- 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
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Cyclist convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving after fatal collision with pedestrian
A Norfolk cyclist has been convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving following a fatal collision with a pedestrian last year. David Tilley was riding the wrong way down a one-way street when he hit 80-year-old Sally Coutya. She never recovered and died five months later.
The incident occurred on Louden Road, Cromer, on April 15.
North Norfolk News reports that Coutya was about to cross when she was knocked to the ground.
She suffered a head injury and Tilley remained at the scene to help.
Judge Anthony Bate said Tilley had thought the victim was waiting at the roadside only for her to then step out.
Matthew McNiff, representing Tilley, said the bike had been roadworthy.
Coutya was treated at the scene and taken to hospital but never fully recovered.
In an impact statement made before her death, she said her life had been ruined by Tilley riding the wrong way down a one-way street and she called for him to be prosecuted.
McNiff said his client did not seek to avoid responsibility and agreed with the victim’s view. He added that since the incident, Tilley no longer cycled.
“He has co-operated and recognises he should be punished,” he said.
Tilley admitted causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
Sentencing, Bate accepted that he had made an error of judgement when he cycled the wrong way down a one way street.
He handed Tilley a nine month jail sentence suspended for 18 months and ordered him to do 200 hours unpaid work.
In 2017, cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs.
In the wake of Alliston’s conviction, Briggs’ husband Matthew campaigned for the creation of new offences of causing death or serious injury while cycling.
“This case has clearly demonstrated that there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling,” he explained.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end tells us that there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason for there to be no remedy.”
The Government subsequently launched a consultation on the matter.
In January, a private member’s bill to change existing legislation to introduce the offences of dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling received its first reading in the House of Lords.
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.
Latest Comments
- ktache 11 min 30 sec ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 1 hour 7 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 1 hour 14 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 1 hour 18 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 2 hours 4 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 2 hours 13 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 3 hours 21 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 6 hours 1 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 6 hours 18 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 6 hours 44 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
31 comments
I'm not convinced that there is much relationship between what us lay people would consider "Justice" and the actual process of the legal system. It is all too easy to have an opinion based upon a 5 minute read of a journalist written story, but if trials were that easy then there would be no backlog in the courts. I also suspect that there would be far more miscarriages of justice based on the court of popular opinion.
What with plea bargains, concerns about what a jury might or might not be prepared to convict on as a basis of what charge to bring before the court rather than based on the offence or it's consequences and then the whole pantomime of what evidences can be made available to the jury and what is held back, it does seem to be more of a game played between lawyers, the CPS and the judiciary whilst the victims and perpetrators are no more than pawns in play.
Three points I would make in response to those calling for a specific criminal offence of causing death by dangerous cycling are that both the Charlie Alliston case and this one demonstrate that appropriate laws and offences with a wide range of penalty outcomes are already available to the courts, even if a little antiquated in terminology. They also demonstrate quite clearly that despite some popular opinion, cyclists are, have been and will be held accountable for causing harm to others through their dangerous actions. Finally their rarity flags up that cyclists statistically represent an extremely small cause of injury to others on our roads. It is not unreasonable in the face of cyclophobia by mainstream personalities to point this out as a misdirection of their road safety concerns.
“This case has clearly demonstrated that there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling,” he explained.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end tells us that there is a gap."
Never understood this sort of shit. Why do sentences require something written down already? Just jail him for causing death by negligence. Pretty sure thats always been a serious offence. It's an absurd system where one is required to pick from a list of offenses to charge someone. Why not use common sense and punish someone based on what they did rather than picking from a fucking list. Gap in the law! theres a gap in my arse and it too is full of shit.
"Just jail him for causing death by negligence"
You're talking about manslaughter by gross negligence. There's a high bar to proving this in a court of law and it would have resulted in an acquittal.
"Why not use common sense and punish someone based on what they did rather than picking from a fucking list"
The purpose of the courts is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed the crime that they are charged with. That's what the prosecution and defence build their entire case around. There can be multiple charges but you can't arbitarily introduce new charges mid-trial.
Even if the judge didn't have to "pick from a fucking list" it still would have been impossible to find guilty for manslaughter by gross negligence. So they would have had to chose bodily harm by wanton or furious driving which is the closest fit to the offence.
If you ever find yourself on jury service, please listen to the judge's guidance.
Another tragedy on the roads. And I need to heavily criticise the cyclist here, in the just the same way that I would for a reckless motorist. If the road was one way, then the cyclist must comply with that.
There is a case for another day for allowing cyclists to carefully: use footways, proceed on red, go against one way. But that needs to either be legalised; or legitimised through prior statements from the government.
Unless/until that is in place, then we have to stick to the same rules that we expect other road users to ( Full disclosure: I am definitely guilty of regular breaking of rules where it is in the interests of safety. But I can't argue it is right, and I make absolutely sure I don't create a danger in doing so. )
My biggest criticism though is that the cyclist stated they saw the pedestrian, but assumed they were not going to step out. Even if you are going the correct way, it is important to have the possibility covered. I don't mean something ridiculous like stopping and starting every time a pedestrian appears at a kerbside. But making eye-contact. And if still unsure - going a bit slower and a bit wider, ringing the bell or calling out.
And certainly if you are approaching from an unexpected direction ( legitimately, or even otherwise) you should be in ultra-cautious mode....something like passing pedestrians on a shared-use path.
Just like with drivers, cyclists can mitigate a lot of the risk by simply going a bit slower where appropriate. Giving themselves more time to react, and also significantly reducing the harm if there is still a collision.
About the same sentence as a driver.
Never understood why people cycle the wrong way up a one way street. I find the contra lanes a bit tricky sometimes.
Are you sure about that?
Norfolk Police recently let a drink driver go without charge after he killed a cyclist.
Two wrongs don't make a right but it sure seems the rules aren't exactly enforced equally.
about the same sentence (well a bit more severe) than running over a lord.
a lot harsher than some who get off scot free.
but another example of why a full review of road crime is necessary, not just extra offences for cycling (which are unlikely to result in harsher penalties anyway).
Yeah, right...dangerous killer drivers always get convicted.
Seems you have selective fact check...most dangerous killer drivers plead not guilty. And then, it's quite usual for cops to neglect their actual duties, reversing their roles, and act as the killer driver's defence team - as in the recent Road cc report of the scandal, where both dangerous killer drivers let off scott free and treating the death of an innocent vulnerable cyclist with contempt and prejudice.
And one way roads are actually for the benefit of motorists, for the obvious reasons that you should be aware.
You should also be aware there are some one way roads that are either way for cyclists.
"..... as in the recent Road cc report of the scandal, where both dangerous killer drivers let off scott free and treating the death of an innocent vulnerable cyclist with contempt and prejudice." really?, which one was that?
"And one way roads are actually for the benefit of motorists, for the obvious reasons that you should be aware. You should also be aware there are some one way roads that are either way for cyclists." and this street obviously wasn't one with a contraflow cycle lane or a cycle path or else that wouldn't have been an issue in the prosecution. One way roads are for the benefit of all traffic, in what way do you think cyclists are exempt from this? In fact you appear to think that cyclists should be exempt from them. That is wrong headed and does more damage to the promotion of cycling as a mode of transport than almost anything else
They mean the one in Norfolk
https://road.cc/content/news/no-charges-drunk-driver-who-killed-cyclist-...
Projectcyclingfitness
I'm not really sure why you claim one way streets are for cars when they are for everyone including pedestrians and the town centre businesses.
Obviously I'm aware that cyclists can use a few one way streets both ways since I used the term 'contra lane'.
Agree, driver in a similar situation would likely get a similar sentence.
Doesn't make the sentence appropriate though.
Tilley broke the law and whilst doing so caused horrendous injuries to a vulnerable road user.
We need harsher sentences for those who kill and main vulnerable road users.
Agreed, this seems pathetic given that a life has been ended. Too often people forget that road safety for all modes depends on people acting predictably and hence following rules. Which is exactly why a quick short cut up a one way street can be far from victimless.
A lawyer once told me that manslaughter is not used for motoring offences because juries will not convict - the maximum sentence is high and they think "there but for the grace of God". Seems wrong - manslaughter is all about being negligent or cavalier rather than deliberate.
I think you're right about the manslaughter conviction problem.
There are many motorists and, very occasionally, a cyclist who IMO meet the criteria for a manslaughter conviction but they are incredibly rare.
Personally I think the answer is to introduce a new charge of 'causing death/serious injury through negligent driving/cycling' or something similar. This could carry a similar sentence to manslaughter.
The use of a far more neutral and far less nuanced term would IMO increase the likelihood of conviction and therefore increase the likelihood of the CPS bringing more serious charges against those who cause harm on our roads.
I don't disagree, but I do wonder. The victim presumably did not look both ways, and why should she, it's a one way street? But might that be pure coincidence, and be irrelevant - did she look at all?
Certainly I have nearly come a cropper stepping off the pavement when I could hear no cars coming, in touristy High Street bustling with pedestrians. The cyclist who had to swerve to avoid me happened to be observing the one way signs, but that was irrevant to my fate. I was just using my ears, not my eyes, and had not considered bicycles at all. But had he been going the wrong way, I might have sworn at him, even though the truth is I was stepping out in hope instead of checking first.
I know if she were my mum I'd blame the cyclist 100%, but I wonder whether the direction of travel was the cause, or just co-incident with the result. Would it have made any difference had he been coming the other way?
That said, if I see a pedestrian hovering at the kerb, unless I get eye contact I proceed on the basis they might well step out - especially if I was foolish enough to be going the wrong way.
I realize I'm assuming that the victim did look in the direction of legal traffic, but she shouldn't really have to look the other way, just as we ought to be able to assume that people in general stop at red lights and keep to their side of the road.
I know that doesn't always happen, and having had a very close relative almost killed in a hit and run while crossing a road on a green man signal, I try to be careful as a pedestrian.
But this is why we all need to follow the rules where possible, and where not possible (eg when taking to the footway for our own safety) we need to be so alert to people who are not expecting us to be there.
We really don't know whether she looked or not but I don't think speculation is helpful.
I very much doubt that an 80 year old was moving at Usain Bolt-esque speeds so there's absolutely no excuse for a cyclist to hit her regardless of whether she looked or not.
I dont think youd last very long crossing that road if you didnt look at least in the direction traffic should be coming from, its a bit of racetrack with dual lanes and youve got cars looking for gaps to park up, visitors who arent familiar with which lane to be in, delivery vans just stopping, its not a great setup with Church Street as the loop back, its very common for people to keep driving round in loop just to park close to the shops.
Doesnt take away from the fact the guy on the bike was totally in the wrong and at fault in this case, but the one thing that wont change or be looked at is how those roads there certainly contribute to making things alot less safer for pedestrians and cyclists than they need to be.
We all know sentences need reviewing for RTAs and the whole car culture needs a massive step change.
I think the cyclist probably was mightly relieved that he was not the subject of collective punishment for the 'cyclist problem' ( daring to use the roads, jumping red lights, 'being entitled' and 'getting in the way' etc etc - complete your own bingo card)
It does seem he was treated fairly.
In that he was treated in the same lenient manner as motorists who kill.
The contrast with Aliston is quite telling although Tilley's actions after the collision and clear remorse probably had an influence on this.
I think cyclists should be allowed to go the wrong way up one way streets as long as they cede priority to other traffic. There's at least one street near me that has a painted cycle lane to explicitly allow cyclists to go the wrong way and that seems to work well. Personally, I would use one-way streets if they were significantly shorter than the alternative, but I take extra caution (especially if there's parked cars as a driver might not see me coming from an unexpected direction).
That sentence seems harsh to me as Tilley didn't leave the scene and didn't try to dodge his responsibility.
There are some quiet one-way streets that are wide enough to accomodate a contraflow where this makes sense for cyclist journey times and safety.
But in this case, it is a dual-lane town centre gyratory and I cannot fathom why you would even consider riding against the flow, especially as following the proper route looks to be a similar distance and far safer. It says he was cycling back from work, so it can't have been a mistake, surely a route he knew well.
He will have been given credit for staying at the scene to assist and the remorse he expressed. But I don't think the penalty is harsh at all.
Yep - definitely depends on the nature of the street (I don't know the area myself). I'm considering the penalty in comparison with similar road incidents and I'd wager that a motorist would get a lesser sentence.
I think it helps if you are a pretty young woman, a doctor or make “an error of judgement; an error other motorists would have made in the same circumstances.”
But as above, we need a full review of roads crimes.
Just seems a poor risk/reward if you have to ultra cautious - how much time do you save?
Not sure how you square your requirement for being ultra cautious with the sentence being harsh.
Not much time, to be fair - it's also about convenience.
I can only think of one one-way road that I regularly go the wrong way - Seymour Rd in Easton: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4645647,-2.5712384,18z
It's not particularly busy, but care has to be taken around the parked cars as a driver might pull out without checking in front of them. Also, pedestrians in that area are just as likely to be in the road as on the pavement, but that actually means that they're easier to see and avoid.
The alternative routes would either involve an annoying detour down Oxford Place or cycling on the pavement which is just swapping one offence for another.
Edit: I was mucking around with the street view and it seems that I'm not the only cyclist to ignore the one way aspect of Seymour Rd: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4651292,-2.570997,3a,75y,187.96h,90.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slDbJJU5xyNtSu66iakg93Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I also think it's about fairness.
In general a road is only one way because of motorised vehicles.
So if it can accommodate space for cyclists to travel either way, that seems sensible. Who made it that motoring determines the layout for everyone else
The fun one to ride on is Nelson Street, here:
https://goo.gl/maps/wx4nWmQhzMv1M41JA
Building works for a new hotel have meant they've closed off the contraflow cycle lane marked out on the footway (on the left on the Streetview) and moved it onto the roadway.
It's not a very wide road, so when you're in the painted contraflow cycle lane and there are vans or cars parked up and delivering to the student rooms or the (Very) Little Chinatown building, then it becomes kind of interesting when you meet a bus or even a car coming along the roadway...
Yeah, that's not the most inviting of streets.
that's a lot wider than some two-way streets, plus the adjoining road that the silver car is coming out of is far narrower and has what appears to be an offical contraflow.
https://goo.gl/maps/H8nG7N1GHxtyFeAE9
edit: looking at seymour rd again, it appears all the houses on the side of the road where you would want a cycling contraflow lane have off-street parking. looks like a quick win to put a bike lane down there, with the advantage of the houses not getting their driveways blocked.
Pages