killer cyclist walks away with just a fine

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
The parents of a teenager killed by a speeding cyclist called for a
change in the law after he walked away from court with just a £2,200
fine.

Jason Howard was convicted of dangerous cycling for killing Rhiannon
Bennett as she walked to a shop with friends.

Howard, 36, sped towards Rhiannon at more than 23mph, shouting at her
to get out of the way.

With no time to react, the 17-year-old horse management student was
hit with the full force of the £4,750 custom-built bicycle, suffering
fatal injuries as she hit her head on the pavement.

The maximum sentence the judge could have imposed yesterday was a fine
of £2,500. But her parents, Mick and Diana Bennett, want the law
changed so that dangerous cycling lines up with causing death by
dangerous driving. The current maximum for this crime is a 14-year
prison sentence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...just-fine.html

"keith.hill" wrote in message
...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
The parents of a teenager killed by a speeding cyclist called for a
change in the law after he walked away from court with just a £2,200
fine.

Jason Howard was convicted of dangerous cycling for killing Rhiannon
Bennett as she walked to a shop with friends.

Howard, 36, sped towards Rhiannon at more than 23mph, shouting at her
to get out of the way.

With no time to react, the 17-year-old horse management student was
hit with the full force of the £4,750 custom-built bicycle, suffering
fatal injuries as she hit her head on the pavement.

The maximum sentence the judge could have imposed yesterday was a fine
of £2,500. But her parents, Mick and Diana Bennett, want the law
changed so that dangerous cycling lines up with causing death by
dangerous driving. The current maximum for this crime is a 14-year
prison sentence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...just-fine.html



I grew up at a time when it was illegal to ride bicycles on the pavement,
when was it made legal ?

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:37:33 +0100, keith.hill wrote:



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++
The parents of a teenager killed by a speeding cyclist called for a
change in the law after he walked away from court with just a £2,200
fine.

Jason Howard was convicted of dangerous cycling for killing Rhiannon
Bennett as she walked to a shop with friends.

Howard, 36, sped towards Rhiannon at more than 23mph, shouting at her
to get out of the way.

With no time to react, the 17-year-old horse management student was
hit with the full force of the £4,750 custom-built bicycle, suffering
fatal injuries as she hit her head on the pavement.

The maximum sentence the judge could have imposed yesterday was a fine
of £2,500. But her parents, Mick and Diana Bennett, want the law
changed so that dangerous cycling lines up with causing death by
dangerous driving. The current maximum for this crime is a 14-year
prison sentence.

My first reaction on reading about this (before the DM article) was one
of great indignation at the apparant leniency of the charge.

However, in the interim it has become clear that we really haven't a
clue as to what actually happened.

All the witnesses seem to be friends of the victim; they'd all been
drinking; we don't know whether the collision took place on the pavement
or the road, and if it was on the pavement whether the cycist had any
right to be there.

From the information available the event could have been anything from
manslaughter to a tipsy girl falling off the pavement in front of
traffic.

Thanks Keith, but in uk.rec.cycling we've been discussing this already.
We're only just getting over the last big (and successful) trolling
exercise from uk.legal, so maybe you could just let us know your opinion
based on the inadequate information that we all have and we'll be able
to get it all over quickly.
oh, and if you want mine...
Cycling fast along pavement = Bad Thing.
Stepping drunkenly into the path of a road user = Bad Thing
It's not at all clear yet which of these happened, but the first seems
more likely.

Roger Thorpe

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:36:13 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Thanks Keith, but in uk.rec.cycling we've been discussing this already.
We're only just getting over the last big (and successful) trolling
exercise from uk.legal, so maybe you could just let us know your opinion
based on the inadequate information that we all have and we'll be able
to get it all over quickly.
oh, and if you want mine...
Cycling fast along pavement = Bad Thing.
Stepping drunkenly into the path of a road user = Bad Thing
It's not at all clear yet which of these happened, but the first seems
more likely.

Roger Thorpe

(I see no evidence quoted that he was cycling on the pavement)

It is the fact that he was prosecuted for the dangerous cycling
offence which limited the penalty to a maximum of a 2500 fine.

Could he not have been charged with dangerous driving (are cyclists
covered by this?) or any other offence which would have had a more
severe penalty if he was found guilty?

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:53:41 +0100, keith.hill wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:36:13 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Thanks Keith, but in uk.rec.cycling we've been discussing this already.
We're only just getting over the last big (and successful) trolling
exercise from uk.legal, so maybe you could just let us know your opinion
based on the inadequate information that we all have and we'll be able
to get it all over quickly.
oh, and if you want mine...
Cycling fast along pavement = Bad Thing.
Stepping drunkenly into the path of a road user = Bad Thing
It's not at all clear yet which of these happened, but the first seems
more likely.

Roger Thorpe

(I see no evidence quoted that he was cycling on the pavement)

It is the fact that he was prosecuted for the dangerous cycling
offence which limited the penalty to a maximum of a 2500 fine.

Could he not have been charged with dangerous driving (are cyclists
covered by this?) or any other offence which would have had a more
severe penalty if he was found guilty?

If the event that took place was anything like the worst interpretation
based on the information available he should certainly have been charged
wth manslaughter.

If it resembled something based on the 'best' interpretation he should
not have been charged at all.

Unfortunately we just don't know.

Smolley said the following on 09/07/2008 12:35:

I grew up at a time when it was illegal to ride bicycles on the pavement,
when was it made legal ?

It's only legal when councils have some spare magic white paint. In
this case though, it appears that the cyclist was on the road but the
media really aren't clear on this. Even the Daily Wail seem to have
retracted their "pavement cycling" stance.

Whichever, a jail sentence does seem more appropriate than a fine -
whilst I'm sure he didn't intend to kill, he deliberately rode at the
group without making any effort to slow down or avoid them.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Keith.hill wrote:
|| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
|| The parents of a teenager killed by a speeding cyclist called for a
|| change in the law after he walked away from court with just a £2,200
|| fine.
||

Twice recently whilst walking along the pavement with my wife I've had
cyclist whizz past on my left from behind us, had I inadvertently moved
sideways considering the speed they were travelling at I dread to think what
the outcome could have been.
I appreciate how dangerous a roads are for cyclists these days, but even if
they rode their bikes slowly and rang the bell when approaching pedestrians
from behind maybe it wouldn't be so bad... IIRC back to my youth didn't a
working bell used to be a legal requirement on a pushbike?

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:37:33 +0100
keith.hill wrote:

[noting the crosspost - is "keith hill" a uk.legal regular
or a troll? Or maybe both?]

The maximum sentence the judge could have imposed yesterday was a fine
of £2,500. But her parents, Mick and Diana Bennett, want the law
changed so that dangerous cycling lines up with causing death by
dangerous driving. The current maximum for this crime is a 14-year
prison sentence.

On the one hand, this cyclist appears to be guilty of a serious crime.

On the other hand, the penalty was actually much higher than appears
to be usual *in practice* amongst motorists who kill. Including
those who are every bit as reckless as this cyclist, and perhaps are
committing additional crimes like driving with no MOT, insurance,
and while banned. I wonder if there are any real statistics for the
cost of killing on the road?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...just-fine.html

Ah, that paragon of fair and balanced reporting. If they say it,
it must be true. Har, har.

--
not me guv

"Ivan" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I appreciate how dangerous a roads are for cyclists these days

Primarily because so few road users (drivers _and_ cyclists) have the
vaguest hint of a clue as to how to play nicely with each other.

IIRC back to my youth didn't a working bell used to be a legal
requirement on a pushbike?

Still is.

As is "not riding on the pavement"...