Driver who killed cyclist given community order

Driver who killed cyclist given community order

Paul Brown

Joe Wilkins

First published in News
Last updated
Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by

A MAN who was eating a sandwich when he knocked down and killed an Eynsham cyclist has been given a community order.

Paul Brown, 30, admitted causing the death of father of two Joe Wilkins by careless driving and was sentenced at Oxford Crown Court earlier today.

He was given a community order of 240 hours unpaid work to be completed within the next 12 months, a specified activity requirement of four sessions of restorative justice within 12 months and a supervision requirement lasting 12 months. He was also disqualified for driving for 12 months.

At an earlier trial, Brown, of Oxford Road in Eynsham, was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Brown, a lock keeper, knocked over and killed Mr Wilkins, 39, a retained firefighter in Eynsham, at dusk on Eaton Road near Appleton on May 24 last year. Mr Wilkins had been cycling with a friend.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:37pm Tue 3 Sep 13

EMBOX2 says...

He wasn't paying attention, which is surely driving without due care and attention, and thus I would hope a prison sentence, even for just 1 year, would be better than this.

To lose someone is awful, for their killer to get away with it is a double blow.

On behalf of all right thinking people who are ashamed of our justice system, I am so sorry for the family of Mr. Brown.
He wasn't paying attention, which is surely driving without due care and attention, and thus I would hope a prison sentence, even for just 1 year, would be better than this. To lose someone is awful, for their killer to get away with it is a double blow. On behalf of all right thinking people who are ashamed of our justice system, I am so sorry for the family of Mr. Brown. EMBOX2
  • Score: 9

12:46pm Tue 3 Sep 13

jochta says...

Words fail me at the leniency of this sentence. Utterly disgraceful.
Words fail me at the leniency of this sentence. Utterly disgraceful. jochta
  • Score: 48

1:19pm Tue 3 Sep 13

GPOWELL says...

"four sessions of restorative justice"... well unless he can bring people back from the dead there's nothing restorative about this and it's certainly not justice when the death was caused by someone failing to drive to a standard required by the law.

The judge has given the absolute minimum sentence in this case. No re-test required and no points on the licence. You wouldn't think that this guy had actually killed someone.
"four sessions of restorative justice"... well unless he can bring people back from the dead there's nothing restorative about this and it's certainly not justice when the death was caused by someone failing to drive to a standard required by the law. The judge has given the absolute minimum sentence in this case. No re-test required and no points on the licence. You wouldn't think that this guy had actually killed someone. GPOWELL
  • Score: 37

1:22pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Doctor69 says...

Sad news.
A light sentance, but, would sending the guy to prison actually benefit anyone? A tragic accident, something that the driver will live with and regret for the rest of his life.

Nothing will bring the cyclist back. Im sure the cyclists family will struggle to accept this decision.

Yet another instance highlighting the need for drivers being more aware and cautious around cyclists. That being said, cyclists should do all they can to make themselves highly visable.
Sad news. A light sentance, but, would sending the guy to prison actually benefit anyone? A tragic accident, something that the driver will live with and regret for the rest of his life. Nothing will bring the cyclist back. Im sure the cyclists family will struggle to accept this decision. Yet another instance highlighting the need for drivers being more aware and cautious around cyclists. That being said, cyclists should do all they can to make themselves highly visable. Doctor69
  • Score: 4

1:40pm Tue 3 Sep 13

GPOWELL says...

Doctor69 wrote:
Sad news.
A light sentance, but, would sending the guy to prison actually benefit anyone? A tragic accident, something that the driver will live with and regret for the rest of his life.

Nothing will bring the cyclist back. Im sure the cyclists family will struggle to accept this decision.

Yet another instance highlighting the need for drivers being more aware and cautious around cyclists. That being said, cyclists should do all they can to make themselves highly visable.
It would benefit ALL road users because it would send the message that killing people by careless driving is not acceptable.

You're right, nothing will bring the cyclist back, not even the "four sessions of restorative justice" but until the law considers causing death by dangerous driving a serious offence deaths of innocent cyclists, pedestrians and other road users will continue.

By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible, but you have to look to see even the brightest object and not be concentrating on eating a sandwich.
[quote][p][bold]Doctor69[/bold] wrote: Sad news. A light sentance, but, would sending the guy to prison actually benefit anyone? A tragic accident, something that the driver will live with and regret for the rest of his life. Nothing will bring the cyclist back. Im sure the cyclists family will struggle to accept this decision. Yet another instance highlighting the need for drivers being more aware and cautious around cyclists. That being said, cyclists should do all they can to make themselves highly visable.[/p][/quote]It would benefit ALL road users because it would send the message that killing people by careless driving is not acceptable. You're right, nothing will bring the cyclist back, not even the "four sessions of restorative justice" but until the law considers causing death by dangerous driving a serious offence deaths of innocent cyclists, pedestrians and other road users will continue. By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible, but you have to look to see even the brightest object and not be concentrating on eating a sandwich. GPOWELL
  • Score: 30

1:41pm Tue 3 Sep 13

GPOWELL says...

GPOWELL wrote:
Doctor69 wrote:
Sad news.
A light sentance, but, would sending the guy to prison actually benefit anyone? A tragic accident, something that the driver will live with and regret for the rest of his life.

Nothing will bring the cyclist back. Im sure the cyclists family will struggle to accept this decision.

Yet another instance highlighting the need for drivers being more aware and cautious around cyclists. That being said, cyclists should do all they can to make themselves highly visable.
It would benefit ALL road users because it would send the message that killing people by careless driving is not acceptable.

You're right, nothing will bring the cyclist back, not even the "four sessions of restorative justice" but until the law considers causing death by dangerous driving a serious offence deaths of innocent cyclists, pedestrians and other road users will continue.

By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible, but you have to look to see even the brightest object and not be concentrating on eating a sandwich.
Sorry that should read "causing death by careless driving"
[quote][p][bold]GPOWELL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doctor69[/bold] wrote: Sad news. A light sentance, but, would sending the guy to prison actually benefit anyone? A tragic accident, something that the driver will live with and regret for the rest of his life. Nothing will bring the cyclist back. Im sure the cyclists family will struggle to accept this decision. Yet another instance highlighting the need for drivers being more aware and cautious around cyclists. That being said, cyclists should do all they can to make themselves highly visable.[/p][/quote]It would benefit ALL road users because it would send the message that killing people by careless driving is not acceptable. You're right, nothing will bring the cyclist back, not even the "four sessions of restorative justice" but until the law considers causing death by dangerous driving a serious offence deaths of innocent cyclists, pedestrians and other road users will continue. By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible, but you have to look to see even the brightest object and not be concentrating on eating a sandwich.[/p][/quote]Sorry that should read "causing death by careless driving" GPOWELL
  • Score: 3

1:45pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Neonlights says...

GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here"

No assumptions at all.
Info was obtained from the BBC website: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-oxf
ordshire-23944993
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-oxf
ordshire-23626666

A previous report from this website said a similar thing.
http://www.thisisoxf
ordshire.co.uk/archi
ve/2013/08/08/105997
71.Lock_keeper_denie
s_causing_death_by_d
angerous_driving/
"No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."
GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here" No assumptions at all. Info was obtained from the BBC website: - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23944993 http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23626666 A previous report from this website said a similar thing. http://www.thisisoxf ordshire.co.uk/archi ve/2013/08/08/105997 71.Lock_keeper_denie s_causing_death_by_d angerous_driving/ "No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top." Neonlights
  • Score: -139

1:50pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Neonlights says...

GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible"

I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.
GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible" I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists. Neonlights
  • Score: -147

1:55pm Tue 3 Sep 13

GPOWELL says...

Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here"

No assumptions at all.
Info was obtained from the BBC website: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-oxf

ordshire-23944993
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-oxf

ordshire-23626666

A previous report from this website said a similar thing.
http://www.thisisoxf

ordshire.co.uk/archi

ve/2013/08/08/105997

71.Lock_keeper_denie

s_causing_death_by_d

angerous_driving/
"No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."
But if you read more carefully those comments are from the defendant and his lawyer, and the defendant earlier "told police he saw a cyclist’s reflective pedals a “split second” before impact."

Seems that he and he lawyer will say anything to save the defendant's skin.

At no point do the police or the victim's friend who was riding with him, mention the lack or presence of reflectors or reflective clothing.
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here" No assumptions at all. Info was obtained from the BBC website: - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23944993 http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23626666 A previous report from this website said a similar thing. http://www.thisisoxf ordshire.co.uk/archi ve/2013/08/08/105997 71.Lock_keeper_denie s_causing_death_by_d angerous_driving/ "No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."[/p][/quote]But if you read more carefully those comments are from the defendant and his lawyer, and the defendant earlier "told police he saw a cyclist’s reflective pedals a “split second” before impact." Seems that he and he lawyer will say anything to save the defendant's skin. At no point do the police or the victim's friend who was riding with him, mention the lack or presence of reflectors or reflective clothing. GPOWELL
  • Score: 18

2:01pm Tue 3 Sep 13

jochta says...

Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here"

No assumptions at all.
Info was obtained from the BBC website: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-oxf

ordshire-23944993
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-oxf

ordshire-23626666

A previous report from this website said a similar thing.
http://www.thisisoxf

ordshire.co.uk/archi

ve/2013/08/08/105997

71.Lock_keeper_denie

s_causing_death_by_d

angerous_driving/
"No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."
Pedal reflectors ARE a legal requirement in the UK. Unfortunately the requirement is impossible to comply with as most pedals for road bikes do not come with or have provision for reflectors. This law is outdated and needs revising. Note that most road shoes do have reflectors built into the heel.

Lights (and reflectors) are required on a pedal cycle only between sunset and sunrise. Sunset on the evening in question was at 8.59pm around the time of the accident. At that time there would have been more than enough daylight to see any cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here" No assumptions at all. Info was obtained from the BBC website: - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23944993 http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23626666 A previous report from this website said a similar thing. http://www.thisisoxf ordshire.co.uk/archi ve/2013/08/08/105997 71.Lock_keeper_denie s_causing_death_by_d angerous_driving/ "No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."[/p][/quote]Pedal reflectors ARE a legal requirement in the UK. Unfortunately the requirement is impossible to comply with as most pedals for road bikes do not come with or have provision for reflectors. This law is outdated and needs revising. Note that most road shoes do have reflectors built into the heel. Lights (and reflectors) are required on a pedal cycle only between sunset and sunrise. Sunset on the evening in question was at 8.59pm around the time of the accident. At that time there would have been more than enough daylight to see any cyclist. jochta
  • Score: 17

2:03pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Neonlights says...

You asked where I obtained the information from.

I replied with the answer.

Don't shoot the messenger.
You asked where I obtained the information from. I replied with the answer. Don't shoot the messenger. Neonlights
  • Score: -123

2:04pm Tue 3 Sep 13

GPOWELL says...

Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible"

I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.
You need to learn to count, while I agree that there are some who do as you say, but from my experience far more than 10% of cyclists in Oxford have lights or reflectors.

It's easy to throw around ridiculous figures to blame all cyclists but no way to defend the indefensible act of killing another person.
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible" I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.[/p][/quote]You need to learn to count, while I agree that there are some who do as you say, but from my experience far more than 10% of cyclists in Oxford have lights or reflectors. It's easy to throw around ridiculous figures to blame all cyclists but no way to defend the indefensible act of killing another person. GPOWELL
  • Score: 45

2:09pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Noodle999 says...

People should get their facts straight and learn to read before commenting on such a serious and tragic case.

Neonlights you ARE making an assumption. The article states the accused SAID that the cyclist had no lights; in response to this claim the court heard that there were lights fitted to the bike and forensic examination proved they had been on.

Also the eating of the sandwich was considered to be the most likely factor but he had also sent a text message (which he claims he pulled over for). As nobody knows the exact time Joe was hit and Mr. Brown openly admitted eating the sandwich, his version of events had to be believed, but he could have been texting when he hit Joe.

He didn't even know for certain he'd hit a cyclist, or even where his victim had gone post-impact... and the Police investigation found Joe would have been visible for a number of seconds prior to impact. This would suggest to me, logically, that there was quite some degree of inattention at play.
People should get their facts straight and learn to read before commenting on such a serious and tragic case. Neonlights you ARE making an assumption. The article states the accused SAID that the cyclist had no lights; in response to this claim the court heard that there were lights fitted to the bike and forensic examination proved they had been on. Also the eating of the sandwich was considered to be the most likely factor but he had also sent a text message (which he claims he pulled over for). As nobody knows the exact time Joe was hit and Mr. Brown openly admitted eating the sandwich, his version of events had to be believed, but he could have been texting when he hit Joe. He didn't even know for certain he'd hit a cyclist, or even where his victim had gone post-impact... and the Police investigation found Joe would have been visible for a number of seconds prior to impact. This would suggest to me, logically, that there was quite some degree of inattention at play. Noodle999
  • Score: 33

2:18pm Tue 3 Sep 13

jochta says...

jochta wrote:
Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here"

No assumptions at all.
Info was obtained from the BBC website: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/uk-england-oxf


ordshire-23944993
http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/uk-england-oxf


ordshire-23626666

A previous report from this website said a similar thing.
http://www.thisisoxf


ordshire.co.uk/archi


ve/2013/08/08/105997


71.Lock_keeper_denie


s_causing_death_by_d


angerous_driving/
"No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."
Pedal reflectors ARE a legal requirement in the UK. Unfortunately the requirement is impossible to comply with as most pedals for road bikes do not come with or have provision for reflectors. This law is outdated and needs revising. Note that most road shoes do have reflectors built into the heel.

Lights (and reflectors) are required on a pedal cycle only between sunset and sunrise. Sunset on the evening in question was at 8.59pm around the time of the accident. At that time there would have been more than enough daylight to see any cyclist.
In fact sunset in Oxford was at 9.05pm (8.59pm in London) which is after the approx. time of the accident (9pm). Civil twilight ended at 9.49pm.

In late May just before sunset there are absolutely no excuses for not seeing the cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: GPOWELL:- "Where did you get your information? " lets not forget that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors" you're making big assumptions here" No assumptions at all. Info was obtained from the BBC website: - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23944993 http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-23626666 A previous report from this website said a similar thing. http://www.thisisoxf ordshire.co.uk/archi ve/2013/08/08/105997 71.Lock_keeper_denie s_causing_death_by_d angerous_driving/ "No pedal reflectors (apparantely a legal requirement - don't quote me on that, I've not idea if true or not), and and only minor reflective piping on his top."[/p][/quote]Pedal reflectors ARE a legal requirement in the UK. Unfortunately the requirement is impossible to comply with as most pedals for road bikes do not come with or have provision for reflectors. This law is outdated and needs revising. Note that most road shoes do have reflectors built into the heel. Lights (and reflectors) are required on a pedal cycle only between sunset and sunrise. Sunset on the evening in question was at 8.59pm around the time of the accident. At that time there would have been more than enough daylight to see any cyclist.[/p][/quote]In fact sunset in Oxford was at 9.05pm (8.59pm in London) which is after the approx. time of the accident (9pm). Civil twilight ended at 9.49pm. In late May just before sunset there are absolutely no excuses for not seeing the cyclist. jochta
  • Score: 23

2:36pm Tue 3 Sep 13

FLoxford says...

Noodle999 sums up a lot of what was reported well, but what we should all remember is we only know what the press reported and there was obviously a lot said in court we don't know. We can't speculate about pedal reflectors, lights and forensic evidence that we didn't hear explained by the prosecution or questioned by the defense. A jury of the public unanimously found him not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and so they obviously heard things that we may never know that convinced them they were doing the right thing, likewise the judge with his sentence. My heart breaks for the victims family and I know this will probably be a blow to them that he's not going to prison, but I can also see a young man who sobbed in the dock (reported on this website before I get accused of assumptions), pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity (also reported), seemed to show genuine remorse and will have to live with this for the rest of his life , being unfairly labelled a murderer, as the police said after the case 'he did not set out that day to kill a man'. This was a tragic awful accident that all drivers should take heed of, the victim's family and the driver will both be go through their own personal hell - there are no winners here.
Noodle999 sums up a lot of what was reported well, but what we should all remember is we only know what the press reported and there was obviously a lot said in court we don't know. We can't speculate about pedal reflectors, lights and forensic evidence that we didn't hear explained by the prosecution or questioned by the defense. A jury of the public unanimously found him not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and so they obviously heard things that we may never know that convinced them they were doing the right thing, likewise the judge with his sentence. My heart breaks for the victims family and I know this will probably be a blow to them that he's not going to prison, but I can also see a young man who sobbed in the dock (reported on this website before I get accused of assumptions), pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity (also reported), seemed to show genuine remorse and will have to live with this for the rest of his life , being unfairly labelled a murderer, as the police said after the case 'he did not set out that day to kill a man'. This was a tragic awful accident that all drivers should take heed of, the victim's family and the driver will both be go through their own personal hell - there are no winners here. FLoxford
  • Score: 6

2:39pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Dick Wolff says...

I can't understand how he could fail to see the cyclists. The incident (you can't call it an accident) happened in the middle of a stretch of road that's dead straight for 1,500 yards between two high hedges with no obstacles to obscure the sight line, and by the sound of it the dead man was in the middle of the road, next to another cyclist. The driver can't have had his eye on the road for at least a third of a mile, which suggests he was doing a lot more than eating a sandwich. That's probably about the time you'd need to compose a text . . . .

This sentence clearly needs appealing against. Restorative justice means he has agreed to meet the dead man's family. Will he tell them the truth about what he was doing, I wonder, or will he try to minimise his culpability? One shouldn't minimise the impact that that meeting will have on him, but I'd be interested to know what impact his agreeing to that meeting had on the rest of the sentence. What would the sentence have been if he hadn't agreed to it?
I can't understand how he could fail to see the cyclists. The incident (you can't call it an accident) happened in the middle of a stretch of road that's dead straight for 1,500 yards between two high hedges with no obstacles to obscure the sight line, and by the sound of it the dead man was in the middle of the road, next to another cyclist. The driver can't have had his eye on the road for at least a third of a mile, which suggests he was doing a lot more than eating a sandwich. That's probably about the time you'd need to compose a text . . . . This sentence clearly needs appealing against. Restorative justice means he has agreed to meet the dead man's family. Will he tell them the truth about what he was doing, I wonder, or will he try to minimise his culpability? One shouldn't minimise the impact that that meeting will have on him, but I'd be interested to know what impact his agreeing to that meeting had on the rest of the sentence. What would the sentence have been if he hadn't agreed to it? Dick Wolff
  • Score: 22

2:48pm Tue 3 Sep 13

train passenger says...

One can argue about whether a prison sentence should be given (I think it should), but there is no arguing that suspending a driver's license for just a year is too light a sentence. I should think five or ten years without driving at a minimum.
One can argue about whether a prison sentence should be given (I think it should), but there is no arguing that suspending a driver's license for just a year is too light a sentence. I should think five or ten years without driving at a minimum. train passenger
  • Score: 17

2:52pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Dick Wolff says...

My calculations are wrong. The driver must have had a clear view of the cyclists for 500 yards, which at 60mph is 17 seconds.
My calculations are wrong. The driver must have had a clear view of the cyclists for 500 yards, which at 60mph is 17 seconds. Dick Wolff
  • Score: 9

3:00pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Noodle999 says...

I agree that there was no intention to harm or kill (that would be manslaughter or murder, after all)... but there has to come a point where there has been such a gross level of inattention that any reasonable person should know that they are risking causing the death or serious injury or another road user. There is a difference between somebody not checking their mirrors or not double-checking the road is clear at a junction and somebody failing to see a cyclist that they had OVER FIVE SECONDS to see. Quite possibly we will never know exactly why Mr. Brown didn't see Joe, it is entirely believable that he himself doesn't recall how/why it happened - traumatic events have that effect on people. However, whatever he was doing prior to the impact, it does seem logical that he would have been aware of it at the time and therefore could have considered it wasn't sensible and not done it, preventing this from happening.

If such a change were brought about in the law to cover the degree of inattention involved, this would bring it in line with how "dangerous driving" is defined, i.e. a reasonable person would believe it to obviously be dangerous.
I agree that there was no intention to harm or kill (that would be manslaughter or murder, after all)... but there has to come a point where there has been such a gross level of inattention that any reasonable person should know that they are risking causing the death or serious injury or another road user. There is a difference between somebody not checking their mirrors or not double-checking the road is clear at a junction and somebody failing to see a cyclist that they had OVER FIVE SECONDS to see. Quite possibly we will never know exactly why Mr. Brown didn't see Joe, it is entirely believable that he himself doesn't recall how/why it happened - traumatic events have that effect on people. However, whatever he was doing prior to the impact, it does seem logical that he would have been aware of it at the time and therefore could have considered it wasn't sensible and not done it, preventing this from happening. If such a change were brought about in the law to cover the degree of inattention involved, this would bring it in line with how "dangerous driving" is defined, i.e. a reasonable person would believe it to obviously be dangerous. Noodle999
  • Score: 11

3:07pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Noodle999 says...

Dick Wolff wrote:
My calculations are wrong. The driver must have had a clear view of the cyclists for 500 yards, which at 60mph is 17 seconds.
You are still wrong, this calculation was done by Police experts during the trial. At 500 yards a cyclist would appear to be very small and I doubt they would be considered "clearly visible". A previous article on the case said:

"tests showed he had 6.5 seconds, or 174 metres, to react."
[quote][p][bold]Dick Wolff[/bold] wrote: My calculations are wrong. The driver must have had a clear view of the cyclists for 500 yards, which at 60mph is 17 seconds.[/p][/quote]You are still wrong, this calculation was done by Police experts during the trial. At 500 yards a cyclist would appear to be very small and I doubt they would be considered "clearly visible". A previous article on the case said: "tests showed he had 6.5 seconds, or 174 metres, to react." Noodle999
  • Score: 7

3:17pm Tue 3 Sep 13

jochta says...

Noodle999 wrote:
Dick Wolff wrote:
My calculations are wrong. The driver must have had a clear view of the cyclists for 500 yards, which at 60mph is 17 seconds.
You are still wrong, this calculation was done by Police experts during the trial. At 500 yards a cyclist would appear to be very small and I doubt they would be considered "clearly visible". A previous article on the case said:

"tests showed he had 6.5 seconds, or 174 metres, to react."
More than enough time then.
[quote][p][bold]Noodle999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dick Wolff[/bold] wrote: My calculations are wrong. The driver must have had a clear view of the cyclists for 500 yards, which at 60mph is 17 seconds.[/p][/quote]You are still wrong, this calculation was done by Police experts during the trial. At 500 yards a cyclist would appear to be very small and I doubt they would be considered "clearly visible". A previous article on the case said: "tests showed he had 6.5 seconds, or 174 metres, to react."[/p][/quote]More than enough time then. jochta
  • Score: 15

5:09pm Tue 3 Sep 13

King Joke says...

If you can read 10 cm high letters on a number plate at 25 yards, you can see a 6' tall cyclist at 500 yards.

Jochta is right - 6.5 sec is a long time to not be looking where you're going.
If you can read 10 cm high letters on a number plate at 25 yards, you can see a 6' tall cyclist at 500 yards. Jochta is right - 6.5 sec is a long time to not be looking where you're going. King Joke
  • Score: 12

5:24pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

An appallingly lenient sentence. He killed someone through his own negligence, at the very least that is manslaughter. But as is usual with British 'justice' if the killer's weapon of choice s a motor vehicle they will get off practically scot free.
An appallingly lenient sentence. He killed someone through his own negligence, at the very least that is manslaughter. But as is usual with British 'justice' if the killer's weapon of choice s a motor vehicle they will get off practically scot free. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 13

6:13pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

I don't mean to excuse or blame anyone, but was this death caused by a head injury and was the cyclist wearing a helmet? I wish the report included these details. I know it's not compulsory to wear a helmet - I'd just like to know.
I don't mean to excuse or blame anyone, but was this death caused by a head injury and was the cyclist wearing a helmet? I wish the report included these details. I know it's not compulsory to wear a helmet - I'd just like to know. Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: -121

6:25pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Milkbutnosugarplease wrote:
I don't mean to excuse or blame anyone, but was this death caused by a head injury and was the cyclist wearing a helmet? I wish the report included these details. I know it's not compulsory to wear a helmet - I'd just like to know.
No, this death was caused by a couple of tons of badly driven metal hitting a human body at speed.
[quote][p][bold]Milkbutnosugarplease[/bold] wrote: I don't mean to excuse or blame anyone, but was this death caused by a head injury and was the cyclist wearing a helmet? I wish the report included these details. I know it's not compulsory to wear a helmet - I'd just like to know.[/p][/quote]No, this death was caused by a couple of tons of badly driven metal hitting a human body at speed. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 22

7:38pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Neonlights says...

GPOWELL wrote:
Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible"

I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.
You need to learn to count, while I agree that there are some who do as you say, but from my experience far more than 10% of cyclists in Oxford have lights or reflectors.

It's easy to throw around ridiculous figures to blame all cyclists but no way to defend the indefensible act of killing another person.
It is my experience as well. Or are you the only one to have views based on experience?

They aren't ridiculous figures. Week after week there are dozens of cyclists risking their lives through not wearing helmets, hi vis etc because they think it doesn't look cool and trendy.
[quote][p][bold]GPOWELL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible" I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.[/p][/quote]You need to learn to count, while I agree that there are some who do as you say, but from my experience far more than 10% of cyclists in Oxford have lights or reflectors. It's easy to throw around ridiculous figures to blame all cyclists but no way to defend the indefensible act of killing another person.[/p][/quote]It is my experience as well. Or are you the only one to have views based on experience? They aren't ridiculous figures. Week after week there are dozens of cyclists risking their lives through not wearing helmets, hi vis etc because they think it doesn't look cool and trendy. Neonlights
  • Score: -116

7:53pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL wrote:
Neonlights wrote:
GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible"

I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.
You need to learn to count, while I agree that there are some who do as you say, but from my experience far more than 10% of cyclists in Oxford have lights or reflectors.

It's easy to throw around ridiculous figures to blame all cyclists but no way to defend the indefensible act of killing another person.
It is my experience as well. Or are you the only one to have views based on experience?

They aren't ridiculous figures. Week after week there are dozens of cyclists risking their lives through not wearing helmets, hi vis etc because they think it doesn't look cool and trendy.
Week after week there are millions of people risking their lives because they don't wear stab vests... See the mistake you're making?

The problem is dangerously driven motor vehicles, not what their victims were wearing.

Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand an impact equivalent to being dropped on a concrete floor from 2.2m with a 5kg weight in the helmet. Thats the same as a stationary adult falling over. This is the Snell B-90a standard. The Snell B-90a standard is the gold standard for cycle helmets, and more stringent than the EU standard.

http://www.smf.org/s
tandards/b/b90astd

The section you need to read is section E4.3 Rest Impacts.

Cycle helmets are NOT designed to withstand impacts with a couple of tons of fast moving metal. They are NOT designed to withstand high speed falls from a bicycle.

Most serious brain injuries in car/cyclist impacts are caused by the very soft human brain (it has the consistency of set blancmange) impacting the inside of the very hard human skull. No helmet will prevent that. In fact it has been shown that helmets can cause rotational brain injuries, and neck and spine injuries.

So pease, stop trying to blame the victims. Turn your attention to the real danger, badly and dangerously driven motor vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GPOWELL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: GPOWELL:- "By the way, cyclists on the whole do make themselves highly visible" I beg to differ. Drive around Oxford late at night and only 1 in 10 cyclists will have any lights or reflectors visible. Couple that with dark clothing and they're all but invisible. They think because there are street lights they can be seen by motorists.[/p][/quote]You need to learn to count, while I agree that there are some who do as you say, but from my experience far more than 10% of cyclists in Oxford have lights or reflectors. It's easy to throw around ridiculous figures to blame all cyclists but no way to defend the indefensible act of killing another person.[/p][/quote]It is my experience as well. Or are you the only one to have views based on experience? They aren't ridiculous figures. Week after week there are dozens of cyclists risking their lives through not wearing helmets, hi vis etc because they think it doesn't look cool and trendy.[/p][/quote]Week after week there are millions of people risking their lives because they don't wear stab vests... See the mistake you're making? The problem is dangerously driven motor vehicles, not what their victims were wearing. Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand an impact equivalent to being dropped on a concrete floor from 2.2m with a 5kg weight in the helmet. Thats the same as a stationary adult falling over. This is the Snell B-90a standard. The Snell B-90a standard is the gold standard for cycle helmets, and more stringent than the EU standard. http://www.smf.org/s tandards/b/b90astd The section you need to read is section E4.3 Rest Impacts. Cycle helmets are NOT designed to withstand impacts with a couple of tons of fast moving metal. They are NOT designed to withstand high speed falls from a bicycle. Most serious brain injuries in car/cyclist impacts are caused by the very soft human brain (it has the consistency of set blancmange) impacting the inside of the very hard human skull. No helmet will prevent that. In fact it has been shown that helmets can cause rotational brain injuries, and neck and spine injuries. So pease, stop trying to blame the victims. Turn your attention to the real danger, badly and dangerously driven motor vehicles. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 16

8:20pm Tue 3 Sep 13

train passenger says...

It is obvious there are still plenty of people around who think that a helmet gives you the same protection you'd get from a seat belt in a car. Think again (if only for three seconds).

(just leaving aside that these same people would probably not come out if a driver died as a consequence of a collision with another driver to ask whether the driver was wearing a seat belt, or indeed ask whether a dead pedestrian was wearing a helmet).
It is obvious there are still plenty of people around who think that a helmet gives you the same protection you'd get from a seat belt in a car. Think again (if only for three seconds). (just leaving aside that these same people would probably not come out if a driver died as a consequence of a collision with another driver to ask whether the driver was wearing a seat belt, or indeed ask whether a dead pedestrian was wearing a helmet). train passenger
  • Score: 16

9:40pm Tue 3 Sep 13

Madi50n says...

Okay, the allowed version. Another cyclist killed by a driver that walks away Scott free.

This will keep happening as long as those drivers that care more about opening a can of coke, eating a sandwich, answering a text or phonecall, smoking a cigarette, setting their satnav or playing with their stereo, than they do about other people's lives.

The only way this will stop happening if sentences & punishment reflect the selfishness of their actions.

Maybe a custodial sentence, a long long driving ban and heavy financial payment to the victim's family, will make these idiots pay attention to what they are doing.
Okay, the allowed version. Another cyclist killed by a driver that walks away Scott free. This will keep happening as long as those drivers that care more about opening a can of coke, eating a sandwich, answering a text or phonecall, smoking a cigarette, setting their satnav or playing with their stereo, than they do about other people's lives. The only way this will stop happening if sentences & punishment reflect the selfishness of their actions. Maybe a custodial sentence, a long long driving ban and heavy financial payment to the victim's family, will make these idiots pay attention to what they are doing. Madi50n
  • Score: 18

10:01pm Tue 3 Sep 13

BigAlBiker says...

Far to lenient a sentence for my liking, a min of a year jail, 5 years licence lost and some form of compensation to the family, anyone driving a car HAS to look out for cyclists at all times.
Far to lenient a sentence for my liking, a min of a year jail, 5 years licence lost and some form of compensation to the family, anyone driving a car HAS to look out for cyclists at all times. BigAlBiker
  • Score: -8

9:01am Wed 4 Sep 13

Feelingsmatter says...

Milkbutnosugarplease wrote:
I don't mean to excuse or blame anyone, but was this death caused by a head injury and was the cyclist wearing a helmet? I wish the report included these details. I know it's not compulsory to wear a helmet - I'd just like to know.
An article in a national newspaper states that a helmet would have had no effect on the outcome due to the fact that the driver was going so fast. Why do you want to know if he was wearing one?
[quote][p][bold]Milkbutnosugarplease[/bold] wrote: I don't mean to excuse or blame anyone, but was this death caused by a head injury and was the cyclist wearing a helmet? I wish the report included these details. I know it's not compulsory to wear a helmet - I'd just like to know.[/p][/quote]An article in a national newspaper states that a helmet would have had no effect on the outcome due to the fact that the driver was going so fast. Why do you want to know if he was wearing one? Feelingsmatter
  • Score: 14

7:30pm Wed 4 Sep 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

BigAlBiker wrote:
Far to lenient a sentence for my liking, a min of a year jail, 5 years licence lost and some form of compensation to the family, anyone driving a car HAS to look out for cyclists at all times.
Interesting that 25 people thumbs-downed your comment. That's 25 people who don't think drivers should pay due care and attention to the road and other road users. In other words 25 bad drivers who should not be on the road.
[quote][p][bold]BigAlBiker[/bold] wrote: Far to lenient a sentence for my liking, a min of a year jail, 5 years licence lost and some form of compensation to the family, anyone driving a car HAS to look out for cyclists at all times.[/p][/quote]Interesting that 25 people thumbs-downed your comment. That's 25 people who don't think drivers should pay due care and attention to the road and other road users. In other words 25 bad drivers who should not be on the road. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 4

7:45pm Wed 4 Sep 13

Neonlights says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
BigAlBiker wrote:
Far to lenient a sentence for my liking, a min of a year jail, 5 years licence lost and some form of compensation to the family, anyone driving a car HAS to look out for cyclists at all times.
Interesting that 25 people thumbs-downed your comment. That's 25 people who don't think drivers should pay due care and attention to the road and other road users. In other words 25 bad drivers who should not be on the road.
The thumbs up/down ratings on here are a sham. They can easily be altered in favour of or against by anyone with a knowledge of computers.
I wouldn't take any notice of them.
I could quite easily convert all the thumbs down in my posts to thumbs up if I wanted to but I'm not that bothered to be honest to worry about a few thumbs down and the fakers who triplicate the results and then give themselves multiple thumbs up while they're at it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlBiker[/bold] wrote: Far to lenient a sentence for my liking, a min of a year jail, 5 years licence lost and some form of compensation to the family, anyone driving a car HAS to look out for cyclists at all times.[/p][/quote]Interesting that 25 people thumbs-downed your comment. That's 25 people who don't think drivers should pay due care and attention to the road and other road users. In other words 25 bad drivers who should not be on the road.[/p][/quote]The thumbs up/down ratings on here are a sham. They can easily be altered in favour of or against by anyone with a knowledge of computers. I wouldn't take any notice of them. I could quite easily convert all the thumbs down in my posts to thumbs up if I wanted to but I'm not that bothered to be honest to worry about a few thumbs down and the fakers who triplicate the results and then give themselves multiple thumbs up while they're at it. Neonlights
  • Score: -757

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree