- 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
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Tadcaster Road, York (Google Maps)£1,000 fine and 12-month ban for DPD delivery driver who left cyclist with broken neck after cutting across cycle lane
A delivery driver has been fined just under £1,000 and banned from driving for 12 months after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving, following a collision in a bike lane which left a female cyclist with a broken neck.
DPD employee Florin Varga was driving on Tadcaster Road in York, in the direction of the city centre, on 23 April 2024, when he attempted to turn right into Middlethorpe Drive, after an oncoming motorist flashed their lights to indicate that it was safe for Varga to turn.
However, as the delivery driver made the turn, he crashed into a female cyclist, who was travelling in the opposite direction to Varga, in the road’s painted cycle lane. The collision left the cyclist with rib injuries and broken bones in her neck, requiring her to undergo surgery to repair the bones with metal plates.
In court this week, Varga’s defence barrister Harriet Eglinton said that the delivery driver stayed at the scene of the crash and had called the emergency services, the York Press reports.
However, district judge Adrian Lower criticised the van driver’s decision to make the right turn solely on the basis of another motorist’s flashing lights.
“What you didn’t know, and I am sure the other motorist didn’t know, is that [the cyclist] was on a push bike on the other side of that vehicle,” he told Varga.
“Instead of waiting to make sure that the road was clear, you committed yourself to turn into the road to your right.”
Varga pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving, and was fined £650. The judge also banned him from driving for a year and ordered him to pay a £260 statutory surcharge and £85 prosecution costs.
According to Eglinton, the driving ban has led to Varga losing his job with DPD. She also noted that he was the main driver for his household and that his wife, a nurse who doesn’t drive, now has trouble making her way to work at a hospital due to poor public transport links at night.
The defence barrister added that Varga is currently without any income as he is yet to claim benefits. She said that he is looking for work in a warehouse and if he didn’t succeed, he would have to claim universal credit. Letters from Varga and his wife also detailed the effect his driving ban and sacking have had on their finances.
The judge accepted that Varga was “remorseful” and that he regretted the crash, for which the driver accepted full responsibility.
This isn’t the first time we have reported on dangerous driving from DPD’s delivery staff.
In September 2022, we reported on the live blog that a cyclist in Oxford told the company to “please train your drivers better” after a tailgating member of staff trapped the rider’s bike under their van, after the cyclist stopped to warn the driver about the dangers of driving too closely to people on bikes.
And in February 2021, a cyclist reported a van driver to DPD after they cut right across their path before immediately tuning right at a junction, but said they received “no reply” from the company.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 19 min 58 sec ago
I haven't been to Mallorca since I was a child, a long way back in the last century, and I'm sure there are plenty of downsides to the tourism...
- wtjs 41 min 43 sec ago
I see that what I should have written is that good quality outers are necessary - the split ones were the originals on a bike which only cost £650...
- OnYerBike 2 hours 46 min ago
I've no idea what the situation is here, but I've seen plenty of "under construction" cycle lanes where there are only signs/barriers around the...
- the little onion 2 hours 53 min ago
whereas the whole point is that they didn't hit you this time
- Tom_77 3 hours 7 min ago
AIUI an entering-circulating accident [sic] would be when the vehicle entering the roundabout fails to give way to the vehicle circulating.
- chrisonabike 3 hours 25 min ago
Which is great - but you can only take a bus which exists eg. is going somewhere near where you want to go, when you want to go....
- mdavidford 5 hours 17 min ago
Erm, does someone need counting lessons?
- Willem1 5 hours 28 min ago
My cannondale SuperSix gen3 frameset i recently bougth has a sticker saying: made in China. Dont know about the newest models.
- SimoninSpalding 6 hours 12 min ago
Cos style, and did you not read it only weighs 158g!...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 38 min ago
It's strange - some folks who grew up there say it was a great community and has declined. Some folks say it was "like Beiruit" and has calmed down...
Add new comment
31 comments
Remember, any driver flashing headlights for you to proceed should be assumed to be a crash for cash scam.
That they flashed headlights makes you MORE guilty not less as the highway code explicitly defines flashing headlights as a warning of presence - i.e. a visual equivalent to a car horn...
I was a witness many years ago when a driver in a queue of traffic waved another driver on to pass in front. The driver who waved the other person on hadn't looked in his mirror and a motorcyclist filtering past the stalled cars was immediately taken out by the car crossing in front.
The driver who had waved the other driver on refused to accept the crash was his fault. The driver who had crossed and taken out the rider did get stuck with the insurance claim against him.
Luckily, the biker wasn't hurt beyond a few bruises but the front end of his bike was twisted and it looked like the frame was too.
So ... a legal requirement [and also human decency] is a *defence*?
[Snip]
"In court this week, Varga’s defence barrister Harriet Eglinton said that the delivery driver stayed at the scene of the crash and had called the emergency services,"
[Snip]
While I have some pity for the drivers wife, maybe she could take advantage of other forms of transport... such as a bicycle, bus, car share or even a taxi?
That's standard - or rather sticking to the law, never mind "human decency" may be seen as going far above the call of duty. And like politics, attacking your opponent is apparently sometimes fine (even if they're dead)!
And don't forget the incompetence paradox! Jurors may be sympathetic to an admission that - frankly - the defendent is really not a very good driver and probably just got overwhelmed / cocked up. "Ah ... we all know that can happen. So they didn't mean to - so they shouldn't be punished as it was an accident!"
To be fair, as far as I can tell the driver had already pled guilty and this was purely a sentencing hearing. "Efforts made to assist or seek assistance for victim(s)" is specifically listed in the mitigation section of the Sentencing Guidelines so it's fair enough for the driver's lawyer to mention it.
I do think we have to give the driver some credit for stopping, rendering assistance and calling the emergency services. If he hadn't stopped and been caught the punishment would have not been any more severe than this under the present crazy system. Then again he may not have been caught as many hit and run drivers know.
I really do think that any driver caught leaving a collision without any attempt at rendering assistance (phoning an ambulance would suffice) should never be allowed to drive again. It shows a basic level of decency and if we can't rely on drivers to do that, then we have no chance of making our roads safe for other users.
Also, without having a harsh penalty for leaving the scene, it benefits drink drivers as they can claim that they were in shock, drove home, had a medicinal drink to steady their nerves and then phone the police. It's a stupid loophole to have.
Leaving the scene is an aggravating factor in sentencing for dangerous driving, and I think an offence in its own right. Though you might not think that's harsh enough, which I would sympathise with.
The problem is that leaving the scene will typically result in a lighter sentence than being caught driving whilst under the influence, so it's a perverse incentive for drivers to leave victims for dead.
This is why we should implement the law that pertains in most, if not all, parts of the USA that leaving the scene is treated as de facto refusing to provide a specimen which is treated in turn as de facto driving under the influence.
That'd be a good start, though I think there should be a much harsher penalty for leaving someone for dead. Leaving the scene means that there's a chance that the driver will not be caught at all, so if the penalty is the same for DUI, then a drunk driver would still be better off just driving away.
I didn't mention, there is also a separate punishment for leaving the scene on top of the assumed DUI. If we implemented such a law I agree it should be supplemented by a Good Samaritan law of failing to aid a person in distress, with penalties for leaving a person to die when assistance, either in terms of first aid or summoning the emergency services, could have saved them being on a par with those for manslaughter (unless the authorities would like to charge it as actual manslaugter, which would be perfectly justifiable).
Presumably this wasn't done originally either because nobody could imagine any decent fellow would do such a thing, or that it would create an incentive for drunk drivers to completely finish off anyone they'd run over and leave no witnesses...
We keep on being told that cyclists should take a test, carry insurance etc. THe Highway Code is explicit in its instruction to both drivers here. How come the formal test of their knowledge and competence did not reveal the gaps? I think we should be told.
Rule 110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
Rule 111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.
And
Rule 180 (Turning right)
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
Definitely add flashing headlights to the list of things drivers are not prosecuted. Surely, in this case the court confirmed his assertion that the other driver flashed him (possibly dash cam evidence) and therefore they should be prosecuted for Driving without due care and attention. This is the opportunity for a wider educational moment.
This collision was caused by the driver who flashed their cars lights, the DPD driver of course was the driver who impacted their vehicle into the cyclist, but the start of the process was the courteous driver. Dpd driver should have a looked for the cyclist, but we all know a cyclists we are easily hidden by cars in front of us and doorposts. I hope the other driver realises it and know that they've caused the injuries and the other driver to lose their job.
I'm surprised we don't hear about incidents like this more often.
Motorists do seem willing to "just let" other motorists across in front of them if there's a queue (or even just to be nice), but the onus is on the motorist crossing (in this case, Mr Varga) to check that the road is actually clear.
There's no obligation on them to even make the manoeuvre - as eBurt says below, the HC says not to wave someone across or flash them, for precisely this reason.
It infuriates me when I'm driving and people just stop to let me out. It's almost never necessary, and because I had assumed I would have to wait until after their car had passed I haven't checked the road for other hazards. So they stop, I have to be sure what they're actually doing, I then have to check both directions twice to be sure there are no cyclists or other road users, then I can pull out. It would have been quicker for me if they'd just carried on.
What's even more infuriating is that I know most other drivers wouldn't do those extra checks, and even if they did see a cyclist would probably just pull out anyway
Many times someone has left a gap for me to turn right and then seemed to get irritated when I don't move - then they see the cyclist come past them on the inside.
If people didn't let other drivers out there would be absolute carnage at any remotely busy time. There are so many junctions around me that rely on one of three things happening. Someone pushing out, someone letting you out or a traffic light nearby killing the traffic from one direction. On that last one you would still need someone to let you out if you are crossing over to go right.
I think you may have misunderstood the word carnage.
Carnage : the violent killing of large numbers of people, especially in war:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/carnage
Unless you really think that motorists will start killing people because they are stuck in traffic.
An interestingly harsh punishment in current terms.
"......an oncoming motorist flashed their lights to indicate that it was safe for Varga to turn."
Has that driver been traced and charged with being a f**kwit and held at least 50% responsible for the injuries to the cyclist? There's a reason the HC tells you not to give directions to another road user, and to ignore the directions of anyone except a police constable.
Absolutely, I have been very lucky on countless occasions due to activity like this by ignorant motorists some of whom know I'm there. Really pees me off...
The HC does say this but it says a lot of things that no one does because it would make driving on our roads an absolute nightmare. People flash you to tell you that they are letting you go, not to tell you that its safe to do whatever you like. The other option is to just leave the space there until they use it. They won't take any more care if you flash or just leave space. There are plenty of places where cars are meant to leave a gap so as not to block entrance into a side road. People don't take any more care with turning into those roads than they do if someone left a gap and flashed to let them cross.
This isn't an issue with people flashing their lights to tell someone to go, its an issue with the general standards of driving. I have people do really stupid things around me all the time and very few of them are related to anything but inattention or simply awful decision making. I'm not blaming the cyclist in any way here but if I am moving past traffic in a bike lane I make damn sure that I am able to stop if there is any chance of a car turning across into me because I know the drivers sure as hell ain't going to be looking for me.
The way you drive safely is to only perform manoeuvres when you know its safe to do so. If you cannot see very well then you either don't do it or you do it very slowly so you can easily react to things that come into your field of view.
In my experience it's people not obeying the highway code that make travelling on our roads an absolute nightmare. What's the point of having a set of rules and then ignoring the ones you don't like.
The main thing that makes our roads unsafe is not leaving enough time for your journey which the highway code tells you to do.
Totally agree.
Every time I have a near miss on the bike, referring back to the Highway Code explains how it would have been avoided if all parties followed the Rules.
I think most people find it to be a bit of a sanctimonious document, quoting the Highway code to a driver who has just nearly killed you usually makes things worse. Even if you don't agree with the HC it's always best if we all follow the same rules.
Thank you.
All we need now is for the police and the justice system to treat adhering to the highway code as the MINIMUM level of competence when it comes to prosecuting driving without due care from video evidence from cyclists who have been endangered by drivers breaking the rules.
That's just not true, though. The flashing is generally seen as an invitation, and that creates a percieved social obligation to respond, and do so with minimal inconvenience to the flasher, so the flashee is more likely to hurry the manoeuvre and neglect to take as much care. Whether the flasher intended that is irrelevant - you're told not to do it for a good reason.
And it's hard to see how not flashing "would make driving on our roads an absolute nightmare."
Reasons to flash:
to thank somebody;to invite somebody to emerge or take priority;to let somebody know they are letting you go;to get them to move out of the way;So, whatever reason they think they're flashing, if it isn't the one above, they are not driving in accordance with how a careful and considerate driver should.
Nothing lets the van driver off Rule 111, though.
Well, it's both/and, isn't it.
Pages