Cycling UK Forum

My first thoughts were,what penalty if Medina and his response similar,had been driving a car and hit the lady causing her the same injuries say on a zebra crossing.
Would he have even been threatened with the possibility of gaol?

BTW he comes across as an exemplary citizen who made a wrong decision for his own safety.

This is only the start.

One of the things which caught my eye was the matter of remorse. When it was formally included in the sentencing guidelines, it became an inevitable element of most speeches in mitigation. This looks like genuine remorse to me.

Bearing in mind how many fractures in the elderly trigger complications which can be fatal, it's fortunate that the casualty survived to be able to have her say.

What is unclear is whether he would have been sent to prison he he not have expressed remorse.

Reading the MEN article the cyclist did refer to danger at a nearby junction as a reason he was on the pavement. Seems odd looking on Streetview that he needed to be very close to the shop entrance where the collision apparently occurred, but I do have some sympathy.

The road layout looks really narrow for two lanes of traffic and the condition of the block paving on the road looks poor - certainly it was when Google took their image in July 2017. That's enough to deter some cyclists from the carriageway. It's a semi-pedestrianised area as well, with continuous dropped kerbs. That reduces clarity on what's a footpath and where cycling is permitted, but clearly that was no defence in law in this case. An incident that would not have occurred with decent cycle infrastructure methinks.......

reohn2 wrote:My first thoughts were,what penalty if Medina and his response similar,had been driving a car and hit the lady causing her the same injuries say on a zebra crossing.
Would he have even been threatened with the possibility of gaol?

That seems to depend on 'luck' of the police, prosecution, jury and judge or magistrate.

One thing is clear from the various threads on this topic is that the sentencing is widely variable, a quick browse through Google finds some motorists getting 3/4 year jail terms for killing a person on a pavement (still light imo) while there are cases in the lenient sentencing thread getting a slap on the wrist. Not to mention that if one were to dig out all cases of pedestrian KSI with a vehicle on pavements of of the stats19 data I suspect a majority would have no prosecution at all.

I have no problem with a cyclists who has hit a pedestrian on a footpath and caused injury being prosecuted, and I believe contrition on the part of the defendant matters and should affect sentencing, so the outcome of the court case seems about right to me.

(A hip injury in someone of that age can be fatal. One of my grandparents died of complications after a hip injury.)

thirdcrank wrote:One of the things which caught my eye was the matter of remorse. When it was formally included in the sentencing guidelines, it became an inevitable element of most speeches in mitigation. This looks like genuine remorse to me.

Bearing in mind how many fractures in the elderly trigger complications which can be fatal, it's fortunate that the casualty survived to be able to have her say.

Nail,head,on! And demonstrated well before the case came to court.

The judge is quoted as saying:

'you have lost your good character, something you will never get back'

Is that true? Will the offence be spent, or will he have to disclose it when applying for a job?

I think this is the latest from the govt about rehabilitation of offenders.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-act-1974

Cyril Haearn wrote:The judge is quoted as saying:

'you have lost your good character, something you will never get back'

Is that true? Will the offence be spent, or will he have to disclose it when applying for a job?

Is this offence treated differently to normal traffic offences? Most employers request that prospective employees disclose any unspent criminal convictions but aren't bothered about traffic offences unless it's a driving job. Our application form actually says disclose convictions other than road traffic offences. If a "clean" licence is required it's stated in the essential requirements.

I see that "furious driving" is driving licence endorsement code DD90, remains on the licence for four years and 3 to 11 points. It's pretty rare that the driver of a motor vehicle would be charged with this offence - probably only if they injured somebody while driving elsewhere than on a road or public place. IIRC, the CPS guidelines point to the possibility of using this charge where no NIP had been served, but since causing injury is an element of this offence, there must be some sort of "accident" so no need for an NIP anyway. It suggests to me that somebody at the CPS has been doing too much navel gazing.

There's no mention of the sentence including a licence endorsement and without looking it up, I don't know if the court had the power to make such an order.

Perhaps the judge was doing a bit of huffing and puffing before announcing the non-custodial sentence. Incidentally, it's easy to dismiss non-custodial sentences as a slap on the wrist etc, but £750 plus trimmings is quite tidy sum and "unpaid work" isn't a doddle for anybody who is conscientious.

My feeling on this is that we are heading down a blind alley on the sentencing (much as I approve of the whole way it was handled from perpetrator, victim and judge).

This incident to me is about pavement cycling and that to me is about a cultural shift from road to pavement. I cycle a lot in Plymouth where pavement cycling is tolerated, the city centre roads are hell on earth for any but the bravest and a foreign and student population has been nurtured on cycling on the pavement - it's normal.

And pavement cycling is indeed the new normal: shared paths, segregated cycleways, zero movement towards making roads safer in most towns and cities, huge reluctance by the motoring class to allow roads to be safer, a political class talking up roads and cars. The result is people voting with their feet (on pedals) and heading for the pavements.

Bikes and pedestrians don't mix (4 mph on the flat isn't my idea of making the most of a bicycle) so bike users are forming a new under-class of semi-legal, semi-safe, semi-polite and ultimately dangerous citizens operating in the twilight and loved by no-one but themselves.

Yes, you can prosecute fairly when the inevitable accidents happen but happen they will in increasing numbers until the crackdown. And so it goes on: we have created a new semi-criminal class in society - through cycling and through our inability as a society to dislodge the motorist from his privileged position.

So yes, another criminal record, another broken hip.

horizon wrote:
This incident to me is about pavement cycling and that to me is about a cultural shift from road to pavement. I cycle a lot in Plymouth where pavement cycling is tolerated, the city centre roads are hell on earth for any but the bravest and a foreign and student population has been nurtured on cycling on the pavement - it's normal.

I think you are right, and the more it is normal to keep out of the way of motors, to defer to them, the less drivers will expect us to claim priority (or right of way) when we are given it by the H.C., and the more dangerous it will become to rely on our rights on the road.
Many of the incidents comnplained of here can be accounted for by this de facto subordination of cyclists.