For a multitude of good policy reasons the State urges more and more of us to cycle. It is reasonable to expect that the agents of the State, whether police, prosecutors or coroners, will do what is within their power to protect those who take up this exhortation.
The most senior police officer in the country has said that he will not cycle as he perceives it to be too dangerous. His perception is incorrect as cycling is not a dangerous activity. Too often, though, harm to cyclists is regarded as an unfortunate consequence of cycling amongst traffic when it should be regarded as a consequence of a failure of a motorist to take appropriate care in the vicinity of a vulnerable road user.
Too often official guidelines that differentiate between dangerous and careless driving are misapplied. Likewise arbitrary difficulties are placed in the path of an individual seeking to report unlawful driving that are not placed in the way of those who have witnessed other crimes. There are sometimes even arbitrary restrictions
on the evidence that will be considered for the prosecution of motoring offences which would never be contemplated in the case of other types of crime. Victim blaming, an attitude successfully addressed in other areas, remains common place when dealing with vulnerable road users and in particular with cyclists.
This report demonstrates very effectively how the quality of public service, both when investigating incidents that have led to the endangerment, harm or death of cyclists and when dealing with offences revealed thereby, needs to be improved. No other cycling organisation has campaigned so tirelessly on this subject as CTC, the national cycling charity which has represented the interests of cyclists of all types and descriptions since the dawn of the cycling age, and has drawn upon the experience of its wide membership to expose how the reality of the operation of the criminal justice system in this area differs from the theory of how it should operate.
Martin Porter QC, Temple, London
Getting behind the wheel of a vehicle is the one situation in which normally law-abiding citizens routinely put other people at risk. In the vast majority of cases, drivers do not deliberately set out to cause harm, but a moment’s inattention, particularly when it occurs in the vicinity of a vulnerable road user (e.g. a cyclist, pedestrian or motorcyclist) may cause serious injury and even death. The criminal justice system, with its lenient approach to bad driving, has failed to curtail the risk that driving may cause fatal or serious incidents.
Unfortunately, the justice system’s often unsatisfactory response to road collisions involving vulnerable road users (VRUs) undermines efforts to promote active travel despite its health, economic, environmental and other benefits. Instead it deters people from taking part in cycling or allowing their children to do so. The way the justice system handles bad driving should instead reinforce the message that it is unacceptable to endanger and intimidate other road users, not least the most vulnerable who are disproportionately affected by road crashes. The criminal justice system (CJS) needs to be reformed in a number of ways to ensure that the law and its enforcement protect all road users more effectively.
Since CTC’s Road Justice report on the courts and sentencing was published, the Government announced a full review of driving offences and penalties. Although the earlier report made recommendations to improve sentencing within the current legal framework, the recommendations of this report, as well as the principles of the sentencing report, should be taken into account during the Government’s review. This review should be thorough and extensive. The Government has set out an action plan to reform the CJS to improve the system’s efficiency
witnesses (Transforming the CJS, 2013). Central to this reform is a commitment to digitise the CJS with the creation of digital case files and a single information management system allowing evidence and case information sharing. The Government has also committed to: a) creating a transparent and responsive CJS which gives people the information to understand how their local system is performing; b) delivering a fast, less erratic system where trials are shorter and there is no adjournment culture; c) providing care and consideration to victims and witnesses; and d) providing the right response to crime ensuring the CJS acts as a powerful deterrent.
The action plan prioritises victims who have suffered systematic neglect, including victims of violence against women, hate crime, and gun and knife crime. However, despite the fact that victims of road crime are not counted as victims of crime and do not receive the same support as other victims, they have not been recognised as systematically neglected and, therefore, have not been prioritised.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (HMIC) and Crown Prosecution Service
Inspectorate (HMCPSI) are conducting the first ever joint review into the quality of road death investigations and prosecutions. The review will also assess the progress made by the CPS in implementing recommendations for positive change made by the HMCPSI in 2008. Bereaved families are invited to contribute their experience of the CJS to this review. For more information on investigations of road crime see CTC’s report
Introduction
The way The jusTiCe sysTeM handLes bad driving shouLd reinforCe The Message ThaT iT is unaCCePTabLe To endanger and inTiMidaTe oTher road users
“
The Road Justice campaign
CTC launched the Road Justice campaign in collaboration with the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF) to highlight failings in the legal system’s approach to bad driving. Since 2009, through its online reporting system (roadjustice.org.uk/report), CTC has collected over 4000 reports of bad driving and has spoken directly to victims who were injured by bad driving but whose cases where not dealt with suitably by the justice system.
This report is the second of four that explore where and how the CJS needs reforming. The problems with charging and prosecution practice are outlined, and exemplified by eight case studies. Eight proposals for improving charging and prosecution practice are presented. This report focuses on England and Wales; however, its principles are equally applicable in the rest of the UK. A separate report covers Scotland. The report focuses on cyclists because CTC’s and CDF’s members and supporters are cyclists. However, the concerns raised here also affect other VRUs, especially pedestrians.
Improvements to roads policing,
with a focus on thorough police
investigations of all road traffic
collisions involving injury
and death.
Better charging and
prosecution decisions.
Sentences that reflect the
severity of an offence and
discourage bad driving.
CTC is campaigning for
1
2
Injuries to cyclists often do not result in prosecution of the driver involved, and when they do, the accused frequently gets off lightly. This reinforces fears that the roads are lawless, dangerous places for cycling and walking and that the justice system does not consider the safety of VRUs to be a priority. It also causes unnecessary distress to victims and their families.
Careless v Dangerous driving
Recent trends suggest that prosecutors and courts are increasingly reluctant to prosecute and convict for ‘dangerous’ driving offences, with less serious ‘careless’ offences being preferred instead. This may be partly due to inappropriate and confusing charging standards which make it difficult for the police and prosecutors to make rational and consistent charging decisions. However, it may also be because pursuing a lesser charge makes it easier to obtain a guilty plea, thereby reducing costs.
Inappropriate charging standards
The definitions of careless and dangerous driving are meant to ensure objective charging decisions but the terms used are ambiguous: careless driving is described as driving which falls ‘below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’, and dangerous driving is driving that falls ‘far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’. There is no exact measurement of ‘below’ and ‘far below’, meaning prosecutors and the police must make subjective decisions about how bad the driving actually was. What’s more, the guidance does not clarify what constitutes a ‘careful and competent driver’.
Background
definitions of dangerous
and careless driving
Road Traffic Act 1988,Part 1 Section 2A (abbreviated)
Dangerous driving – ‘A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if the way they drive falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. ‘Dangerous’ refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.’
Road Traffic Act 1988,
Part 1 Section 3ZA (abbreviated)
Careless or inconsiderate driving – ‘A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving. This offence is also known as driving without due care and attention.’
The definiTions of CareLess and dangerous driving are MeanT To ensure objeCTive Charging deCisions buT The TerMs used are aMbiguous
“
”
ProseCuTors and CourTs are
inCreasingLy reLuCTanT To ProseCuTe and ConviCT for ‘dangerous’ driving
“
Examples of careless and dangerous driving are given in the guidance to assist those making charging decisions. However, there is a good deal of overlap between the examples given. For instance, driving too close to another vehicle is cited as an example for both dangerous and careless driving: for dangerous driving it is phrased as ‘driving much too close to the vehicle in front’ and for careless driving it is phrased as ‘driving inappropriately close to another vehicle.’ Another example of dangerous driving is ‘failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users’. This implies that prosecutors should, in practice, press charges for dangerous driving in the majority of cases where vulnerable road users users were put in danger by someone else’s driving. Nevertheless, all too often, prosecutors dismiss driving that gives rise to obviously foreseeable danger as ‘careless’.
Undercharging and downgrading
Prosecutors often seem to opt for a lesser charge (i.e. they undercharge) in order to obtain an early guilty plea or to secure a jury conviction - jurors are less likely to convict a driver of an offence resulting in a potential jail term when they have been shown to be an otherwise law abiding citizen. Courts are also known to accept guilty pleas to a lesser offence (e.g. causing death by careless driving) when a more serious offence was originally brought (e.g. causing death by dangerous driving). This is known as ‘downgrading’. According to the CPS’s code for crown prosecutors, a defendant’s plea should only be accepted if the court can pass a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offending and should not be accepted out of convenience. Prosecutors are also reminded in the code that they ‘must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction’. However, CTC is concerned that the introduction of the ‘Early Guilty Plea Scheme’ may
lead to further undercharging and downgrading of driving offences. The scheme intends to improve efficiency in the Crown Court by identifying cases where a defendant is likely to plead guilty at the first hearing and includes early communication with the defence about the potential for a guilty plea to an alternative charge.
Impact of charging on sentencing
The level of charge chosen has a direct impact on sentencing. For driving that is deemed to be ‘dangerous’, the maximum penalty for causing death is 14 years in prison, but just five years if the driving is deemed to be ‘careless’. Similarly for non-fatal injuries, the new offence of ‘causing serious injury by dangerous driving’ carries a five year maximum sentence, but ‘careless driving’ carries a maximum £5000 fine.
Prosecutors were recently criticised by a judge for failing to bring a charge of ‘causing death by careless driving’ against a motorcyclist who killed a pedestrian whilst speeding and carrying a passenger illegally. The rider was disqualified at the time, so a charge of ‘causing death whilst driving unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified’ was brought, which carries a much lighter maximum sentence. The charging guidance states that ‘where there is clear evidence that the driving fell below the required standard and was a cause of death, the appropriate offence incorporating dangerous or careless driving should also be charged.’ The judge imposed the maximum sentence possible: two years in prison minus a quarter due to the rider’s guilty plea.
ProseCuTors ofTen seeM To oPT for The Lesser Charge in order To obTain an earLy guiLTy PLea or To seCure a jury ConviCTion
“
Prosecutions and convictions for careless and dangerous driving
The number of prosecutions and convictions for careless and dangerous driving offences has declined more sharply in the last 27 years than the number of killed or seriously injured road crash victims (as shown in figure 1). Prosecutions have fallen by 80% and convictions by 83%, yet killed or seriously injured road casualties have dropped by only 67%. Understanding why this is happening is difficult because current collection and correlation of road crime data is poor - it is impossible to know the facts of individual cases that are thrown out by the CPS or result in the police taking no further action due to lack of evidence, or to know the proportion of charges which are downgraded from dangerous to careless driving, or how many cases result in the driver being sent on a National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS).
Figure 2, page 8, shows that the number of prosecutions and convictions for ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ dropped dramatically since the lesser offence of ‘causing death by careless driving’ was introduced in 2008, with a correspondingly sharp rise in prosecutions and convictions for ‘causing death by careless driving’. This indicates that many cases which are now being prosecuted as ‘causing death by careless driving’ would possibly have been prosecuted as ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ before 2008.
The nuMber of ProseCuTions and ConviCTions for CareLess and dangerous driving offenCes has deCLined More sharPLy in The LasT 27 years Than The nuMber of kiLLed or seriousLy injured road Crash viCTiMs
“
”
66%
Conviction rate for causing death by dangerous driving in 2013
70%
Conviction rate for causing death by careless driving in all courts 2013
75%
Conviction rate for dangerous driving in all courts 2013
78%
Conviction rate for careless driving in all courts 2013
6.5%
Drivers involved in fatal collisions in 2011 found guilty in the Crown Courts of causing death by dangerous driving
33%
Road deaths that led to a prosecution for causing death by careless or dangerous driving in 2012
Causing deaTh by dangerous and CareLess driving 2001 - 2012
Fig 2 – Source: Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Criminal Statistics, Motoring Tables (Vol 6)
dangerous - prosecutions Careless - prosecutions dangerous - convictions Careless - convictions
Fig 1 – Source: Casualty figures from (Reported) Road Casualties GB (1985-2011). DfT; Conviction figures from Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Criminal Statistics, Motoring Tables (Vol.6)
bad driving offenCes and ksi 1985 - 2012
Prosecutions (e & w only) Convictions (e & w only) killed and seriously injured (gb)
offences
- careless driving - dangerous driving
- causing death by dangerous driving - causing death by careless driving
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
driving offence Crown
Court Magistrates’ Court driving ban Penalty Points Court
Causing death by dangerous driving 14 years custody N/A Obligatory. Min 2 years. Compulsory re-test. 3 - 11 Crown Court
Causing serious injury by dangerous driving 5 years custody £5,000 fine and/ or 6 months custody Obligatory. Min 2 years. Compulsory re-test. 3 - 11 Magistrates’ or Crown Court
Dangerous driving 2 years custody £5,000 fine and/ or 6 months custody Obligatory. Min 1 year. Compulsory re-test. 3 - 11 Magistrates’ or Crown Court Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs 14 years custody N/A Obligatory. Min 2 years. Compulsory re-test. 3 - 11 Crown Court Causing death by careless driving 5 years custody £5,000 fine and/ or 6 months custody Obligatory. Min 1 year. 3 - 11 Magistrates’ or Crown Court
Causing death by driving whilst unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured 2 years custody £5,000 fine and/ or 6 months custody Obligatory. Min 1 year. 3 - 11 Magistrates’ or Crown Court Careless driving, inconsiderate driving, driving without due care and attention
N/A £5,000 fine Discretionary 3 - 9 Magistrates’ Court
Driving when disqualified
N/A £5,000 fine and/ or 6 months custody
Discretionary 6 Magistrates’ Court
Who makes charging and prosecution decisions?
In cases where the alleged offence is a breach of road traffic law, the police exercise more discretion over charging decisions than for other types of crime. Under Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance, the police may charge any Summary Only offence irrespective of plea, which includes careless driving and driving whilst disqualified. They may also charge any either way offence (i.e. offences that are triable in either the magistrates’ courts or crown courts) anticipated as a guilty plea and suitable for sentence in a magistrates’ court, which includes causing serious injury by dangerous driving and dangerous driving. The police cannot decide a charge if the incident involved a death. The police pass all other cases to the CPS for charging. The CPS will not normally be invited to consider the more serious offence in situations where the police have already decided to charge with a less serious offence.
No further action and driver alertness schemes
The drop in the number of prosecutions for dangerous and careless driving offences is due, in part, to police decisions to take no further action or to send drivers on training schemes. In fatal cases the police can decide to take no further action (NFA) without consulting the CPS if they think there is not enough evidence for a conviction.
The driver alertness scheme, part of NDORS, is designed for situations involving a collision where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution for careless driving. Guidance produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on sending drivers on such schemes says that the decision to send a driver on a scheme should not be based on the outcome of the individual’s driving, but on the driving itself. Exceptions to this rule include when an incident causes serious bodily harm or fatal injury. This implies that driving which does not result in serious injury can be handled through NDORS schemes, even if the driving that led to the incident was as bad as driving which led to a serious injury, or which was handled by way of prosecution.
Victims’ Right to Review
In 2013, the CPS launched the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme, which allows victims to seek review of a CPS decision not to bring charges or to terminate criminal proceedings. However, victims do not have the right to review decisions where the CPS decides to bring a summary only charge (e.g. to charge with ‘careless’ instead of ‘dangerous’ driving). After being advised of a decision not to bring charges or to terminate a case, victims are notified of their right to request a review of that decision. If the review concludes that the decision taken was wrong, consideration will be given to whether a charge should be brought or whether proceedings ought to be re-instituted. In cases where the police make the decision to take no further action, victims do not have the right to review the decision.
in Cases where The aLLeged offenCe is a breaCh of road TraffiC Law, The PoLiCe exerCise More disCreTion over Charging deCisions Than for oTher TyPes of CriMe
“
”
in Cases where The PoLiCe Make The deCision To Take no furTher aCTion, viCTiMs do noT have The righT To review The deCision.
“
1. Charging guidance should undergo a full consultation and review
This review should cover all driving offences and pay close attention to the definitions of ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ driving. Revised guidance should provide accurate advice on the charges and clarification of what constitutes ‘a competent and careful driver’, as well as more appropriate examples of bad driving.
2. The Government’s review of offences and penalties should look at how bad driving is defined
As has been explained in this report, the definitions of careless and dangerous driving are ambiguous and lack clarification and can lead to undercharging. These definitions should be reviewed when the Government looks at the legislation.
3. Road Justice Scrutiny Panels should be established
These should be set up in a manner similar to Hate Crime Scrutiny Panels, to scrutinise investigations of road crime and to ensure transparency in the Police and CPS’s actions. As this report has shown, there is a serious concern about under-charging and downgrading of road crime, but there is limited transparency about how and why this is happening. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for victims to challenge contentious charging decisions or to hold the police and CPS to account for their decisions.
4. There should be a systematic process for the police and CPS to document and report the reasons for their charging decisions or for taking no further action
Data relating to these decisions should be made public. This process would help improve the accountability of the police and CPS.
5. Prosecutors handling serious and fatal road crime cases should take part in a national road traffic law training programme
Prosecutors handling serious and fatal road crime cases should be well trained on the legal definitions of road traffic offences, particularly the difference between ‘dangerous’ and ‘careless’ driving, and on how to explain the difference clearly and correctly to a court in order to avoid dismissal of dangerous driving as careless.
6. Driver alertness schemes should not be used as an alternative to prosecution in serious cases
In cases where serious injury has been caused or a dangerous driving offence has been committed, drivers should not be given the option of attending a driver alertness scheme as an alternative to prosecution. Although this is national policy, it is not always followed.
7. Victims of road crime should be counted and monitored
The majority of motoring offences do not mention when someone has been injured or affected by the driving (e.g. dangerous driving, careless driving, drink-driving) or what mode of transport the victim was using (e.g. pedestrian or cyclist), therefore, the number and type of victims of road crime is not counted and cannot be monitored. Victims of road crime should be counted and monitored.
8. Drivers who maim and kill should be given immediate interim driving bans
Interim driving bans between arrest and the outcome of a court case should be imposed on drivers involved in fatal or serious injury collisions where the offence carries a mandatory ban. This is so as to prevent further incidents and to avoid unnecessary distress caused to victims by seeing the driver at the wheel.
Charging guidance should undergo a full consultation
and review
Prosecutors handling serious and fatal road crime cases
should take part in a national road traffic law training
programme
The Government’s review of offences and penalties should
look at how bad driving is defined
Road Justice Scrutiny Panels should be established
There should be a systematic process for the police and
CPS to document and report the reasons for their charging
decisions or for taking no further action
Driver alertness schemes should not be used as an
alternative to prosecution in serious cases
Victims of road crime should be counted and monitored
Drivers who maim and kill should be given immediate
interim driving bans
summary of proposals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hope’s story
Kings Heath, Birmingham, November 2011
13-year-old Hope was killed in collision with an 18-tonne loaded HGV as she pushed her bike across a pedestrian crossing on Kings Heath High Street, Birmingham. The lorry driver, who was at the front of a queue of stationary traffic, moved the lorry away when the lights turned green. He had not seen Hope beginning to cross the road.
The driver had had an argument with his girlfriend by text message over a 20 minute period leading up to the crash. The last of 16 messages was sent just one minute before the crash. He deleted these messages immediately after the collision. Just two months after Hope’s death the driver was caught speeding in a 40mph zone.
The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the driver for causing Hope’s death. Instead, he was charged with dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice for deleting the text messages.
At the trial the judge stated that the driver was not to blame for Hope’s death as he could not see her. The driver’s good character, ‘excellent’ driving record, poor psychiatric health, and unemployment since the incident, were emphasised during the court case, yet, because Hope was not considered a victim of his driving, nothing was said about the effect her death had had on her family. The judge had to seek approval from the driver to read a victim impact statement Hope’s mother had written, but, even though the defendant gave his approval, the statement was not read out in court.
The driver changed his plea three times before finally pleading guilty to both accounts. He received a one year driving ban and two months in prison for dangerous driving and four months in prison for perverting the course of justice.
Hope’s story demonstrates the distress experienced by bereaved relatives when the death of a loved one is not reflected in the charge.
Tarsem’s story
Kings Heath, Birmingham, November 2011
Tarsem, a father of five and a careful and experienced cyclist, was killed when he was hit by a four-axle tipper lorry as the driver turned a corner. The driver failed to see that Tarsem was cycling straight on.
The driver was originally arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving but was allowed to admit to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving just days before his trial. He was also charged with several tachograph offences. Tarsem’s family was unaware of his change of plea and only learned of it when contacted by the London Evening Standard.
The driver was fined £120 for the tachograph offences and for causing Tarsem’s death he received a nine-month suspended jail sentence, was ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work, to pay a £100 victim surcharge and was banned from driving for only 18 months.
Tarsem’s story shows how drivers can escape with light sentences even in very serious cases, simply by pleading guilty to a ‘careless’ driving offence.
James’s story
Leytonstone, London, February 2011
James was waiting at a set of traffic lights inside a bike lane when a petrol tanker positioned inside the cycle box turned left across his path. James was dragged under the wheels of the tanker. James spent three weeks in a coma and spent months in hospital. Three years on, he still struggles to walk unaided.
The driver was charged with careless driving. The court heard from a road crash investigator that the driver would have been able to see James in his mirror for at least 12 seconds as he waited at the lights. The prosecution did not call two witnesses who had seen the entire incident from their car. The driver was acquitted. James’s story shows how cases could be undermined when prosecutors fail to present full
Karl’s story
Hatton, Derbyshire, June 2011
Karl was competing in a time trial with 32 other cyclists when he was hit from behind by a lorry driver. He died as a result. While the driver claimed to have been dazzled by sunlight, he was in fact speeding – doing 56mph on a road where the limit for lorries is 50mph. The police investigation found that very few other drivers were hampered by the sun on that same stretch of road that day. The driver had made no attempt to slow down despite his claim of being unable to see clearly. In court he claimed to have no recollection of the crash which
killed Karl.
Karl’s family were repeatedly let down by the CPS during the case: first by the initial decision not to prosecute; then by administrative errors causing two hearings to be postponed; then by the inadequacy of the CPS lawyer, who was later removed from the case; and finally by the decision to sentence the driver in the magistrate’s court. Karl’s family and their new CPS lawyer successfully managed to get the driver sentenced in the crown court. However, despite this transferal, the sentence imposed was still derisory: a 2 year driving ban and a suspended 24 week custodial term.
In addition to demonstrating the leniency shown drivers that kill by the courts, Karl’s story is indicative of the trivialisation of driving offences by hearing them in the magistrates’ courts, where sentencing ranges are much lower than in the crown courts.
Tommy’s story
Croston, Lancashire, March 2012
Tommy died from serious head injuries after he was hit from behind by a 19-year-old driver. The driver claimed he hadn’t seen Tommy because he had been blinded by the low setting sun. He had effectively driven blind for ten seconds covering 190 metres, yet he was charged with causing death by careless driving. The driver was convicted and sentenced to 300 hours community service and a two year driving ban. Tommy’s family waited 16 months for the case to come to trial and were poorly informed throughout of the case progress. When the sentencing date was brought forward they weren’t informed of the change and were given incorrect information about where the sentencing was to take place. They were told the driver had pleaded guilty when he had actually been found guilty and they only learned of the sentence the driver received via a police phone call.
Tommy’s story exemplifies not only what appears to be an inappropriate ‘careless’ driving prosecution, but also how bereaved families can be kept in the dark about case progress, making them less able to challenge the decisions of prosecutors.
Ken’s story
Stroud, Gloucestershire, April 2013
Ken was rear-ended by a car that entered the roundabout he was cycling on. Ken was thrown from his bike and sustained serious injuries. He was left with a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain, severe bruising and a cracked pelvis.
Ken is unable to return to work full time because he suffers from brain fatigue and headaches and has difficulty with word selection. The on-going problems caused by the brain injury almost led to his driving licence being revoked and he can now only cycle short distances.
The police assured Ken they had enough evidence to charge the driver with careless driving, but instead sent him on a driver alertness course. The police admitted to Ken that they had made some errors and had not followed their own procedures when deciding not to charge the 19-year-old. Ken’s story exemplifies the inappropriate use of driver training.
Bob’s story
Brixton, Devon, August 2012
Bob was cycling along a narrow country road with two other cyclists when an impatient lorry driver - who had been persistently revving his engine whilst behind the cyclists - overtook them and pushed Bob into the adjacent hedge when he had to suddenly pull in to allow an oncoming lorry to pass. The lorry driver did not stop but carried along the road until he came head on with another lorry and was forced to stop.
The professional driver broke rule 128 of the Highway Code which states that a driver may cross a double white line if the line nearest is broken, only if it is safe to do so. It was very clearly not safe to do so. Bob suffered a double fracture of his neck and a permanent hand injury.
The police failed to use photos taken by the witnesses and failed to take witness statements. They charged the driver with careless driving, meaning the case was not referred to the CPS for review. Had it been referred and had they obtained statements from the cyclists, the driver may have been charged with the more appropriate offence of dangerous driving. The driver was found guilty and disqualified for six months, fined £200 and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.
Bob’s story shows how lenient sentencing can arise due to an apparently weak charging decision by the police, without the CPS even being involved.
James’s story
Horfield, Bristol, April 2013
James was hit by a driver who suddenly turned left into a side road as James was cycling straight on. Before the incident James had been positioned in the cycle box at a set of traffic lights. When the lights turned green, James moved off. After a few metres, the driver overtook James and suddenly turned left, whilst shouting at him out of the window. The driver hit James side on as he made the turn. There was a witness to the incident and there was CCTV footage of the collision. The driver was charged and found guilty of dangerous driving. He was sentenced to a one year driving ban and ordered to use a police tag for three months.
The driver appealed the conviction. At the appeal, the independent witness was called but their evidence was dismissed. The driver claimed he had spoken to James whilst they were both stationary at the traffic lights to inform him that he planned to turn left. He also claimed James undertook him as he made his left turn and argued that the speed at which James was cycling - about 15mph - was excessive. The driver’s barrister used the fact that CCTV only showed the collision and not the time leading up to the collision to disprove James’ claims. The driver won the appeal.
James’s story shows how lack of preparation on behalf of prosecutors can lead to drivers avoiding penalties.
The Road Justice Campaign
The Road Justice campaign seeks to encourage the police, the prosecution services and the courts to put policies and practices in place which demonstrate that bad driving is both taken seriously and actively discouraged, thereby increasing road safety for all road users.
www.roadjustice.co.uk
CTC - the national cycling charity works to inspire and help people to cycle. CTC campaigns to remove barriers to cycling, and believes that by creating a safer road environment through ensuring bad drivers are brought to justice, more individuals will take up and continue cycling.
www.ctc.org.uk
The Cyclists’ Defence Fund works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling by fighting significant legal cases involving cycling and cyclists. CDF will support the Road Justice campaign by providing financial assistance to challenge apparent failings of the legal system.
www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk
RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, has been campaigning for justice for road traffic victims since its start in 1992. RoadPeace has worked closely with CTC over the years and welcomes its Road Justice campaign.
www.roadpeace.org
British Cycling, as well as being the national governing body for cycling, also represents cyclists’ interests at all levels, such as campaigning on issues including cycle safety and keeping cycle racing on the road.
www.britishcycling.org.uk
Slater and Gordon Lawyers operate CTC’s incident line and have extensive experience helping CTC members obtain compensation for injuries. Slater and Gordon provide financial backing to the Road Justice campaign.
www.slatergordon.co.uk
