£850 fine for causing brain damage

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

LosingFocus

Lost it, got it again.
“I want the whole world to know that cyclists have a duty of care to behave like human beings,” she said. “It’s about time people stopped worrying about cyclists being killed by lorries if they do not conduct themselves in the right manner. He nearly killed my husband.”

:eek:
 

sabian92

Über Member
I saw that as well.

Can we not worry about BOTH things? How many cyclists are killed by lorries every year?

That fine is pathetic but his wife needs her head checking.
 

peedee

Well-Known Member
The fine is indeed pathetic but that is the limit that the law allows. To have prosecuted a higher offence (ABH perhaps) may have required evidence of intent to cause injury. If this had been caused by a car then a jail sentence would have been an option. When the cyclist is the cause there are few options available.

It would be easy to say that the law should be strengthened, however incidents like this are, thankfully, very very rare. One off incidents should not be used to write laws.

The second last paragraph of the report states that the judge did not award compensation because civil proceedings will almost certainly follow. These will probably bankrupt the cyclist unless he has insurance.

Time to look at that insurance offer again...:reading:
 

MissTillyFlop

Evil communist dictator, lover of gerbils & Pope.

User269

Guest
My sympathy goes out to the victim and his family, no matter who was actually to blame. I think we all need to slow down in town, whether cycling or driving. I know some cyclists think that riding at the same speed as the cars is the right way, but on the rare occasions I'm in town I slow down on the assumption that various pedestrians, motorists, and other cyclists won't see me because I'm smaller than a car, and that if I do have a collision I don't have airbags or crumple zones, and even if I did, I could still kill or injure someone apart from myself.

Some old data I had on file, guess it's still much the same;

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

  • Killed by cycles: 18
  • Seriously injured by cycles: 434
  • Killed by cars: 3,495
  • Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport
 

BSRU

A Human Being
Location
Swindon
My sympathy goes out to the victim and his family, no matter who was actually to blame. I think we all need to slow down in town, whether cycling or driving. I know some cyclists think that riding at the same speed as the cars is the right way, but on the rare occasions I'm in town I slow down on the assumption that various pedestrians, motorists, and other cyclists won't see me because I'm smaller than a car, and that if I do have a collision I don't have airbags or crumple zones, and even if I did, I could still kill or injure someone apart from myself.

Some old data I had on file, guess it's still much the same;

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

  • Killed by cycles: 18
  • Seriously injured by cycles: 434
  • Killed by cars: 3,495
  • Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport

This incident has nothing really to do with speed people cycle/drive at.
The guy jumped a red light and cycled into a pedestrian crossing the road, the cyclist even had the nerve to tell the pedestrian to get out of his way. Hopefully the civil courts will take him to the cleaners.
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
That really is a shockingly low fine..?! I take it the CCTV evidence was conclusive that it was a) an RLJ and b) he had time to avoid and chose to barrel through? If so the court/cps had the option of £2500 for dangerous cycling, £1000 for careless, even 2 years prison for Wanton...

I think its worth pointing out that if you're knocked over when on two feet, even at a slow speed, you still have a chance of cracking your head on the deck. Years back I slipped up at work and badly bruised the back of my head on the tiled floor. If you take a blow to the temple it can cause all kinds of other problems.
 
He injured a lawyer, just wait for the civil action case now he has been found guilty.

But interestingly should he have reduced compensation for not having worn a helmet? This would seem a situation where a helmet would be most likely to have improved the outcome. It has already been established that in those circumstances the victim, if a cyclist, is contributory negligent so why not a pedestrian?
 
Top Bottom