- 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
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Drunk driver who killed Plymouth cyclist sentenced
A Plymouth drunk driver who set off on the wrong side of the road and went the wrong way round a roundabout has been sentenced to four years in prison after he hit and killed a cyclist on his way home from a club. Sonny Richards, 24, hit Nathan Dale as he was cycling home from Plymouth lifeboat station where he was a volunteer.
The Plymouth Herald reports how Plymouth Crown Court was shown CCTV footage of Richards leaving Jesters nightclub and walking up Octagon Street to his car in King Street in the early hours of March 12. He was said to have initially set off on the wrong side of the road, without lights, before switching them on and going around a roundabout the wrong way.
Dale was cycling along Outland Road wearing a helmet and four lights, all of which were on, when he was hit from behind by Richards’ Ford Fiesta.
Paramedics were called at 3.10am, but Dale was pronounced dead at Derriford Hospital an hour later.
Richards did not stop and drove another two miles before texting his mother to say: "let you down, big time".
When she asked what he had done, he replied: "been drinking, taking sniff. Drove the car on the way home. Hit somebody. He hit the windscreen. I'll have to go tomorrow and own up".
His mother told him: "You need to grow up and own up straight away".
After a short phone conversation, Richards’ mother sent another text at 4.42am telling him: “Phone police immediately”.
By this point, Richards had, admitting his offence and meeting with officers at the scene.
Richards pleaded guilty to causing death by driving without due care and attention while under the influence of alcohol and to failing to stop after a road collision.
Jailing him, Judge Ian Lawrie QC questioned "how on earth you managed to get into the car when you were considerably over the limit and possibly with drugs in your system."
Making reference to Richards having taken care of his father after two strokes and a broken hip, he said: "You are clearly not a bad person, it was never your intention to cause harm. You are clearly caring, thoughtful, you cared for your ailing father. You have expressed a profound sense of remorse. If you had been sober, Nathan would be alive today."
Richards was also disqualified from driving for five years and had his license endorsed.
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
- chrisonabike 33 min ago
I have a visual memory from childhood of one of this species of bricks popping loose from a bracket on a downhill section and flying away to smash ...
- wtjs 1 hour 22 min ago
There is an increasing 'disconnect' between comments in this topic and reality. Cords are either all cotton or mostly cotton and are going to last...
- ktache 1 hour 53 min ago
There are people out there who will make you the belt out of your old tyre.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 54 min ago
Furry dice and an air freshener for your helmet.
- AidanR 2 hours 7 min ago
Looking at the pictures in the linked article, the bikes aren't actually inconsiderately parked. The only issue is that they're on private property...
- Simon E 2 hours 42 min ago
Ah yes, those are hopefully not the 'master craftsmen' that has constructed a wide range of shoddy Italian cars and motorbikes over the years with...
- Simon E 3 hours 5 min ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- chrisonabike 3 hours 57 min ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
- AidanR 4 hours 33 min ago
So his advisers were trying to move funds around to cover losses, but in a way that needlessly created additional liabilities? It would have been...
Add new comment
34 comments
I've posted this before but if everyone who is pissed at the leniency of his sentence, made a formal complaint, Attorney General would have to consider reviewing his sentence, and possibly send it to the Court of Appeal.
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence
Attorney General’s Office
www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk
correspondence [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7271 2492
Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
Done - Thanks for that link.
Although it does look like it's not a conviction that can be complained about that way.
Also asked for a review of charge; as Manslaughter sounds a more reasonable starting point for any case where someone gets killed.
I entirely disagree.
Firstly it depends what degree of drunkenness, and what level of consequent misbehaviour, you are talking about - this guy drove on the wrong side of the road and the wrong way round a roundabout. The chances of _that_ level of drunk-driving causing harm is not as low as you suggest.
Either he was utterly paralytic, or he had an existing level of selfish recklessness that just came out more when drunk. Not everyone behaves equally badly when drunk. That's another point, in fact, being inebriated shouldn't remove all moral culpability for your actions. Not only did he make the decision to drive drunk, he should still be held responsible for the decisions he made _while_ drunk. If you are _that_ bad a drunk, you have a still higher-responsibility not to get that pissed.
Secondly, whether his actions were 100% guaranteed to cause harm, or just had a significant probability of doing so, is not _that_ important. To a large extent the only reason the likelihood of harm isn't much higher is because of the degree of responsibility other road-users and society take to try and mitigate the risk. And the need to take that kind of responsibility in itself causes other forms of harm.
Oh, also, cars cause harm, and kill, even when used 'correctly'. Driving unnecessarily even when sober is a morally-questionable thing to do, in my opininon (especially if its a bloody diesel!).
The only things I'd amend from my first reaction, is that it's probably more the law that's the problem than the individual judge, who presumably is following guidelines, and that really the whole approach to transport needs to change, which would also help save the irresponsible from their own weaknesses.
If he was really so remorseful, why was it even necessary to disqualify him from driving?
I wonder if any of our apologists for the letting off killers system know what proportion of oh so remorseful car killers actually surrender their licences? If it's above 5% I may have to find a hat to eat. In fact, if any of the "remorse" lasts longer than the end of the judges sympathetic tosh I'd be astonished.
All cyclist or pedastrian deaths due to motor vehicle collision should start with a charge of manslaughte.
There is no real deterrent.
Total bullshit yet again.
Lovely bloke normally yadda yadda.
Lifetime driving ban, his victim was treated with absolute contempt and has received the greatest ban of all, that of being banned from everything.
To exercise such disrespect for wider society, his victim and their loved ones and his own driving privileges point to someone totally unfit.
No more excuses but we'll go on reading this crap for years to come all hoping it won't be us next.
100,000 signatures to ban tampon tax in the UK but we can barely muster up 35,000 for big efforts like The Times' Cycle Campaign?
We, I am afraid, our also our own worst enemies.
Signed:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128648/sponsors/NZBn8V3Lp9d989V...
Ive started a Petition to have the law changed to mean Mandatory Lifetime Driving bans for anyone found guilty of killing someone from behind the wheel. Please sign.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128648/sponsors/NZBn8V3Lp9d989V...
I wonder if a life ban from driving is practical? Would no doubt be challenged as an unfair punishment, based on the fact you do your time and then you're clear but they can ban paedophiles from working with children for life. Same applies to people convicted of firearms offences I believe. (Firearms important as that's a licensed activity like driving)
All it would need would be a sliding scale of bans, with imprisonment as the end point for repeat offenders:
Accident causing injury: 1 year ban
Accident causing death: 5 year ban
Driving whilst banned: 10 year ban
Further offence: Life ban
Or something like that.
We should be campaigning for lawyers and media to stop talking about "bans", and stop seeing them as punishment. More accurately it should be simply a removal of the privilege of driving, done because he has demonstrated a lack of fitness to drive, in the same way as an epileptic or a blind person would not be permitted to drive.
4 years for killing someone seems crazy to me! was the judge drunk and on drugs?!
if i got pissed and stoned and ran along the high st swinging a sledgehammer around and accidentaly stoved someones head in, what would the sentance be? because to me, getting in a car while drunk and under the influence of drugs is the same thing.
i hope the family appeal for a tougher sentence.
Except that
1. It's easier with a car
2. Probably not even l.willo would attempt to defend your actions. Because driving a car is seen by him (her) and others as a normal, necessary act, so cannot be conceived of as criminal, in the way that running amok with a lump hammer or chainsaw could be
Nearly. Add 'per se' after 'criminal' and I would agree 100%.
Not a cycling fatality but a similar case - 6 years for 2 deaths (he recently appealed to get the 9 month reduction on the original sentence).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34222934
All deliberate acts: Drink, take drugs, drive, speed. The loss of a child for any reason is unbearable but in situations like these I don't know how a parent could cope. 3 years each for two daughters just starting out in life, its just not enough.
The bastard should swing, end of!!!
Probably only 2 real years - for killing a lifeboat man whilst drunk driving!
"You are clearly not a bad person" FFS!!
4 f**king years
4 f**king years.
I'd get more than that if I lied about my points.
THe CPS has to appeal that tariff. It is so pathetic that it is bleakly laughable.
Anyone can appeal the sentence, doesnt need to be the CPS or the family.
It NEEDS to be "anyone", because the CPS won't do it, not a chance. The CPS appealling for a stronger sentence for killing a bike rider? This has either never, or just about never, happened (propbably the former).
It's the system desperately try to let drivers off the hook at all costs.
The only reason there was a conviction in this cases was the drink and the drugs. Even your average jury of motorists think that's a step to far, they'll happy turn a blind eye, to being blind, and rampant mobile phone use(because we all do that don't we and even the blind have a right to drive)
How having a skin full of booze and drugs and driving round a roundabout the wrong way isn't dangerous driving is beyond me.
If he gets 4 years.... there is no way a sober person would get jailed in this system. The day to live in when smoking some marijuana can get you 5 years in prison. Not selling, not growing. Just using it... So just by him being on drugs and drunk should technically bump it up to 5 years, not to mention the slaughter of a human being
"Making reference to Richards having taken care of his father after two strokes and a broken hip, he said: "You are clearly not a bad person, it was never your intention to cause harm. You are clearly caring, thoughtful, you cared for your ailing father. "
This is the part of the "intent" argument I can never understand. No, he clearly did not intend to kill a specific victim. But he deliberately drank too much, deliberately took drugs, and deliberately drove his car in that state, as a consequence of which he killed someone. I cannot imagine how "unintentional" can apply to this behaviour.
I also cannot imagine why he should ever be permitted to drive a motor vehicle again, even if his conscience permits it.
It is quite simple. His drinking was intentional, so was his drug use, so was his decision to get behind the wheel while clearly unfit to drive, but he did not start the car with the intention of finding someone to kill.
If I quite intentionally prank you by pulling the chair out from under you as you are about to sit down, you rock backwards and bang your head on a cast iron chair leg and die, should I be charged with murder? Of course not. My actions are stupid and irresponsible but you cannot say I had an intention to kill.
This I agree with. The prison sentence seems about right for the circumstances (as reported) but he should not be allowed to drive again. Ever.
But its not 'simple'. It's quite complicated!
The outcome was clearly a likely concequence of the first two choices. If I point a loaded gun at someone's head and pull the trigger, could I really argue that I intended to point the gun at their head, and intended to pull the trigger, but didn't intend to kill, so should get a much lighter sentence?
There's a subjective judgment in there as to how far someone can be held responsible for the concequences of the first two acts (drinking and driving), and I think that judgement is going to be hugely influenced by the attitude to driving (and drinking, for that matter) of the person doing the judging.
Its akin to the way it used to be considered understandable to kill a gay person for making a pass at you. These judgements are always political and dependent both on the distribution of power and the wider culture.
No. The overwhelming majority of drink / drugged driving events take place without incident or accident whatsoever. Not that that is any excuse for increasing the risk to other road users, even if that is a minor increase, which is why such practices are illegal.
Well you could try but I dont fancy your chances. Guns are highly efficient killing machines. They have no other purpose so you would have a tough job explaining why you did such a thing.
Cars are transportation machines that can kill when they are misused or misunderstood.
The paradox is that in a drunk / drugged state , self inflicted or otherwise, one's decision making skills are adversely affected i.e. the reasons why you shouldn't drive are also the same reasons why you might make the terrible decision to drive, something your sober self might not advise you to do.
The correct analogy is a drunk person waving a loaded legally owned gun around and accidentally pulling the trigger? Should he get the same sentence as a cold blooded hired assassin?
I'm sure I read somewhere that guns (ie. Specifically designed to kill) don't kill as many people in the US every year as do motor vehicles. Just saying...
Sounds reasonable. I guess there are many more motorised journeys made every year than shots fired at heads ... which I am sure you will agree, skews the statistics somewhat.
What we need is a comparison of KSIs per deliberate car journey versus KSIs per bullet deliberately fired at a person. Just a hunch, but I guess guns will turn out to be spectacularly lethal and cars, relatively harmless.
Which is why there is really no point comparing the two.
But you also need to take into account how many of those car journeys were strictly necessary. If a large number of them were avoidable, then its not correct to only look at 'deaths per deliberate car journey', because the culture accepts and encourages unnecessary car-journeys in a way that it doesn't encourage unnecessary firearm discharge.
The whole point is that legal gun owners seem to be more cautious about _using_ their guns than are legal car-owners. That is part of what makes cars dangerous, so if you use a 'per journey' figure you are not looking at the full picture.
You also need to allow for the hundreds of thousands who die as a result of the pollution those car journeys cause (30-50,000 a year for the UK, by most estimates). Car journeys are thus pretty much guaranteed to cause harm, while gun use isn't so much.
But the gun issue is a different topic, of course, and not much relevant to the UK.
You really don't. Apart from the inbuilt bias that will be built into this research by the person deciding what is and isn't 'necessary' ... it is an irrelevance. I don't know of laws in any country that insist that driving is only valid for essential journeys.
In any case, Brooksby was talking about America. Car ownership is essential. People will sell their homes before they sell their cars. Outside of the major cities, public transport is hopeless and you are literally stuffed if you don't have a car and distances routinely travelled by ordinary people are too far to manage without motorised transportation.
Nothing you say here relates to the point. Who mentioned laws about necessary driving (though we do have laws about emissions, which appear to be just ignored)? I'm talking about reality. You could, of course, claim that its subjective as to whether the use of a gun is necessary, so I'm not sure what point you think you are making.
But still, as you have already made clear in advance that you will dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit what you want to believe, there's no point discussing anything with you, is there?
Pages