- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Community order, driving ban and fine for driver who caused cyclist’s death
Wetherby News reports that a man has been sentenced to a community order of 120 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of causing the death of a cyclist by dangerous driving. 64-year-old Brian Colling has also been disqualified from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay £3,500 costs and a £60 victim surcharge.
Darren Greaves, 38, of Wetherby, was cycling along the B1224 between Bickerton and Wetherby at about 5.20pm on October 17 2013 when he was hit from behind by Colling. Greaves fell from his bike and was then hit by another car. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Greaves’ family said: “After several months of waiting for justice for Darren, we have finally received that. We would like to thank North Yorkshire Police who have supported us throughout. Darren lives with us every day.”
Earlier this year, we reported how families could get the right to challenge death by dangerous driving sentences with the attorney general reviewing what offences can be appealed. Currently only a limited number of sentences can be challenged, but a host of other offences tried in magistrates’ courts may be added to the list.
The review is partly a response to pressure from CTC which in 2013 launched its Road Justice Campaign. The organisation believes that some bad drivers are treated leniently due to what it perceives as occasional failings on the part of police, prosecutors and the courts. It therefore aims to get the justice system to take a more rigorous approach to investigating, prosecuting, and sentencing incidents of bad driving on Britain's roads.
Traffic Sergeant John Lumbard, of North Yorkshire Police, said that Colling’s sentence represented ‘a clear message to drivers’ regarding their responsibilities towards cyclists.
“The Highway Code gives strong guidance within the rules for drivers: overtake only when it is safe to do so, give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking, and take into account any wobbles or swerving by cyclists who may be trying to avoid potholes or defects in the road.
“When approaching cyclists, drivers need to be prepared to slow down and if necessary follow the cyclist until there is a safe opportunity to overtake. If there is oncoming traffic then drivers should show patience and not try to squeeze through the gap. Neither should drivers attempt to overtake cyclists on bends where the view ahead is obscured.
“Following the guidance given in the Highway Code will only add a few seconds to a journey, but the consequences of attempting to pass a cyclist at the wrong time could be very serious. We need to make the roads as safe as we can, and following the Highway Code will go a long way to achieving this.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- froze 2 sec ago
Just my opinion, but sorry that bike is UGLY! I can't see that sort of price for a completed bike, not alone for just the frame and fork!...
- Boopop 37 min 25 sec ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 46 min 31 sec ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 1 hour 2 min ago
Yes, they look just like the Lezyne Zecto model. My club bought a couple of sets from the LBS for our midweek TTs so if someone turns up without...
- Hirsute 3 hours 34 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 51 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 4 hours 20 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 4 hours 27 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- brooksby 9 hours 33 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
23 comments
Any driver involved in an accident which leads to the serious injury of a cyclist or worse, should have to retake the driving test as a baseline penalty. An accident indicates there a question about the drivers competance and he or she should have to prove they are capable of driving safely. The only exception is if the cyclist can be proven to have caused the accident.
120 hours of unpaid work! There've been times when I've done in excess of 100 hours work in one week!! And for a long time, 90 hour working weeks were the norm.
120 hours of community work, while hopefully it will drive some benefit to someone, really doesn't seem like all that much.
Ah...
http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/15623
Is it definite that the conviction was 'causing death by dangerous driving' (and not 'careless driving')?
Could it be that this has been mis-reported?
Because I don't see how the sentence is consistent with
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_...
Which seems to say that even for the 'least serious' (of 3 levels) of offense:
"Starting point: 3 years custody
Sentencing range: 2-5 years custody"
Guess I'm no legal expert, but it seems rare enough for someone to be convicted of the dangerous driving charge rather than careless, but if the sentence is going to be so light, what's the point in having the more serious charge at all?
(I'm betting it was actually 'careless driving' and the news article is in error)
Where does "12 month driving ban" come from?
Does the 'law' magically expect this motorist to have changed their ways or overturn what is probably a lifetime of bad driving habits, and suddenly become little danger to other road users.
If you kill someone whilst driving dangerously, why not have your license permanently withdrawn?
After all, a motorist has no "right of way" to use the public highway, they are granted an exemption through the licensing scheme.
Two comments. 1) if this guy drove into the back of a cyclist, he's 64, why not just withdraw his licence to drive completely, not just for twelve months? And 2) the Highway Code about leaving enough room for a cyclist to wiggle if there was a pothole &c - quick show of hands but how many people think they've EVER been overtaken by a motor vehicle leaving enough room that if they swerved to avoid a pothole then they'd still be safe?
Checks the Date........... Must be April 1st....................
You dont even get a 12 month ban for drink driving these days, but kill a cyclist and the courts dont give a fcuk......
This sentence is a fucking joke like the courts and Government. The cyclist was run down by this fucking dangerous driver then run over by another car and the cunt only gets a sentence of unpaid work a fine and 12 month driving ban! It's an absolute fucking disgrace. The driver should be in prison for at least 8 years, life time driving ban so he NEVER drives again and still has to pay a huge fine but to the deceased cyclist's family.
How many more of us have to be slaughtered before our lives are given some sort of value by much tougher sentencing?
I was hit and run and the local plod did nothing to catch the driver. I was lucky not to be killed, snuffed out left for dead on a rural country road as it got dark in october a few years ago.
The system to protect victims is totally fucked.
The thing I really can't get my head around is the length of the bans in many of these cases. I just can't think how somebody that clearly isn't able to use a car safely (think how many near misses this person could have had) is then allowed to use a car again after causing the death of someone.
That's what is most annoying about these "sentences" (not sentences, they are barely sentence fragments). They kill, and then after a few months to a year they are allowed back in control of the most deadly thing Americans can get their hands on, which when you think about it is pretty damn scary because we are allowed to own artillery pieces that can punch a 6 inch hole in a foot of reinforced concrete. Motor vehicles are more deadly and dangerous than that.
Joke sentence. Except, it's not ****ing funny.
Some words. Unable to to express self articulately, so not even going to try.
The very clear message to drivers is that it's OK to run over and kill other humans, because nothing should ever get in the way of their 'right' to drive on the road.
I have a question - say he'd hit and killed a horse. Imagine the outcry from Animal Rights Groups, RSPCA, etc. and the certain legislation changes that would follow - you'd like to think.
So, what if as many people rode Horses on the road as Cycle? Exactly what sort of repeated confrontational reaction would those users get from drivers given that they also 'don't pay no road tax?'
In my opinion nothing changes because nobody significantly know has died from it. If a pop singer or a politician would have been a victim of similar situation, each and every news agency would be milking it. More people would get this into their brains and that might accelerate the inevitable. While unknown people die they think of them as just numbers. 7 in London, 4 somewhere else...
I've said it before, Boris need to take one for the team under the wheels of a tipper truck. It would do more for the cause of cycling and cyclist than he could ever hope to do as the Tory London mayor. It would also be one less bullingdon club member running the country.
If you want to get rid of your neighbor just give him a bicycle as a present and wait for him to try it while you sit and wait in a car. Run him over from behind and blame cyclist. Easy fix for your neighbor problem and you will only have to do 4 months of unpaid work... Don't forget to put insurance on the bike....
So a car hits someone from behind, kills them and gets a basic slap on the wrist. for me this would be a 5 year jail sentence and 20 year ban ... that sends the message.
"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking"
The problem is that many motorists don't give cars much room when overtaking so they do the same with cyclists and horse riders.
There is an element of ambiguity to the phrase the Highway Code uses: it could mean 'leave the same gap as you would between you and another car' which would fit with the metre or so most average drivers give you. Or it could (and indeed does, given the illustration that accompanies Rule 163 https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169) mean 'your car should be in the same road position as it would be when overtaking another car'.
Not that I think making the wording clearer would help (unless it was incredibly rigorously enforced by the police, which is as likely as Eric Pickles winning the TDF). Comes down to educating drivers into being more considerate to all vulnerable road users. And I think that is possible, the average driver seems to have got the hang of 'slow and wide' when passing horses, but that is maybe an easier sell seeing as there are many fewer on the roads (and they're less social acceptable to hate).
I have yet to see a car go through the car they are overtaking, so they must be giving them at least a car's width.
while some drivers may argue pass with the same gap you would give a car, rather than give the cyclist as much space as you would a car. it is very clear that cyclist should be treated like horses, and the majority of drivers would not pass a horse as close as they pass cyclists
Meanwhile, today in Scotland
"A motorist who killed a cyclist when using her mobile phone while driving then deleted the incriminating call has been jailed for five years."
IMO she wasn't jailed for long enough. It's time the courts started setting proper examples to those who risk killing people because they think flouting the law is OK.
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/1323885-julie-watson-who-killed-alistair-spee...
Pleased to see the Scottish courts getting it right, seems for a while it was o.k to kill cyclists and get a fine, ban or some community service, hope this sends out a message to the judges!
I'm pretty sure she only got hammered there because she deleted the call logs on her phone...
as in trying to pervert the course of justice...