Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Aston Martin driver who hit family of cyclists while driving ‘like an idiot’ spared jail

Kyle Lloyd had been driving at speeds of up to 70mph in a 40mph zone

A man who mowed down three cyclists as they crossed a road has been spared jail, despite police investigators’ belief that had he been travelling at the 40mph speed limit, he should have been able to stop between 24 and 45 metres before the location of the crash.

The Daily Echo reports that Peter Mead, Elizabeth Hutchings and their daughter, Saffron Mead, 14, were returning to their caravan at the Hollands Wood Campsite in the New Forest after a bike ride on Saturday, September 27, 2014. Having dismounted, they tried to cross the A337 between Lymington and Brockenhurst but were hit by Kyle Lloyd’s Aston Martin.

Peter Mead sustained a fractured lower leg and cuts and bruises and after being resuscitated by paramedics was flown to Southampton General Hospital by air ambulance. Hutchings sustained two broken thigh bones and a broken ankle, while Saffron Mead sustained a fractured jaw and injuries to her teeth.

One motorist told police that Lloyd was travelling so fast that “it was incredible”. Another said he heard the sound of the engine “screaming”.

During his trial at Bournemouth Crown Court, Lloyd said: “I drove off like an idiot unfortunately. [The car] had a noisy engine and I was accelerating away like an idiot.”

Simon Jones, prosecuting, said that Lloyd had travelled at an average speed of 63mph between the train station in Brockenhurst and the site of the crash outside Setleyridge Vineyard – a stretch of road where the speed limit is first 30mph and then 40mph.

Lloyd admitted that he had been speeding, but said that after taking a corner too quickly, he had slowed down.

He said he “glanced” in his wing mirror at a car travelling in the opposite direction and then realised the family were in the middle of the road. He attempted to swerve around them, saying he had no time to brake.

Lloyd was found guilty of three counts of driving without due care and attention, but not guilty of three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He will return to court for sentencing on May 6. The maximum sentence for driving without due care and attention is an unlimited fine.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

61 comments

Avatar
kil0ran | 7 years ago
0 likes

9 month ban, £1000 fine. For seriously injuring three people and for driving at an average of 63mph in a 30/40 limit.

Apparantly the poor lamb has been emotionally affected by it and the ban will affect his business and mean it will be difficult for him to see his son. Bless 

 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14477556.Aston_Martin_driver_who_c...

Avatar
atgni replied to kil0ran | 7 years ago
0 likes

kil0ran wrote:

9 month ban, £1000 fine. For seriously injuring three people and for driving at an average of 63mph in a 30/40 limit.

Apparantly the poor lamb has been emotionally affected by it and the ban will affect his business and mean it will be difficult for him to see his son. Bless 

 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14477556.Aston_Martin_driver_who_c...

 

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence

done.

Avatar
kil0ran replied to atgni | 7 years ago
0 likes

atgni wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

9 month ban, £1000 fine. For seriously injuring three people and for driving at an average of 63mph in a 30/40 limit.

Apparantly the poor lamb has been emotionally affected by it and the ban will affect his business and mean it will be difficult for him to see his son. Bless 

 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14477556.Aston_Martin_driver_who_c...

 

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence

done.

 

Only certain types of case can be reviewed, including:

murder
rape
robbery
some child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion

 

OK, so we all pray at the altar of Le Man but I'm not sure that would apply to this family...  1

 

Avatar
wknight | 7 years ago
0 likes

Before you blame the justice system you have to ask why ARE CASES NOT GOING TO COURT AND DRIVERS SENT ON COURSES.   

86 courts are being closed due to 'lack of work' this year. Why?  because the POLICE are not sending the matters to the CPS, instead the Police  and sending people on courses, giving them cautions or fixed penalty notices. Many are justfied, but many are not. 

Have you been involved in a traffic matter? DId the Police say to you, do you want the driver prosecuted? Often the response is No because people don't want to get involved.  You need to complain to your MP, the Chief Constable, local newspaper etc

The courts have to sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, the Police do not. This needs to be changed and the decision removed from the Police. The Police get money from every person sent on a course and avoid the paperwork associated with going to court. 

You can see the Sentencing Guidelines at 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/the-magistrates-court-sentencing-gu...

Avatar
bendertherobot | 7 years ago
2 likes

But he's been acquitted of the serious charges and not yet sentenced on the others. What complaint would be made?

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 7 years ago
0 likes

The legal deliniation between careless and dangerous driving seems so arbitrary in so many cases. 

Logically if you are within the speed limit, are distracted and hit someone that is careless driving 'without due date and attention'.

If you are above the speed limit and hit someone whether distracted or not - that is dangerous driving surely? Or what is the speed limit for?

The government is in denial about how many accidents are caused by speeding. The public know it is dangerous but will carry on pushing the boundaries until speeding becomes unacceptable through ad campaigns - or people start losing their licence for at least 10 years - or life if they take a life. 

A friend of mine who is not a stupid person told me she thought 20mph signs were just advisory rather than the legal limit. It's this kind of vagueness which is encouraging speeding still. 

Avatar
Simmo72 | 7 years ago
2 likes

Just what do you have to do get convicted of dangerous driving you are driving nearly twice the speed limit.  You caused an injury by driving dangerously, fact.

The fact he is in an expesnsive car is irrelvent, the face the people injured were cyclists is irrelent as they were just crossing the road on foot, therefore they were pedestrians.

People like this need to be made an example of and given hefty sentences and fines that have some corralation with the physical and mental injury they have caused.....and yes, crush his silly car

 

 

 

Avatar
Kerouac | 7 years ago
0 likes

What make were their bikes?

Avatar
Wolfshade | 7 years ago
1 like

It is a shame that the results have come to this.

One hopes that the fine will be appropriate given his wealth and that this will pave the way for the victims to sue for suitable compensation.

While I realise that this fine is unlimited in its scope, I do sometimes wonder if we should have a system like in some European countries where the fine is based on income of the individual for those which are limited.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
0 likes

I  should go back to driving like bell-end, seems attitudes have changed!

Many years ago,In my driving a car with extra lamps on days, I got done for dangerous driving for a far lesser offence than this.  I'd have probably just get a driver awareness course if I'd done it now. 

Or maybe I just didn't hit a cyclist?

Avatar
1961BikiE | 7 years ago
3 likes

To "lighten" the mood and go slightly OT - what group again is it that the residents of the New Forest hate for the danger they cause? Oh yes cyclists. Bloody cyclists getting off their bikes and trying g to cross the road. They are worse than ISIL.

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 7 years ago
0 likes

The people who were the unfortunate receipients of the front end of the Aston; are they able to appeal against any decision or sentencing handed down?

Avatar
atgni replied to Rapha Nadal | 7 years ago
0 likes

Rapha Nadal wrote:

The people who were the unfortunate receipients of the front end of the Aston; are they able to appeal against any decision or sentencing handed down?

Anyone can complain to the Attorney General for review - from a different thread:

 

zanf  [795 posts] 4 days ago
3 likes  

I've posted this before but if everyone who is pissed at the leniency of his sentence, made a formal complaint, Attorney General would have to consider reviewing his sentence, and possibly send it to the Court of Appeal.

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence(link is external)

Attorney General’s Office
www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk(link is external)
correspondence [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7271 2492
Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm

quote

- See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/187304-drunk-driver-who-killed-plymouth-cycl...

Avatar
fustuarium | 7 years ago
1 like

On the surface of it, another frustrating case. Charging, findings, and sentencing are all different parts and its sad to see how infrequently they align. It's especially frustrating when it's juries that return peverse outcomes  2 Very little you can do about that except remove trial by jury in these cases. 

Avatar
nedcase | 7 years ago
3 likes

As Terry Pratchett said, privilege means private law. The law of the rich who can buy the lawyer expertise to convince juries to let them off. His statement clearly is contradicted by the police evidence. Bet the judge didn't point that out before they considered their verdict.

Avatar
nicmason | 7 years ago
2 likes

This article is about how dangerous driving cases should not go before a jury 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-re...

 

Avatar
Gourmet Shot replied to nicmason | 7 years ago
1 like

nicmason wrote:

This article is about how dangerous driving cases should not go before a jury 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-re...

 

 

Interesting bit......

"If you happen to be charged with dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving, should you choose a magistrates’ court trial the maximum penalty for either is six months in prison. But opt for a judge and jury and this rises, respectively, to two and five years.

So why is your defence lawyer likely to advise you to take the latter option? It’s because they know from experience that juries have a poorer record of convicting drivers, especially if the victim is a cyclist or a pedestrian."

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to nicmason | 7 years ago
1 like
nicmason wrote:

This article is about how dangerous driving cases should not go before a jury 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-re...

 

I would prefer to see them go before specialised juries of driving examiners. The trouble is most people think there are experts on driving when they are not.

Avatar
Dan S replied to nicmason | 7 years ago
0 likes

nicmason wrote:

This article is about how dangerous driving cases should not go before a jury 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-re...

Interesting article.  The obvious problem is that magistrates have a maximum sentence of 6 months available to them.  Death by dangerous driving is therefore not something that should be before them.  I agree about death by careless.

Avatar
MarshalK | 7 years ago
13 likes

The Driver is a fucking cunt, the justice system is a fucking joke.

Avatar
pz1800 | 7 years ago
2 likes

I do think it is a weakness of the English and Welsh legal system that juries are not called on to explain their decisions. 

Avatar
kil0ran | 7 years ago
1 like

Living in Lymington he will have been a regular driver on that road so he will have known the conditions. Its the main route out to the north connecting to Brockenhurst & Lyndhurst. For the most part (the section where he admits he was doing 70) it is tree-lined and sight lines aren't long. That's not the case where he hit them - straight road and relatively open. 

Its not a road where you would expect to see pedestrians as for the most part there are no pavements - I'm guessing the family were walking across intending to get on their bikes on the opposite side of the carriageway. As tourists they wouldn't have been aware of the nature of the road as being one that local cyclists avoid like the plague unless they have no choice. Too many drivers travelling too fast - often in a hurry to get to the ferry in Lymington. Much quieter forest roads are close enough to warrant a detour.

Assuming the pedestrians weren't complete lemmings I just don't understand how he didn't see them as a result of a momentary glance in his wing mirror. The sight lines are just too long there. More likely he was distracted by something in his car.

Decide for yourself, this is the accident site.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Setley+Ridge+Vineyard+%26+Farm+Shop/@50.80603,-1.5706719,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x73b76f3f1870a0d2

He's heading south to Lymington, they're crossing the road to get on their bikes to head north to Hollands Wood (campsite north of Brockenhurst)

Avatar
dafydd_llywelyn | 7 years ago
3 likes

How glad would we be if the judge/jury turned around and recommended a lifetime revoking of his liscence, his car to be sold at auction (money raised going to victims) and a ton of community service.

I know that would feel quite close to justice in my book.

Avatar
Al__S replied to dafydd_llywelyn | 7 years ago
1 like

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

How glad would we be if the judge/jury turned around and recommended a lifetime revoking of his liscence, his car to be sold at auction (money raised going to victims) and a ton of community service.

I know that would feel quite close to justice in my book.

Unfortunately I don't think those options are available in this case. But yes, lifetime ban is all I'm really after for this type

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to dafydd_llywelyn | 7 years ago
2 likes

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

How glad would we be if the judge/jury turned around and recommended a lifetime revoking of his liscence, his car to be sold at auction (money raised going to victims) and a ton of community service.

I know that would feel quite close to justice in my book.

I wouldn't be. I'd be very concerned that at least two orders not available to the Court were being exercised.

Avatar
dafydd_llywelyn replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
0 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

How glad would we be if the judge/jury turned around and recommended a lifetime revoking of his liscence, his car to be sold at auction (money raised going to victims) and a ton of community service.

I know that would feel quite close to justice in my book.

I wouldn't be. I'd be very concerned that at least two orders not available to the Court were being exercised.

Fair... I was semi-fanticising. I'm no expert on law (by which I mean I know very nearly nothing about it.)

Avatar
cw42 | 7 years ago
3 likes

Is it just me, or were these people just crossing the road with pushbikes? Therefore not technically cycling?

Also, lay of the nasty comments about the Aston, they're a lovely car, and not always driven by cocks. (No, I haven't got one, I wish  21

Avatar
PhilB replied to cw42 | 7 years ago
1 like

cw42 wrote:

Also, lay of the nasty comments about the Aston, they're a lovely car, and not always driven by cocks. (No, I haven't got one, I wish  21

Yea great cars. I'm sure you can go pretty fast without even realising. Nice and quiet.

And corner quickly. Right before hitting people.

Maybe you want one for the fuel efficiency though. Or the emmisions.

Thankfully not everyone can afford an Aston Martin. 

Avatar
kie7077 | 7 years ago
7 likes

How on earth does driving at 63mph on average not meet this legal definition of dangerous driving?

Quote:

'the way he/she drives 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'

Juries need to be barred from cases involving cyclists being injured or killed.

One solution is to simply define what constitutes dangerous driving such as, texting at speed limit, speeding 60% over speed limit in residential areas, not concentrating on the road for xx number of seconds etc etc. Take the decision out of juries hands - let the evidence decide.

Avatar
Awavey replied to kie7077 | 7 years ago
4 likes
kie7077 wrote:

How on earth does driving at 63mph on average not meet this legal definition of dangerous driving?

Quote:

'the way he/she drives 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'

well this exactly, how does driving at double the speed limit,being involved in an accident almost certainly as a direct consequence because of stopping distances etc etc, not constitute dangerous driving.

Can anyone from the CPS, judiciary,solicitors, random jury members not just explain that part to us lay folk, because it doesnt make any sense to me, you break the careful and considerate driver part as soon as you go beyond the speed limit, you travel at double the speed limit and cause a crash, thats dangerous driving, I mean what on earth do these people think dangerous driving is, some kind of Mad Max Fury Road style approach to driving !?!?

Pages

Latest Comments