishment it would not be equal.

Assuming wafflycat uses her car it may inconvenience her, where as though I have a full licence I probably won't be insured on a car for at least another year, maybe another 2/3 when I finish UNI.

Therefore the ban wouldn't bother me.

If driving is a privilege they should start taking away licences from people who commit (proper) motoring offences, rather than have the ability to take them away from people who haven't committed a motoring related crime.

I have *no *problem with this cyclist going to prison for killing the man. He was obviously not travelling appropriately for the conditions and for when on a pavement.


----------



## marinyork (13 Aug 2009)

PK99 said:


> IIRC, the argument at the time was that driving is a privilege of modern society, if i breach the rules of society than my losing that privilege for a while is a reasonable punishment - and in some cases a better punishment than a fine.



I vaguely remember it. IIRC the argument at the time was for taking it off people like drug dealers or people using cars directly for serious crime on a regular basis.


----------



## PK99 (13 Aug 2009)

marinyork said:


> I vaguely remember it. IIRC the argument at the time was for taking it off people like drug dealers or people using cars directly for serious crime on a regular basis.



That strikes a chord


----------



## Yellow Fang (14 Aug 2009)

I was going to make a point about how he should have been charged with the furious cycling rule, but like User says, it seems like there never was one. It always was wanton and furious driving. Ah well, that was my rant about the judiciary too flexibly re-interpreting old law or, in effect, making up new law over.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Aug 2009)

I'm surprised, Yellow Fang, that you're not telling us it was all the 84 year olf pedestrian's fault, and that he should have rolled himself up in to a ball.......


----------



## Yellow Fang (14 Aug 2009)

would have survived if he had.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Aug 2009)

Yellow Fang said:


> would have survived if he had.


classy as ever......


----------



## Origamist (14 Aug 2009)

Yellow Fang said:


> would have survived if he had.



Indeed. "Duck and Cover": 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp0I


----------



## stoptherock (18 Aug 2009)

If no collision actually took place and the elderly party was startled and fell and tragically died....


Suppose a driver on a mobile fails to notice a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, slams the brakes on and screeches to a halt, the alarmed pedestrian falls, bangs his head and later dies.


Should the driver get seven months?


----------

