Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Red light jumping cyclist causes crash - but driver in court for failing to report it

Rider reported crash after learning his collarbone was broken – but claimed falsely he had ridden through traffic signal on green

A motorist who hit a cyclist who had ridden through a red traffic light, with the rider later falsely claiming it had been green,  has pleaded guilty in court for failing to report the collision to police – although he said he had stopped to check on the rider’s condition and was assured he was fine.

Troy West, aged 52 and unemployed, appeared in Burnley Magistrates’ Court last week in connection with the incident on North Valley Road in Colne between 10.00pm and 10.30pm on 11 August this year, reports Pendle Today.

Representing himself, he said that he saw someone on a bike and with no lights “flying down” the road and through a red light, while he passed through the junction on green in his Citroen Berlingo van.

West, who admitted the offence, told the court: “I got out and asked him if he was alright. He said ‘Yes. Very sorry, it was my fault’.

“I said ‘I think you need to go to hospital’. He said ‘I don’t want an ambulance. I don’t want the police. It’s all my fault’. I just got in my van and drove off. He assured me he was fine.”

It later transpired that the cyclist had sustained a broken collarbone in the crash, and he gave a statement to police in which he said the light had been green when he rode through it.

However, CCTV footage and evidence from a witness to the collision showed that the cyclist’s version of events was untrue.

Prosecutor Alex Mann expressed sympathy for West, saying it was “a bit of a shame” that he was in court.

She said: “He says ‘I cycled through a green light and the van hit me’. That wasn’t what happened. He cycled through a red light and was hit.”

Mrs Mann suggested that the rider reported the incident to police after discovering he had broken his collarbone because he was looking to be compensated for his injury.

The defendant, from Nelson, was given a six-month conditional discharge by Deputy District Judge Joanne Hurst and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge. He also received five penalty points.

The judge told West, who last month was banned for driving for a year for totting up of points, “You did almost everything that was required of you. You just didn’t report it to the police.”

West told her: “I’m sorry, but I did try my best. I was concerned about his wellbeing.”

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, road traffic incidents involving damage or injury to a vehicle, other property, person or animal need to be reported to the police within 24 hours if details have not been exchanged at the scene with “anyone with reasonable grounds to be asking for those details,” such as another party involved.

Conviction carries a mandatory minimum five penalty points and a fine of up to £5,000 or even a jail term.

The fact the judge did not impose a fine in this case suggests she was sympathetic to the circumstances, but while the driver said the cyclist had told him he was okay, he still had a duty to report it to the police.

It was not reported whether any action will be taken against the cyclist due to falsely claiming in his police statement that the traffic light had been green when he rode through it.

Simon joined as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment


Stumps | 7 years ago

SP59 - for once i totally agree with you.

In an rtc the onus is on the driver of the vehicle to report it. The way we deal with them is that regardless of who is injured you should always report it. If there's no injury, the blame is clear and you have no concerns over drink driving or similar then names and addresses exchanged will suffice.

wknight | 7 years ago
1 like

Yet another example of inconsistent action by the Police/CPS. Why not send the driver on a course. 

I know many who have injured people, declared it to the Police and been sent on a course when they should have had 6 points on their license. 

Unfortunately the court is bound by the Sentencing Guidelines but the Police/CPS have the option to ignore it and they regularly do, which is why over 80 courts are closing around the country due to lack of work. 

oozaveared | 7 years ago
1 like

This is a travesty in my opinion.   

Common sense failure. 

atgni | 7 years ago

Interesting that STATS20. learnt something there.

A. The Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 170), as amended by Section 72 of the 1991 Act, stipulates that
all fatal or injury accidents on public roads involving at least one mechanically propelled vehicle
should be reported by the public to the police unless insurance documents, name and address, and
details of vehicle ownership and registration are exchanged between drivers. This legislation defines
the duty of the public to report a personal injury road accident.
B. In the past the interpretation of "mechanically propelled vehicle" has varied widely between local
police forces, particularly about whether pedal cycle accidents, not involving a motor vehicle, should
be reported. The STATS19 requirement is clear that all accidents involving non-motor
vehicles such as pedal cycles and ridden horses on 'public roads' (see 2.4) should be
reported, regardless of motor vehicle or pedestrian involvement. See Note L on page 44 for
other examples of non-motor vehicles. Also, Note C on page 69 contains examples which should
not be treated as vehicles.

PaulBox | 7 years ago
1 like

That's a shocker, got to feel for the driver.

atgni | 7 years ago

How did the lying cyclist prove the broken collar bone was from that crash. Maybe he fell off again later. I guess, sadly, you really should never represent yourself.

700c | 7 years ago
1 like

Agree. The driver could have pleaded not guilty because the cyclist had told him no injury. The problem is, it turns out he was injured and so it's just his word against the cyclist's regarding what was said at the time.

Given that cctv evidence showed the cyclist to be a liar, I'd say there was a good chance he could have convinced of his version of events. Perhaps if he had he been properly advised and represented, he would have been ok

I'd usually want the law to be on the side of the vulnerable/ non-motorised/ road user. But in this case that bias has possibly ended up penalising the innocent - who is a potential victim of insurance fraud.

shay cycles | 7 years ago

The driver represented himself in court.

Perhaps otherwise he could have escaped the penalty if a good representative had pointed out that there was no visible injury and the cyclist reported being unijured thereby negating the need to report within 24 hours. Such an argument might have been successful if made in the right way by an expreienced legal professional.

I do feel for the driver who really seemed not to be at fault.


RMurphy195 | 7 years ago

Totally unfair on the driver - the cyclist told him he was uninjured, case should not have been brought and neither should he have been found guilty.

The cyclist should be charged with false representation or some such, in addition to the road offence of which he is undoubtedly guilty EDIT : And wasting police time, and he should have had to pay the court costs.

bendertherobot | 7 years ago

Mandatory endorsement, 5 is the minimum. So he had as little as it was possible to give. 

Poor overall, it was open to the CPS not to continue.

Bluebug | 7 years ago
1 like

This is from the Met Police website  -

For cyclists as cycles are not mechanically propelled there is no legal duty to report.

Mungecrundle | 7 years ago

I will admit to having learned something here.

Seems harsh though.

Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago

Should have killed him for £80 instead. 

I'm also with the driver here. Cyclist left the scene with assurances he was ok. Case closed in most people's minds. 

davenportmb | 7 years ago

Poor bloke - and to lose your licence for that, too. Can't say I would have acted any differently given the circumstances.

bobbinogs replied to davenportmb | 7 years ago

davenportmb wrote:

Poor bloke - and to lose your licence for that, too. Can't say I would have acted any differently given the circumstances.

You could argue that he didn't lose his license just for that one incident...but for also having at least 7 points on his license at that point.


However, looks like the cyclist was just out for some easy cash and, if it hadn't been for his greed and dishonesty then the driver wouldn't be in court.  Not at all fair, the law is an ass at times as common sense should have been applied but I suspect the magistrate had little scope for that.

kevinmorice replied to davenportmb | 7 years ago

davenportmb wrote:

Poor bloke - and to lose your licence for that, too. Can't say I would have acted any differently given the circumstances.


He didn't lose his licence for that. He lost his licence for having at least 7 points from other offences and then adding this one on top. 


However, it does seem like the cyclist dismissed him (as I did when I hit a car and smashed my collar bone) and then acted dishonestly to try and gain from it. I would be interested to hear if it is standard to prosecute the non-reporting driver of a car vs car accident when only one of them calls the police. I would also be interested to hear if the cyclist is now being prosecuted for eitehr attempted insurance fraud or attempting to pervert the course of justice. 

d80byk | 7 years ago

Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can help.  Do we as cyclists have to report a collision?  Or is it purely the motorist

Notgettinganyfaster replied to d80byk | 7 years ago

d80byk wrote:

Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can help.  Do we as cyclists have to report a collision?  Or is it purely the motorist


STATS20 (the instructions for completing collision reports) clarifies this as follows - so yes cyclists have to report personal injury collisions.

Examples of accidents to be reported include:

(a) accidents which commence on the highway but which involve casualties off the highway (eg. where a vehicle runs out of control while on the highway and causes casualties elsewhere);

(b) accidents involving the boarding and alighting of buses or coaches and accidents in which passengers already aboard a bus/coach are injured, whether or not another vehicle or a pedestrian is involved;

(c) accidents to pedal cyclists or horse riders, where they injure themselves or a pedestrian;

(d) accidents resulting from deliberate acts of violence, but excluding casualties who are subsequently identified as confirmed suicides;

(e) accidents within bus stations/interchanges where they form part of the highway;

(f) accidents in Royal Parks (on roads to which the public have motor vehicle access)

2.3 Examples of accidents which should not be reported include:

(a) accidents which do not involve personal injury;

(b) accidents on private roads (except Royal Parks) or in car parks;

(c) accidents reported to the police 30 or more days after they occurred;

(d) accidents involving confirmed suicides only.

HalfWheeler | 7 years ago

I've more sympathy with the driver here. 

Latest Comments