- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Pensioner who admitted killing cyclist given 240 hours unpaid work
A pensioner who killed a cyclist while driving carelessly has been spared jail.
Thomas Boyd, from Sheffield, hit a 38 year old man, who has not been named, who was out cycling on Loxley Road on July 20 last year.
Boyd admitted causing death by careless driving at Sheffield Crown Court.
He was handed a sentence of 240 hours of unpaid work and disqualified from driving for a year.
The judge told Boyd he would have to re-take his test before being allowed to drive again.
PC Paul Lidster of South Yorkshire Police said: “Boyd has accepted responsibility for his careless actions that evening, which sadly led to a man losing his life.
“No sentence can ever bring back a loved one and our thoughts are with the cyclist’s family as they come to terms with the conclusion of the police investigation and court proceedings.
“Cases like this are a stark reminder that motorists must pay attention to their surroundings at all times and drive carefully and respectfully of other road users.
"A split second’s carelessness or error can have fatal consequences.”
Earlier this year we reported how Cycling UK has called upon the Government to review the legislation relating to bad driving offences.
The renewed call came following three recent cases where drivers were sentenced for causing death by careless driving having initially been charged with the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
Careless driving or dangerous driving?
Careless driving is defined as that which “falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.”
Dangerous driving is defined as that which “falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.”
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Senior Road Safety and Legal Campaigns officer said that the current distinction was not fit for purpose.
“There has been an ongoing downgrading of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to careless since it was introduced in 2008. This has meant the number of cyclist fatality cases prosecuted as dangerous are falling, with careless driving prosecutions seemingly preferred as an easier option.
“Cycling UK has repeatedly raised our concerns regarding this downgrading of offences which should be charged as dangerous to merely careless driving, and recently called upon the Ministry of Justice to review the legislation concerning bad driving offences.
“To many people, what is judged to be ‘careless’ and what is thought to be ‘dangerous’ is too arbitrary. If clearer guidelines cannot be applied more consistently by prosecutors and the courts, then the Government needs to ask whether the distinction between careless and dangerous driving offences is fit for purpose.
"Cycling UK doesn’t think it is, and we have put several proposals forward for the Government’s consideration. It’s time they listened and reviewed this area of criminal law.”
Latest Comments
- Mikezerodown 1 sec ago
Another one Mike taking over for peanuts....
- wtjs 9 hours 26 min ago
it seems that most places just rely on sufficient policing to reduce the issue...
- Matt Page 10 hours 10 min ago
Many manufacturers, including Scribe, can give you methods to reduce the noise level. On Scribe, and other ratchet designs it's usually just adding...
- wtjs 10 hours 48 min ago
It wouldn't work at all where wtjs lives...
- Sriracha 11 hours 5 min ago
Pretty sure AI could skim through hours of footage in a few seconds to identify suspicious events. Of course someone in authority has to care in...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 13 min ago
Bonsai samurai? Or is it just a case of "they seem to get smaller every year"?
- mdavidford 13 hours 56 min ago
I dunno - seems like it's coming round on a regular basis...
- Rich_cb 15 hours 38 min ago
The mistake is to focus on the US....
- chrisonabike 15 hours 50 min ago
I mean it seems silly to complain in detail when we're firmly in the territory in the UK of "you will have to live with this the rest of your life ...
- eburtthebike 18 hours 21 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
Add new comment
19 comments
Nearly got knocked off my bike on last week by a pensioner pulling out in front of me from the right - fortunately, it's not the first time at that junction and I was expecting it.
Despite it being good visibility and no other traffic, when I caught her up at the next set of traffic lights, she was very rude and adamant it was my fault for "going too fast".
I was on my mountain bike in a 40mph limit - how on earth did she think I could be speeding!?
She's been reported to the police, who are apparently going to go round and have a chat. I've also been on to the local roads department about that junction, as it's very bad for cyclists.
With respect PC Lidster, you are out of line in observing that no sentence will bring back a loved one. The grieving family may take that view. It is not appropriate for members of the criminal justice system to do so. As I have said before, the basis of the criminal law is to treat certain acts as wrongs done to society as a whole, not just to the immediate victim. Society as a whole therefore has an interest in the sentence- for instance in deterring future examples of the same act. Repeated comments by the police and the judiciary that no sentence will bring back a loved one carry the subtext that it doesn't matter if the sentence is ridiculously light. This denies society's interest in ensuring justice is done.
Before you get all upset about the sentence look at the sentencing guidelines, you are not being told all the facts here, hence the sentence. Problem is that if the press reported the full story it wouldn't sound so good. Please get the full facts.
Let me give you an example of what I mean, let's say the cyclist jumped the red light and was looking at his mobile phone as he rode along, how at fault is the car driver because the cyclist shouldn't have been there.
Go visit your local magistrates court and listen to a case, then compare it with what is reported. There are definitely some very key facts missing from here, hence the very reduced sentence
IMG_0970.PNG
All you seem to have shown is that the sentencing guidelines are idiotically low.
Your hypothetical example is simply that, hypothetical, and I seriously doubt the legal system would even bother prosecuting the driver in such a case.
You haven't provided any facts about this either, so how can you determine that there is a valid reason for the reduced sentence?
Your "example" is pathetic as the driver wouldn't plead guilty to careless driving if they weren't at fault.
In lieu of any more facts about the case, I surmise that the sentence is reduced just because he's a pensioner. I don't think that's a valid reason to belittle a person's life and justice is not served by not highlighting the dangers of driving without paying attention.
Seems to me that he establishment couldn't care less about cyclists. We are treated as an underclass. The law is an ass. R.i.P. Not even named cyclist. They have no respect for human life if you happen ride a bike. It's absolutely appalling.
Convicted of killing someone through negligence... Given slap on wrist and told they can do that thing again in 12 months.
Cyclist Lives Matter!
It seems that "careless" is, in the legal context, a code word for "took a life while engaged in an activity that is essential for modern commerce". So killing someone while driving to a job, or to the shops, or just out for a drive and consuming petrol, is deemed "careless". For it to be "dangerous" your driving has to actively cock a snook at authority. Something like outrageously power-sliding through corners, massively excessive speeding, or as part of a long history as a bogan who is well-known to the police. But probably the only absolutely nailed down "dangerous" driving case would be killing someone while driving the getaway car from a bank robbery.
Or you run over a policeman.
My in-laws live at the top of Loxley Road and it amazes me how motorists come flying over the hill despite it being a 30 zone and very popular with cyclists and walkers.
Cycling UK is right, and there is something fundamentally wrong with a system which does not consider actions which kill people to be dangerous. Anything which kills someone is by definition dangerous.
Don't I remember something about this government reviewing this about five years ago? Nice to see them getting on with the job and protecting cyclists. Oh no, sorry, that was profits.
1 step forwards, 2 steps back.
RIP brother.
Why not write to your MP (now that all parties in the mood to listen) rather than writing on road.cc?
Because my MP, as yours probably does, ignores letters from individual plebs. The only way to get their attention is as a group, so this is probably quite a good place to gather opinions.
This is a very big issue that is being discussed here. We have spent here loads of manhours commenting on the two biggest threats we face as cyclists, road accidents and poor urban air quality (well I believe the aggregate results of the 2nd will be much much more devasting for us than the 1st, so don't overlook it!) and we all more or less agree that cars are bad, bikes are good and we are happy that we have agreed here...
But outside road.cc? Our problems can be solved by two groups: a) the policy makers and any car business lobbies hidden behind them and b) the majority of road users/goods consumers. We have to convince them both that by promoting cycling only good things can happen so don't be afraid to write to your MP and don't be afraid to talk to your acquaintances about such issues. If you can lobby even more as Simboid suggests even better, but I don't know how many of us have the time needed available. But in general try talking with non cyclists, try debating with arguments, logic and without escalating the conversation or your letter.
If your MP is a member of the governing party (are any of them governing at the moment?) then it will get more notice if you can show what is happening contradicts a stated government policy or ministereal statements. Other tricks include asking the MP to contact the relevant minister and pass on your question. This makes sure your question gets to the minister and if the question comes from an MP the minister is required to answer and there are time limits.
Make your letter as short as possible and ensure that what you want to happen is clearly stated.
Good Luck
Gavin
This is good advice. Also try writing to the relevant department official, not just the MPs. I had a very brief role in (non-transport) policy development some years ago and you will get a better hearing (not necessarily a result, but your best shot) by setting out clearly and with evidence how current law contradicts policy. Of course it is essentially doing the civil service's job for them, and it takes some research and analysis to present a compelling case, but still, it's a good idea.
I often do, but unfortunately she seems to support the status quo 90% of the time even though she's Labour. (I didn't vote for her as I don't think she works as an opposition MP).
That sentence is far too small. I don't care how old he is, he should show more respect for other people and their well-being. I would have thought that a five-year driving ban would be more appropriate for causing the death of another person and at least 3 months in jail.
These road incidents keep happening, so there has to be something wrong with the way that we're dealing with them. I just don't believe that most motons take safety seriously.