- 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)Sat-nav driver who killed cyclist spared jail - the same day sentencing review announced
A driver who admitted causing the death of a cyclist through careless driving while distracted by his sat-nav device has escaped jail, and will instead serve a community sentence – one that was handed down the same day the government confirmed it has ordered a review of sentencing in traffic cases where a cyclist or pedestrian is the victim.
Steve Conlan, aged 51, missed a stop sign near Consett, County Durham on a day trip with his wife and children on Easter Monday because he was looking at his sat-nav screen, which did not show the junction he was approaching, reports Express.co.uk.
His Saab struck 55-year-old cyclist Grahame McGregor of Pelton, near Chester-le-Street, County Durham, who would die in hospital from his injuries five days later.
At Peterlee Magistrates’ Court, the motorist received a 12-month community penalty which will see him have to perform 240 hours of unpaid work, and was banned from driving for two years.
District Judge Roger Elsey said: “I don’t believe the accident would have occurred if the satnav had been switched off.”
Causing death by careless driving carries a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment, while the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving can result in a maximum jail term of 14 years.
The case is the latest in a long line in which drivers convicted of killing cyclists have received what many perceive as too lenient a sentence, with epresentatives of British Cycling, CTC and RoadPeace last year meeting with justice minister Helen Grant to call for thorough investigation and tougher sentencing in cases where a vulnerable road user is the victim.
They also urged that improvements be made to the support provided to the families they leave behind. Also at that meeting was the brother of British Cycling employee, Rob Jefferies, killed on a training ride in Dorset in 2011 by a 17-year-old driver who had passed his test six months earlier and who already had a speeding conviction. He received a non-custodial sentence.
In one of the few potentially positive pieces of news for cycling to emerge from yesterday’s response from the government to the Get Britain Cycling report published by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, it was confirmed that a review of sentencing in cases involving cyclists and pedestrians will be initiated in the new year.
The review of current sentencing guidelines, which will be accompanied by a consultation, will be carried out by the Sentencing Council, which is an independent non- departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, and will cover the offences of causing death by careless driving and causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. Proposals will be subject to a formal consultation.
Reacting to the news, Martin Gibbs, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at British Cycling, said: "We need everybody to feel properly protected by the criminal justice system when travelling on the road.
“The lenient sentence handed out to the driver responsible for the death of our colleague Rob Jeffries was a glaring example of the failure of the system.
"We’ve been asking the government for months for a review of sentencing guidelines so I’m glad to see that confirmed, though it should form part of a comprehensive review of the criminal justice process, which all too often fails people on bikes by not prosecuting or by returning sentences which don’t reflect the seriousness of the crime.
"We have been meeting with Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport to push for improvements but progress has been slow.
“This announcement means that positive steps are being taken and is a victory for British Cycling and its members.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Boopop 1 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 9 min 7 sec ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 25 min 8 sec 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 2 hours 56 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 14 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 3 hours 43 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 3 hours 49 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- quiff 7 hours 53 min ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 8 hours 56 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
37 comments
Just sick
I agree Chadders, as someone else has said earlier why are there many different laws for killing someone ? You meant it = murder, you didn't mean it = manslaughter surely ?
Think its time for the offence of manslaughter by careless/ reckless driving, ok you didn't mean to kill the victim but the fact is you did.
To me its no different to a fight were the victim is assaulted and subsequently dies and the tarrif should be the same as manslaughter.
Any thoughts out there!!
Like a few other comments, I think long ban or maybe life ban but only a short jail term.
The other thing is all these devices should be made to lock their controls and show only simple displays while the vehicle is in motion, relying on audio descriptions for most directions.
Clarkson not Boardman, IIRC. Otherwise spot on.
Is there any other situation where you can kill someone and be spared jail ? Any at all ? If a guy does a bad job of fitting my boiler and I die from carbon monoxide, he goes to jail. Doesn't matter if he didnt tighten a bolt because he was distracted by his phone.
Cause a crash that kills motorists = jail. Negligent in your job and someone dies = jail. Why is it only killing cyclists with a car which seems to be treated so leniently ?
I take the point about whether jail does any good from the deceased family point of view, but we have got to start sending out a message that this $hit has got to stop. Every time you get in your car you could potentially kill someone if you dont take care and that isn't recognised by the majority of drivers.
Maybe Chris Boardmans suggestion that all cars should have a sharp spike on the steering wheel pointing at the driver and no seatbelts is the only why to get people to drive carefully
I think we all call for such harsh punichment because its always so bloody lax, I want to see someone go down for at least 5 years, geta life driving ban and pay massive compensation to the family. It needs to be in the news and people need to think "feck me thats harsh....I better watch how I drive"
maybe only then will we be a little safer.
Amazing you can kill a person with a car and be spared jail. Even by accident, the responsibility for this driver must not be waived due to this satnav issue.
I'm off to rob a bank with a satnav, say I was distracted if caught.
I don't understand the need for all these different laws. If I kill someone by recklessly throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof, owning an ill-trained powerful dog, firing my (licenced) firearm without checking whether there are people in the way or driving without paying attention then why isn't it all the same crime?
Why do we have the complication of difference offences: manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, something about dangerous dogs etc. The offence is: you did something obviously stupid and killed someone (call it manslaughter for brevity).
So what is the difference between this and involuntary man slaughter apart ? All he has shown is that he is unsafe to drive if he can't focus on the road, ignores a stop sign and ignores the markings on the road !
Government full of shit
Its all to get a few votes
Mind you the comment "District Judge Roger Elsey said: “I don’t believe the accident would have occurred if the satnav had been switched off.”"
No sh*t sherlock. Lets all buy satnavs and keep them switched off.
@Clayfit, whilst part of me wants to see real punishment and long gaol terms. I tend to agree, what we need is a real system of driving bans. starting with 12 points is a ban with no appeal. More serious actions are life bans again with no appeal*. We also need the CPS to actually push for the highest charge possible. Although i suppose if we swap it so that any dangerous driving offence carries a life ban, and the difference is whether you go to gaol or not, that would be progress.
*Just to clarify, no appeal means you can appeal the judgement, but if convicted you are banned and have no way of getting the ban overturned.
Driving is a priviledge and this must not be forgotten, the whole premise of the motoring legal system must be amended to reflect that single fact.
Wonder if this guy will ride a bike to get about for the next two years..
I would like to see a minimum of jail time for cases like these and the M2 truck driver.
At least as a minimum though the sentence should be:
A lifetime driving ban.
Large fine
At least 5 years worth of 14 hours minimum unpaid work per week
A long suspended sentence to drop ithe twat in jail for several years if he even so much as farts without permission.
Education, its the only way
Sick of seeing idiots on mobiles whilst driving, sat navs are possibly even worse.
I'm going to disagree with y'all on the jail term and probably risk y'all's ire. He should be banned for a really long time, or life, and have to pay serious compensation to the victim's family. But probably not gaoled.
Keeping him out of jail means he can remain a productive member of society. Even a short gaol term will likely result in him losing his job and probably long-term unemployment. What did his family do to deserve punishment in that way? Why destroy another family to satisfy a lust for revenge? It won't bring the victim back.
Ban him from driving forever and make him hurt by paying money- unless he shows no remorse, in which case gaol will allow time for reflection and re-education.
Big community service tariffs, long term driving bans (ideally lifetime), compensation to make sure the bereaved are provided for, and suspended sentences. That way it's not so much a punishment, as much making amends and preventing repeats. And all the money we save on imprisoning yet more people could be spent on improved infrastructure and traffic law enforcement (haha with the current lot in charge).
I agree with the harsher penalties but how do you know if it's done deliberately now? A lot of cases you hear about, the lawbreaker only has to agree to apologise to the victim or their family & a leaner sentence is given. I think people learning to drive should have to pass a cycle proficiency first & then progress onto driving & then drivers should be tested every 10 years, thus creating more jobs for people to become driving instructors & examiners. helping the economy as well
'make amends' You can never make up for killing someone, but they should damn well pay for the funeral at the very least, Govt and judges just aren't thinking clearly abou this.
Wait until Google glasses catch on and every muppet is driving around watching movies, reading email or living out some fantasy in an augmented reality world.
It's also about time that it became illegal for TV programme makers to have car drivers talking to camera while they drive on the public highway. Whilst Top Gear may be doing it on closed roads, I doubt very much that all the others are. Even John craven does it for Countryfile! Even if camera cars etc make it safe(ish) for them, it just says to the public that it's fine to do anything you like while you're driving.
Every time I watch a show with this going on I think - "What if I'm coming the other way on this country lane on my bicycle" and then I have one of those "someone walking over your grave" shivers!
What i don't understand is that someone lost their life here as a DIRECT result of another person. Accidents happen, sure, but someone still lost their life!
It just confuses me something aweful to think you can end someones life and face little-to-no consequence. 240 hours of unpaid work and two years of not driving a vehicle... So this person can have the pleasure of riding a bike now whilst someone else who was doing just that is no more
what worries me is I can do sod all about these idiots.
Left hooks, right hooks, muppets pulling out....hell I can ride defensively and pretty much avoid this flavour of idiot but the ones that just drive into the back of you!
this is what scares me most
That is truly shocking.
Even more so when you look at the junction:
http://goo.gl/maps/idgDd
There's a 50 yard warning for the stop sign, the sign itself, and the STOP painted on the road.
He deserves to be banned from driving for life, and jailed for the max term for causing death through dangerous driving. The judge was nearly right “I don’t believe the accident would have occurred if the satnav had been switched off.”, it wouldn't have occured if he hadn't been looking at it either. If you can't concentrate on your environment when in charge of a 1-tonne metal box moving at 30mph, then you can't be trusted to be in society.
Well spotted, I totally concur with this. If you don't know what the road signs mean, what are you doing on the road?
FFS!
With my bike computer, I got a note saying it was illegal to look at while cycling. Obviously the whole purpose of it is to look down at, but if I'm unaware of my surroundings its my own fault and I'm in the wrong. Surely the same applies to satnavs?
Meanwhile a guy who killed a couple IN A CAR while texting, gets 5 years...
http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Lorry-driver-jailed-killed-couple-M62/sto...
We got nearly 7000 petitions to Scottish legal administration to appeal the sentencing of Gary McCourt, as being too lenient (and reports from those in the Court, of his demeanour at his first Court appearance suggest he expected such a light sentence).
Should individuals mobilise and petition on all such ridiculous bias in handling cyclists and pedestrians hit by motor vehicle drivers.
Example given to me on Sunday ride - bus hits cyclist through failing to stop at roundabout entry and coming through on nearside of car in outer lane which had stopped for cyclist ... and the Police car following. Police car had to brake hard to avoid hitting bus!
In claiming for crash the victim noted that had he been driving in his car the whole issue would have been settled far faster. Bike under bus but through appropriate positioning on impact/luck, cyclist sent flying several metres clear to land on roundabout.
It's an interesting defence: "I didn't see him because I was fiddling with my Satnav". AFAIK, fiddling with stuff when driving is illegal anyway. How about a defence of "I ran over the mother and baby because I was drunk".
Surely it should be an aggravating circumstance, not mitigating.
Pages