The crime of dangerous cycling and the impunity with which it maybe committed

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-03-22a.875.0

STARTQUOTE:
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23 )
4:34 pm

Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill creating new offences of causing death
or serious injury through dangerous or reckless cycling; to make provision
regarding minimum sentencing and fines for those convicted of such offences;
and for connected purposes.

I am a keen cyclist and I heartily support the many people who leave their
cars at home and cycle to work and school. Over the last few years, there has
been an upsurge in cycling, which is a great way to keep fit and healthy and
a green initiative that I fully welcome. Let me be clear from the beginning
that it is not my intention to criminalise cyclists or to discourage people
from using their bikes.

In fact, in the vast majority of cases, it is the cyclists themselves who are
the victims on our roads when they are killed or injured by motorists who
simply fail to spot them. The penalties for dangerous or careless driving for
motorists are as they should be-very strict. Occasionally, however, it is the
cyclist who injures or kills while riding their bike, and this is the area I
want to address today. At the moment, the punishment for cyclists falls far
short of the crime, and I believe we need to update the law so that all road
users are equally protected and take equal responsibility for their actions.

I want to tell the House the tragic story of Rhiannon Bennett, the beloved
daughter of Michael and Diana Bennett, who was knocked down and killed by a
cyclist in your constituency of Buckingham, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that
you are presiding over this ten-minute rule Bill. I know that you are aware
of this case, Mr Speaker, and that you have been very sympathetic to
Rhiannon's family, for which I also know they are grateful.

In April 2007, Rhiannon Bennett was walking with friends on the pavement near
her home. She was 17 years old. A cyclist approached the group at speed,
jumping from the road to cut across the pavement, yelling "Move, I'm not
stopping!". He was travelling so fast that the group had no time to react. He
hit Rhiannon, knocking her over and smashing her head against the kerb. She
was rushed to hospital with severe head injuries, but she died six days later.

It is not possible fully to explain the grief that Rhiannon's parents,
Michael and Diana feel - but the pain did not end there. They had to sit in
Aylesbury magistrates court at the trial of the cyclist, a man who lived just
around the corner from them, and hear the verdict of the court. He was
convicted by the magistrates of dangerous cycling and his punishment was a
fine of £2,200. There was no prison sentence. Mr and Mrs Bennett did not just
lose their daughter; they had to go through the pain of discovering that
their daughter's reckless killing did not merit a prison sentence. We should
just imagine what would happen if a motorist drove on to a pavement and
killed a teenager. If the driver had walked away with only a fine, there
would have been a national outcry.

The police and the Crown Prosecution Service had an alternative to the
dangerous cycling charge. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 carries a
section on "drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving". It
declares:

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or
furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect,
do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the
discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two
years, with or without hard labour."

The Act is still in force, but for obvious reasons it is little used. It was
developed to deal with the century during which horses pulled carriages and
coaches, and is now completely out of date. From what little information I
have found on it, this law is rarely, if ever, invoked. In any case, the CPS
found that the charge of dangerous cycling was the most appropriate in
Rhiannon's case. There are other offences, such as manslaughter and grievous
bodily harm, that could theoretically be used against a cyclist, but these
are also rarely appropriate in the case of road accidents.

What is needed is an offence that fills the gap in the law and provides a
charge that reflects the seriousness and the consequences of a cyclist's
actions. In other words, an updated law is required so that cyclists can be
charged with similar offences and given similar punishments to those that
motorists currently face. For a motorist, causing death by dangerous driving
carries a penalty of one to 14 years in prison; causing death by careless or
inconsiderate driving carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. We
need to give justice to the small number of pedestrians killed each year by
dangerous cycling, by applying similar penalties to those that exist for
causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless or
inconsiderate driving.

It is worth making it clear that the cyclist who killed Rhiannon Bennett was
most definitely found guilty of a crime. The problem of achieving justice
arose because there simply is no charge that is appropriate to the crime. The
Crown Prosecution Service even acknowledged this when it stated:

"The real problem is the fact that as yet there is no offence of causing
death by dangerous cycling."

The cyclist responsible for the death of Rhiannon Bennett was convicted of
dangerous cycling and fined £2,200. His bicycle was worth an estimated
£6,000, almost three times the amount of his fine. I have not met anyone who
considers this to be fair punishment for someone found guilty of a crime in
which a young girl died. There needs to be a charge and an offence that
reflect the reality of what is happening on our roads and pavements in the
21st century.

The idea of creating a new law to deal with this problem was last considered
in 2005 by the Ministry of Justice, which decided that no such law was
required at that time. Six years later, with the growing number of bikes on
our roads, more and more cycle lanes being introduced and the introduction of
excellent schemes that I take advantage of myself, such as the cycle hire
scheme in London, we need to look at the matter again, and I ask the House to
support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Andrea Leadsom, Amber Rudd, Dan Byles, Damian Hinds, Mark Lancaster,
Harriett Baldwin, Mary Macleod, Chris Heaton-Harris and Margot James.

Andrea Leadsom accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November 2011
, and to be printed. (Bill 168).
ENDQUOTE


Very obviously, neither the police nor the CPS have a clue what they're
talking about, since they are merely the experts on the law. Had they only
asked here, they'd soon have been put right about which sections of the
various Acts to invoke.

JNugent wrote:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-03-22a.875.0

Very obviously, neither the police nor the CPS have a clue what they're
talking about, since they are merely the experts on the law. Had they
only asked here, they'd soon have been put right about which sections of
the various Acts to invoke.

I suspect if they had asked internally they would have been put right too
as the CPS had used the wanton driving charge successfully just 18 months
ago for a pedestrian death. The trouble with things that happen only once
every few years is that the prosecutors may not realise what charge to
bring unless someone more experienced tells them.

There are parallels though in driving deaths. Dangerous driving cases up
less than 0.5% of the death/careless etc driving charges and there are
often complaints that the CPS go for the lesser charges with the lesser
penalties. The usual CPS response is the Dangerous charge is usually too
hard a standard to prove.

--
Tony

On 24/03/2011 09:37, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-03-22a.875.0

Very obviously, neither the police nor the CPS have a clue what they're
talking about, since they are merely the experts on the law. Had they
only asked here, they'd soon have been put right about which sections of
the various Acts to invoke.

I suspect if they had asked internally they would have been put right too
as the CPS had used the wanton driving charge successfully just 18 months
ago for a pedestrian death. The trouble with things that happen only once
every few years is that the prosecutors may not realise what charge to
bring unless someone more experienced tells them.

There are parallels though in driving deaths. Dangerous driving cases up
less than 0.5% of the death/careless etc driving charges and there are
often complaints that the CPS go for the lesser charges with the lesser
penalties. The usual CPS response is the Dangerous charge is usually too
hard a standard to prove.

I suggest that if an injury or fatality (or even just damage) arose out of a
collision occasioned by a motor-vehicle being driven along a footway (not
"on" it - *along* it) or through a red traffic light or along a one-way
street the wrong way, dangerous driving or CDBDD would be relatively easy to
prove.

And so it would be for injuries and deaths caused by cyclists doing any of
the same things.

The law needs to be changed to bring it up to date and make it clear to *all*
road users - *and* the police/CPS - what is and is not acceptable.

On Mar 24, 9:37*am, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-03-22a.875.0

Very obviously, neither the police nor the CPS have a clue what they're
talking about, since they are merely the experts on the law. Had they
only asked here, they'd soon have been put right about which sections of
the various Acts to invoke.

I suspect if they had asked internally they would have been put right too
as the CPS had used the wanton driving charge successfully just 18 months
ago for a pedestrian death. *The trouble with things that happen only once
every few years is that the prosecutors may not realise what charge to
bring unless someone more experienced tells them.

There are parallels though in driving deaths. *Dangerous driving cases up
less than 0.5% of the death/careless etc driving charges and there are
often complaints that the CPS go for the lesser charges with the lesser
penalties. *The usual CPS *response is the Dangerous charge is usually too
hard a standard to prove.

--
Tony

And notice how the "pavement cycling" has become an established fact
to be stated in Parliament:-
"In April 2007, Rhiannon Bennett was walking with friends on the
pavement near
her home. She was 17 years old. A cyclist approached the group at
speed,
jumping from the road to cut across the pavement, yelling "Move, I'm
not
stopping!". He was travelling so fast that the group had no time to
react. He
hit Rhiannon, knocking her over and smashing her head against the
kerb. She
was rushed to hospital with severe head injuries, but she died six
days later. "

That is how it will be remembered by the decent broad mass of the
great British public, despite this:-

"Sgt Dominic Mahon, of Thames Valley Police, told the BBC Howard could
have been travelling at about 17mph (27km/h) when he struck Rhiannon,
"imparting a great deal of force" on her. On Monday, the court heard
Howard could have swerved to the right of the group and avoided the
collision. But Sgt Mahon said he stayed on a "straight course" towards
the group because he had thought he could get through a gap he saw
between Rhiannon and her friends. However, it seems Rhiannon moved in
to the gap at the last second and was struck by the bike. It was
unclear in court as to whether she was still in the road or on the
pavement when the collision happened. “We think Rhiannon was probably
a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the
pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Nothing changes on urc. Goodbye again.

On 24/03/2011 12:43, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:37 am, Tony wrote:
wrote:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-03-22a.875.0

Very obviously, neither the police nor the CPS have a clue what they're
talking about, since they are merely the experts on the law. Had they
only asked here, they'd soon have been put right about which sections of
the various Acts to invoke.

I suspect if they had asked internally they would have been put right too
as the CPS had used the wanton driving charge successfully just 18 months
ago for a pedestrian death. The trouble with things that happen only once
every few years is that the prosecutors may not realise what charge to
bring unless someone more experienced tells them.

There are parallels though in driving deaths. Dangerous driving cases up
less than 0.5% of the death/careless etc driving charges and there are
often complaints that the CPS go for the lesser charges with the lesser
penalties. The usual CPS response is the Dangerous charge is usually too
hard a standard to prove.

--
Tony

And notice how the "pavement cycling" has become an established fact
to be stated in Parliament:-
"In April 2007, Rhiannon Bennett was walking with friends on the
pavement near
her home. She was 17 years old. A cyclist approached the group at
speed,
jumping from the road to cut across the pavement, yelling "Move, I'm
not
stopping!". He was travelling so fast that the group had no time to
react. He
hit Rhiannon, knocking her over and smashing her head against the
kerb. She
was rushed to hospital with severe head injuries, but she died six
days later. "

That is how it will be remembered by the decent broad mass of the
great British public, despite this:-

"Sgt Dominic Mahon, of Thames Valley Police, told the BBC Howard could
have been travelling at about 17mph (27km/h) when he struck Rhiannon,
"imparting a great deal of force" on her. On Monday, the court heard
Howard could have swerved to the right of the group and avoided the
collision. But Sgt Mahon said he stayed on a "straight course" towards
the group because he had thought he could get through a gap he saw
between Rhiannon and her friends. However, it seems Rhiannon moved in
to the gap at the last second and was struck by the bike. It was
unclear in court as to whether she was still in the road or on the
pavement when the collision happened. “We think Rhiannon was probably
a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the
pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Oh.... so was he NOT convicted of a criminal offence, then?

It's just that the MP seemed pretty certain that he WAS.

Why don't you just say what's really on your mind: as far as you're
concerned, other peoples' children, especially teenage pedestrians, are just
scum to be mown down whenever they present a slight inconvenience to an
anti-social cyclist?

Nothing changes on urc. Goodbye again.

Be careful of the strong spring on that door.

With "contributions" like the one above, you won't be missed.

On Mar 24, 12:43*pm, Squashme wrote:
However, it seems Rhiannon moved in
to the gap at the last second and was struck by the bike. It was
unclear in court as to whether she was still in the road or on the
pavement when the collision happened. “We think Rhiannon was probably
a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the
pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Good grief, don't deprive them of that 4 year old incident.
It's all they've got to cling to - it's their comfort dummy!

--
Simon Mason

On 24/03/2011 17:31, Simon Mason wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:43 pm, wrote:
However, it seems Rhiannon moved in
to the gap at the last second and was struck by the bike. It was
unclear in court as to whether she was still in the road or on the
pavement when the collision happened. “We think Rhiannon was probably
a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the
pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Good grief, don't deprive them of that 4 year old incident.
It's all they've got to cling to - it's their comfort dummy!

Good Grief...

Is it four years already since someone's seventeen-year-old daughter was mown
down and brutally killed by a cyclist who was later convicted of an entirely
inadequate charge?

You'd think her parents would have gotten over it by now, wouldn't you? After
all, she was only a pedestrian.

JNugent wrote:

Good Grief...

Is it four years already since someone's seventeen-year-old daughter was
mown down and brutally killed by a cyclist who was later convicted of an
entirely inadequate charge?

You'd think her parents would have gotten over it by now, wouldn't you?
After all, she was only a pedestrian.

How do you feel about the parents of the probably 5-800 children that have
been killed by motor vehicles over that period and the sentences those
drivers got. Or is it only the parents of cyclist-killed children that
feel grief?

--
Tony

On Mar 24, 4:42*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2011 12:43, Squashme wrote:



On Mar 24, 9:37 am, Tony *wrote:
*wrote:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-03-22a.875.0

Very obviously, neither the police nor the CPS have a clue what they're
talking about, since they are merely the experts on the law. Had they
only asked here, they'd soon have been put right about which sections of
the various Acts to invoke.

I suspect if they had asked internally they would have been put right too
as the CPS had used the wanton driving charge successfully just 18 months
ago for a pedestrian death. *The trouble with things that happen only once
every few years is that the prosecutors may not realise what charge to
bring unless someone more experienced tells them.

There are parallels though in driving deaths. *Dangerous driving cases up
less than 0.5% of the death/careless etc driving charges and there are
often complaints that the CPS go for the lesser charges with the lesser
penalties. *The usual CPS *response is the Dangerous charge is usually too
hard a standard to prove.

--
Tony

And notice how the "pavement cycling" has become an established fact
to be stated in Parliament:-
"In April 2007, Rhiannon Bennett was walking with friends on the
pavement near
her home. She was 17 years old. A cyclist approached the group at
speed,
jumping from the road to cut across the pavement, yelling "Move, I'm
not
stopping!". He was travelling so fast that the group had no time to
react. He
hit Rhiannon, knocking her over and smashing her head against the
kerb. She
was rushed to hospital with severe head injuries, but she died six
days later. "

That is how it will be remembered by the decent broad mass of the
great British public, despite this:-

"Sgt Dominic Mahon, of Thames Valley Police, told the BBC Howard could
have been travelling at about 17mph (27km/h) when he struck Rhiannon,
"imparting a great deal of force" on her. On Monday, the court heard
Howard could have swerved to the right of the group and avoided the
collision. But Sgt Mahon said he stayed on a "straight course" towards
the group because he had thought he could get through a gap he saw
between Rhiannon and her friends. However, it seems Rhiannon moved in
to the gap at the last second and was struck by the bike. It was
unclear in court as to whether she was still in the road or on the
pavement when the collision happened. “We think Rhiannon was probably
a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the
pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Oh.... so was he NOT convicted of a criminal offence, then?

Where do I say that? You really are degenerating now. Only a couple of
months since I left and just look at you! Why don't you point out to
the policeman where he went wrong?


It's just that the MP seemed pretty certain that he WAS.

Where do I deny that? However the MP believes that he was cycling on
the pavement, and seems to think that he "jumped" his ridiculously-
expensive bicycle up on to the pavement to pursue his evil desires. I
suspect that she knows less about the incident than does the
policeman, or even you. Law needs sounder foundations, than your sad
ridiculous prejudices.


Why don't you just say what's really on your mind: as far as you're
concerned, other peoples' children, especially teenage pedestrians, are just
scum to be mown down whenever they present a slight inconvenience to an
anti-social cyclist?

You are a lying ****, and you know it. Either that or you are ****ing
mad.


Nothing changes on urc. Goodbye again.

Be careful of the strong spring on that door.

Be careful with that wrist action. You'll get spunk in your eye.


With "contributions" like the one above, you won't be missed.

Well, you couldn't fault it.

On 24/03/2011 19:40, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:

Good Grief...
Is it four years already since someone's seventeen-year-old daughter was
mown down and brutally killed by a cyclist who was later convicted of an
entirely inadequate charge?
You'd think her parents would have gotten over it by now, wouldn't you?
After all, she was only a pedestrian.

How do you feel about the parents of the probably 5-800 children that have
been killed by motor vehicles over that period and the sentences those
drivers got. Or is it only the parents of cyclist-killed children that
feel grief?

Your over-snipping (as above) is appalling and borders on blatant
misrepresentation.

The context is re-presented he

QUOTE:
Simon Mason wrote:
wrote:

However, it seems Rhiannon moved in
to the gap at the last second and was struck by the bike. It was
unclear in court as to whether she was still in the road or on the
pavement when the collision happened. “We think Rhiannon was probably
a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the
pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Good grief, don't deprive them of that 4 year old incident.
It's all they've got to cling to - it's their comfort dummy!
ENDQUOTE

Again and again, some cyclists refuse to condemn one of their own, creating
the most elaborate and far-fetched defences of blatantly criminal acts. The
attempt to blame the victim (above) is despicable.

You are free to point out the posts where anyone has defended a convicted
dangerous driver and tried to blame his or her child victims. I don't doubt
that it happens from time to time, but it ought not to be supported and
usually isn't.