- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
police line (CC licensed by hugovk_Flickr)Unlicensed driver jailed for five months for killing cyclist
An uninsured, unlicensed driver who killed a cyclist who would have been visible to her for “at least five seconds” before the collision, has been jailed for five months.
Angela Willshire, 32, of Thatchwell Court, Standens Barn, appeared at Northampton Crown Court after pleading guilty to a charge of causing death by careless driving.
The court heard Tony Ashcroft, aged 76, was cycling on the A510 between Wellingborough and Finedon, near Sidegate Lane, at 11pm on Friday, March 13, when he and the green Citroen Saxo, driven by Willshire, collided.
Police appeal after cyclist death in Northants over weekend
A collision investigator told the court Ashcroft, who was wearing a high-vis vest and had lights, would have been visible to Willshire for at least five seconds before collision.
The court also heard Willshire was uninsured at the time of collision as her licence had been revoked by the DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency), but the defendant was unaware of this issue.
Tailgating lorry driver gets year in jail for breaking pensioner cyclist's leg
The Northampton Chronicle and Echo reports Stephen Evans, defending, said his client “did not know what had happened” but accepted that she “ought to have seen the cyclist”.
Judge Rupert Mayo, sentencing, said there was no sentence he could pass that would compensate for the suffering and grief of Mr Ashcroft’s family.
He said: “Mr Ashcroft’s body and cycle were lit up and you should have been able to see him with the headlights of your car.
“A collision investigator has estimated you had five-and-a-half seconds to see him. I don’t know why you didn’t.”
Willshire was jailed for five months, and disqualified from driving for two years.
A CTC spokesperson said:
“We are always saddened to hear of the death of a cyclist, but this case hit closer to home as Tony was a CTC member. The loss of someone from CTC's community makes us all the more determined to tackle the dangers of bad drivers and bad roads.
“The significant thing about the sentence handed down to Willshire is that it's not at all out of the ordinary. Almost all drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving receive a driving ban, with the majority of bans lasting under three years. A third of those convicted go to prison and almost all of them go down for a year or less. The rest get suspended sentences, community sentences or fines. These light touch sentences do little to deter offenders and send out the message that taking someone's life with a motor vehicle is not a serious offence. Longer driving bans and lifetime bans are a much better deterrent.
“The long overdue public consultation on driving offences and penalties is the perfect opportunity to toughen up sentences for bad drivers. But while the Government continues to delay more and more drivers are getting off with derisory sentences.”
Latest Comments
- brooksby 58 sec ago
Maybe by "Jews", in this case, they actually mean the government of the State of Israel?...
- john_smith 2 min 8 sec ago
Since when have logical considerations like that been relevant?
- chrisonabike 18 min 12 sec ago
We can't afford to rejoin the EU, because of the cost (economic, political, emotional...) of rejoining the EU....
- FionaJJ 18 min 49 sec ago
It took me ages to make sense of the story, because the bit about having bike parking is irrelevant to the issue about access. ...
- chrisonabike 58 min 56 sec ago
But how on earth do you expect people to know that's not allowed?...
- David9694 1 hour 26 min ago
Man flees after crashing into grade II listed Dorset home https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24263845.man-flees-crashing-grade...
- wycombewheeler 1 hour 40 min ago
If plod can't get through their in their cars, then criminals will use it to evade them because heaven forbid the police should patrol on foot or...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 43 min ago
The questions would be "who / what do the rules serve? What are we willing to pay / accept to maintain or enforce them?"...
- Rapha Nadal 2 hours 16 min ago
I once had an Explosif in Reynolds 853 with their Project 2 fork and it was one of the best mountain bikes I've ever owned. I still think about it...
Add new comment
20 comments
Just read about complaining about low sentancing, which is a great thing to do.
This came to mind. If I go out now and 'accidentally' hit someone and kill them (pick any sort of object to assault them with) then would I expect 5 months for that death? I suspect not (but could happen near you if Theresa May continues down her lightly lightly approach).
So, if I am then sentenced to say 6 years despite me claiming it was an accident isn't there potential for my defence team to cite sentances such as those given to drivers claiming that my sentence is therefore too harsh and should be also be reduced to say 5 months?
You have to also consider that during the riots and looting a few years ago that people were being given 12 month sentances for taking the most trivial and inexpensive items as government wanted to show it was tough to quell the trouble. I believe one guy got 12 months in prison for stealing a can of pop as he was identified as being part of a group. So, what does this tell us about the value of our lives? You are less important than a can of fizzy water.
What a sorry state of affairs when you can actually steal another persons life and escape responsibilty with any array of excuses. Shame on UK government.
Further, we should contact DVLA and demand the licence is revoked permanently as this is clearly 'in the interests of the general public'. She has already ignored DVLA 'authority', believe me I use that word very loosely. She has demonstrated a catastrophic inability to drive on the roads safely irrespective of the other offences. She has killed an innocent individual.
So, what reason is there why she should be given further opportunity to cause harm to others that can possibly outweigh the need of society. Since when does the want and need of the individual outweigh the basic right to safety of everyone else?
>>>Judge Rupert Mayo, sentencing, said there was no sentence he could pass that would compensate for the suffering and grief of Mr Ashcroft’s family.<<<<
Same old shit, just like SMIDSY. The driver should have got 5 years in jail especially given the aggravating factors. The judge is a moron and should be struck off.
Who, which bodies are lobbying/raising questions over the varied sentencing which we see for these incidents? There doesnt seem to be a consistent policy!
FFS! I mis read that, I thought it said 5 years. 5 months is a fucking joke for taking someone's life. What a pile of shite
The judge should be charged with perverting the course of justice.
What is the point of banning someone from driving when they shouldn't have been driving in the first instance? A hefty prison sentence may not compensate for the suffering and grief of Mr. Ashcroft's family, but it would give the offender plenty of time to contemplate on their actions.
I always wonder about that. If someone *has* demonstrated that they're not bothered about ignoring the fact that they're not supposed to be driving then what's the point of banning them again? Just jail, or a seriously hefty financial penalty, surely? (I speak from knowledge - when I was taking my driving test, in my early thirties, my brother casually mentioned that he'd not taken a test or had insurance, yet he owned a car and he'd been driving for *years*)
Edit - duplicate post, sorry
2year driving ban. For someone who killed whilst driving without a license or insurance. I shall be highlighting this to the attorney General via the link above, when I can get to a computer. Appalling!
A human has caused the death of another innocent human by their negligence. That's manslaughter, isn't it?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#inv...
a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased - all road users have an obligation to respect more vulnerable road users (Highway code rules 160 and 202).
b) a breach of that duty of care which - established by her guilt
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim - established, RIP
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime. - lock her up.
Why not contact the Attorney General and complain https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence
Yepp, good idea. Hence, I have complained!
5 months! Fuck me. So she'll be out on the Tag by next Friday.
"Judge Rupert Mayo, sentencing, said there was no sentence he could pass that would compensate for the suffering and grief of Mr Ashcroft’s family"
Perhaps not, but he could have passed one that reflected the needless killing of an innocent road user. I'm not of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade but that's a pathetic sentence.
Ah have just read the lorry driver story now I see but still think 5 months isn't a sentence it's a joke
So a lorry driver gets a year for breaking a cyclist's leg but she only gets five months for killing!
I can only hope enough people appeal the lenient sentence and she ends up getting five years, a more relevent time considering what she did.(will not be holding my breath though)
"...was uninsured at the time of collision as her licence had been revoked by the DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency), but the defendant was unaware of this issue." - Why was her licence to drive revoked? And how on earth did she not know about it?
That's exactly what I was about to ask. Either the driver had committed a prior offence, or the licence had expired, as they do have to be renewed periodically. But either way, it suggests a significant lack of care on behalf of the driver. Given the magnitude of the offence as this was a fatal crash, the sentence seems rather light.
Light? Yes, rather light, but it's also: Insulting, Offensive, and Disgusting - anyone would think she'd hit a Pidgeon, FFS.
Ah, wheeling out the 'I didn't know' excuse. Try that with Inland Revenue and see how much leeway that gets you. None of course as that's about money whereas this is just a life and just a cyclist as well of course.
How also does the court issue a driving ban whenDVLA have revoked already? I presume the court also didn't know it had been revoked or is this all part of the 'pretending to take road crime seriously' we're all familiar with?
I never know how courts arrive at such a paltry sentence for someone who categorically should not have been on the roads, excuse about not knowing or not. To do this shows wilful intent to put their own interests above each and every one of us. That is the definition of selfish and to then violently steal the life of another person is horrific.
Yet another needless loss and further proof if any were needed that for the judicial system this is something to be quickly dispensed with so more important cases can be heard, such as non payment of council tax or a dispute about a parking ticket.