"Not in the public interest to prosecute"

Last month I reported a piece of bad driving to the police.  It was another close overtake in Hounslow and when I initiated a conversation with the driver at the next set of lights, it was quite apparent that his lack of consideration was not due to failing to see me or a momentary lapse in concentration but was because he held a deep seated prejudice against cyclists.  If I got in his way he felt entitled to run me down, he wanted me to ride on the pavement next time and, most incongruously, he had something against cyclists like me riding fast in Richmond Park.  (London Dynamo organise time trials in Richmond Park and it is a popular place for cyclists to train, though I have never cycled there).
When I made my report I made it clear that it was the bad driving I really objected to.  The verbal threats were, in my view, distinguishable from the Lomas case not least because he had not sought me out to deliver the threat from a moving vehicle but was responding to me when I was in a safe position.  What the verbal exchange indicated to me was that his bad driving was quite deliberate.  I am struck by how, almost universally, motorists who run down cyclists claim not to have seen them.  Yet when motorists have come close to running me down, it almost invariably emerges in subsequent 'discussion' that they saw me only too well and chose deliberately not to take care.  'SMIDSY' is a completely unacceptable excuse even if genuine.  My own experience convinces me that it is often a smokescreen for something worse and aptly described by many cyclists as 'SMIDGAF'.
Yesterday the police told me that the driver was sorry and had been cautioned.  I assume the caution must have been for a Public Order Offence relating to his verbal threats, since cautions for Road Traffic Act offences are not given.  When I repeated that I would have preferred to see a prosecution for driving without due care/consideration, I was told that the police had decided it was 'not in the public interest to take it any further than a caution'.
I do respectfully question this interpretation of the public interest.  Our democratically elected Parliament has legislated that anyone driving a motor vehicle on a road without due care and consideration for other road users is guilty of an offence.  The law does not require that this lack of care/consideration has caused an accident.  There is helpful guidance in the Highway Code which is taken into account in determining guilt and includes the following:

After I wrote (the day before this incident as it happens) to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with a copy to Jenny Jones about the difficulties in getting action taken against bad drivers, I got a response from Jenny Jones telling me that Roadsafe was for gathering information and that she advised me to report bad driving to my local police station.  The response from Roadsafe was to the effect that they try without success to get appallingly bad drivers prosecuted.  I am a great fan of Jenny Jones but if she is advising us to report bad driving to our police stations she is seriously out of touch with the reality of policing in London.  Either there is insufficient evidence or, if evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient, it is not deemed to be in the public interest to prosecute.  Furthermore in what other area are the police absolved of any obligation, beyond information gathering, to act upon a crime that has come to their attention?  I have a degree of sympathy with the Roadsafe view that when they do their bit, others in the criminal justice chain do not do theirs, as this also affects my willingness to bother to report bad driving.  However we cannot all just give up.
I am sometimes accused of representing only a minority clique of 'MAMIL's.  However what upsets me most about drivers like the one in charge of this Landrover, is not that they run me down.  I have developed strategies that, thus far, means that they don't.  It is that they make cycling an unpleasant and subjectively dangerous experience.  The roads should not only be available to the battle hardened.
An apology given to the police in interview may be better than nothing but it is obviously not equivalent to an apology at the time.  Had the driver said at the lights 'I am sorry, I will take care not to do that again', I would not have reported him.  If he was genuinely sorry at interview then I would like to see a prosecution for inconsiderate driving stayed on condition that he attend a bikeability course for cycling on the road.

My witness statement is here and the video below:

Inquest into the death of Svitlana Tereschenko

Ross Lydall reports in today's The Evening Standard the comments of the Deputy Coroner, Dr Shirley Radcliffe, that 'nobody is to blame' for the death of Ms Tereschenko on the Bow roundabout last November.

This has prompted me to update my criminal sentencing table with cases as they come to my attention where no charges have been pursued against the driver who has collided fatally with a cyclist.

Improving the Safety of Cyclists

A regular reader was puzzled by my preference for the evidence given by CTC's Vice-President Josie Dew over that of President Jon Snow at last week's Transport Select Committee and I promised a fuller explanation.

First, I like Jon Snow (a lot).  He introduced me to cycling 10 years ago, shepherding me round my first 100 mile ride and I hope it is not presumptuous of me to regard him as a friend.  He is a high profile figure and an ambassador for cycling.  I am sure he has been an inspiration to many more than just me and I was delighted when he accepted the Presidency of the CTC.  I have never met Josie and did not really know who she was until watching the select committee.

Second I am acutely conscious that what divides the opinions of cyclists is minute compared to that which unites them.  John Cleese's brilliant satire has the People's Front of Judea loathing the Judean People's Front more than they loathe the Romans.  Cyclists can hopefully avoid that.
Having said that, we are not compelled to agree with each other on everything and I have my reservations about Jon's oft repeated and sincerely held views that the roads in London are not safe for cyclists, that cyclists and vehicles do not mix and that they need to be separated.  Josie's willingness to ride her daughter to school on the roads but to lament the standards of some motorists and the weak way in which our laws are enforced against criminal motorists chimed much more with me.

I have no problem with people who seek more and better segregated facilities in the belief that it will encourage more cyclists.  However there is a very real threat that things could be made worse for cyclists than they already are by jeopardising our entitlement to use most roads.  We should not forget the case of Daniel Cadden.  The same police and CPS who do not have the time or inclination to pursue motorists who endanger cyclists, found the time and inclination to prosecute Daniel for inconsiderate cycling because he was riding his bike in the road instead of a nearby unsatisfactory cycle track.  The CTC assisted his successful appeal.  The CTC also made representations over the Highway Code to ensure it was clear that the use of cycling facilities is not mandatory.  I applaud the CTC for this and it is a major reason that I am a member.

My own personal experience is that there are plenty of motorists who resent our right to use the roads and would like to see us off them.  Only yesterday morning I was 'buzzed' and sworn at by a motorist who said (in effect and removing the colourful language) 'This is a road not a cycleway and if you get in my way I will run you down'.  I wish I could say this was an unusual experience.

Different cyclists may have different requirements.  My commute is only marginally practicable at 20 mph.  If I had to slow down for significant sections it would become completely impracticable.  A 20 mph speed limit would mean that all those motor vehicles would no longer 'need' to squeeze past me.  Even if I represent a minority of cyclists, we probably cover a disproportionate number of miles and I look to the CTC to continue to represent our interests as well as those of other cyclists.

Although Jon made clear, as he always does, that he was speaking as a private citizen and in a personal capacity, it is a reasonable assumption that he (and Josie) were invited to the Select Committee because of their CTC roles.

I was not keen to hear Jon and James Harding propose as policy a 20 mph limit in residential areas but to be lifted to 30mph (in residential areas, I should stress) where there was a separate cycle track.  James Harding was calling upon an unholy alliance between motorists wishing to go faster and cyclists seeking segregation.  The aim of both being to get cyclists off the roads.  Cyclists remaining on the roads after these facilities have been designed, built and adjudged adequate (very likely by non-cyclists) would not benefit from reduced speed limits.

Separate cycle lanes are not necessarily safer.  I mentioned I would like to see statistics on this.  This does not seem to me unreasonable if they are promoted as a safety measure.  Most of us will have seen diagrams like this one:

Even if you give the priority to the cyclists, I am a defensive cyclist (and so should you be) and you cannot rely upon motorists giving way.

I am all for 'Going Dutch' but my understanding of this is that it involves at least as much control over where motorists may go as of where cyclists may go.  I am all for putting up bollards in the middle of our streets that we can whizz by but which block the path of through motorists.  The trouble is that 'The Times' is not calling for infrastructure changes that may adversely impact motorists and almost all politicians have difficulty with this too.  I acknowledge with gratitude that The Times campaign is calling for 20 mph speed limits but their editor is solicitous of the interests of motorists who may be affected by this.   Of course in practice a 20 mph speed limit in London would not slow overall motoring journey times save in the dead of night.  We run a very real risk of heading for the worst of all possible worlds with inferior infrastructure used as an excuse not to lower speed limits in residential areas and with a growing expectation that cyclists are not entitled to the roads.

This is essentially a non-political blog and I am not the holder of a vote for this Thursday.  However Jenny Jones was surely right at yesterday's hustings to call for lower speed limits and better policing of motorists.  This strikes a chord with me.  As it happens I wrote to the Met Police Commissoner last weekend and sent a copy to Jenny.  You may read it here.

Fortunately I can afford to provoke a storm.  I am not a politician and do not sell newspapers.

Postscript:
A transcript is available here.  This is the bit that worried me about 20mph limits in residential areas:

Q423 Chair: What about the 20 mph speed limit suggested for local roads? Would that make a big difference?

Josie Dew: Yes, it definitely would. Past Molly’s school there is a 40 mph speed limit, which means I am often overtaken at 50 mph with children on the back. I went to the council last December and said, "Can we get a 20 mph speed limit past the school?" If you hit a cyclist at 40 mph, 90% of children would die. If you hit them at 20 mph, 5% would die. That is a huge difference. They said, "Oh well, we can’t really do that." There is all this umming and ahhing. They just make excuses. You have to get on and do it. They said it has to be petition-led, so I have to go traipsing round the whole village. Some people say, "I don’t want to slow my speed because I want to get to work." Portsmouth has put in 20 mph speed limits.

Q424 Chair: If there was a system of a default 20 mph speed limit on local roads, would that be something the other panellists would support?

James Harding: In areas where there are not segregated cycle ways. We would argue for a 20 mph speed limit in residential areas where there are not segregated cycle ways. One of the things about that, as Josie says, is that it is not only safer, but it would reinforce the sense that the interests of cyclists and drivers are aligned. Drivers want to go faster, in which case there need to be segregated cycle ways.

Jon Snow: I agree with James.

Q425 Mr Leech: I am interested to hear why you think that the residential streets where there are segregated cycle ways should not have the 20 mph limit. There is a danger, if you keep it at 30 mph on those streets, that drivers are less inclined to stick to the 20 mph speed limit on the other roads. Is there any reason why you have gone for that particular view?

James Harding: As Josie said, the reason is that 20 mph makes it safer. I think that you need to put in place many more segregated cycle ways and you need to incentivise drivers behind that idea too. Being able to free up drivers to drive a little more quickly where there are segregated cycle ways reinforces that point.

Addison Lee

It is, I trust obvious what I think of the Addison Lee boss and his suggestion that cyclists are to blame for their own injuries by launching themselves onto our roads protected only by a foam hat.  I need not elaborate as this has been covered very well by Dr Robert Davies the Chair of Road Danger Reduction Forum.  As usual, I agree with all Dr Davis has to say and have no need to repeat it.

There are two small respects in which Addison Lee's Mr Griffin may have a point.  First in his derision of the protection afforded by cycle helmets in any kind of serious collision (though he draws the polar opposite conclusion from this than the one that he should).  Second in his complaint that Black Cabs are able to use bus lanes.  I have mentioned before that my experience of black cabs in London has not always been a happy one. (There must be some honourable exceptions to the stereotype; not least as somebody regularly turns up to race at Hillingdon in his Black Cab.)  I agree that black cabs with one or two passengers or those looking for any passenger have no business being privileged with the use of bus lanes.  If there is spare capacity (which I also question as there is no point in a bus lane unless it is largely empty) then let in vehicles with 4 or more occupants (whether black cabs, Addison Lee vehicles or private motorists).  This ought to be capable of being policed.  I am not advocating the promotion of the use of any private motorised vehicle in London.  However to treat Black Cabs as public transport and to favour them above those who have at least taken the trouble to car share, seems to me completely illogical.

Josie is right, Jon, it's the motorists

Over the past few days I have been following with increasing incredultiy the trial of David Grogan, a lorry driver who killed cyclist, Tim Andrew, near Hull in October 2010.  There have been daily reports of the trial in 'This is Hull'.  The witness evidence is clear that Mr Andrew was brightly lit and conspicuous on this dark early morning.  An eyewitness said "He was cycling towards the edge of the grass verge and we saw this lorry come up behind him and we heard a bang."  [Please, please do not ever ride at the margins of the road].  A police officer was on the scene minutes later and spoke to Grogan,  "He said words to the effect of, 'I didn't see him until it was too late'. He was quite shaken and in shock. The road is quite hazardous for cyclists, whether it is illuminated or not."  [Is it the road, officer, or some of the drivers on that road?].
The driver's explanation, provided through tears, was reported here.  "I caught something in the corner of my eye in front of me.  I caught a glimpse of what looked like a small red light just in the corner of the screen.  As I looked across I could just make out the silhouette of a person cycling along.  He was four to five feet away, maybe less. I saw his arm holding on to the bike and his helmet. I only had a second.  I remember seeing the light and the cyclist and straight away I thought 'Oh Christ', and just 'bang'.  A minibus was going by and I couldn't swerve.  The cyclist was there and I thought if I swerve I will hit the bus. I knew straight away I had hit something or someone."  The report goes on "When his barrister asked if he was driving carelessly, Mr Grogan said: "No, I was not using a mobile phone, messing around with any controls on the vehicle."
My incredulity is over his plea of Not Guilty.  How could this driver possibly think he had a defence?  He was not of course able to claim that at 0640 on a mid October morning the sun was in his eyes.  Instead he claimed, making matters rather worse for himself, that his view was obscured by a smudged windscreen caused by defective wipers.  I can only imagine that Grogan, and motorists like him, imagine that motorists on a jury may not convict.  Happily our jury system is better than that.
Following his conviction yesterday the Judge is reported to have said "This was not in my view momentary inattention, it was a decision to press on regardless of being disadvantaged through his visibility.  If you press on at excessive speed with poor visibility, you are creating a substantial, significant risk."
Not much mitigation in relation to the circumstances of the offence or the plea then,  I will update my table when I learn the sentence.


This brings to mind the evidence given to the Transport Select Committee last Tuesday video here.  The President and a Vice-President of CTC, Jon Snow and Josie Dew were there together with the Times Editor, James Harding.   Josie was marvelous.  She is a storyteller and a writer and had a story to illustrate every point she made about poor driving and the inadequacies of law enforcement.  Ministers, though, were on their way and the Committee got off to a late start so they only heard one of Josie's stories (the trip with small child to school and the conversion of the selfish 4 x4 driver who used to get up late and make up for lost time by overtaking Josie and her child on a blind bend).  I would have liked to hear all Josie's stories but she was consistently cut off by the Committee Chair who preferred the soundbites from the other two.  Jon was stressing the dangers of cycling and how, whilst Josie rides her child to school, he dissuades his children from cycling because of the danger.  the solution he hatched up with James Harding was 20 mph limits in residential areas but only where there was no segregated cycle track.  Even the Committee Chairman checked whether they were sure they were asking for that.  Yes, they were, it is how to get motorists on board to press for cycle tracks so that they can go faster where they are provided.  As a road cyclist I am appalled at the implications of this.  One good idea from Jon, though, turn traffic lights to flashing give way signs at off peak hours.


Of course what the session will remain infamous for are the later remarks of Mike Penning, the Minister with responsibility for Road Safety, that the Dutch could learn a lot from us on road safety for cyclists as the cycling casualties per head of population are greater in The Netherlands than the UK.  Perhaps Mr Penning's plan is that we, like he, will leave our bicycles in our garages so as to improve upon this non-target (this Government doesn't do targets - just as well with it's Minister's grasp of statistics).  I would very much like to see some statistical analysis as to whether we have many time the KSI for cyclists per billion kilometres traveled because the Dutch have more segregated lanes or because the Dutch have more considerate drivers.  After all a large proportion of drivers in the Netherlands must also be cyclists.


I now place politicians on the Pickles-Huppert axis to prove the remarkable correlation between enthusiasm for cycling and good health.  Julian Huppert is at 1 and Eric Pickles at 99, with the Chancellor and Prime Minister at about 25.  I am afraid our Minister for Road Safety is up in the 80s, though his colleague the Brompton riding Norman Baker might score a 50.  Just to prove there is no political bias here, the LibDem Mr Huppert is joined at the correct end of the scale by Ben Bradshaw (Lab) and Alec Shelbrooke (Con).


My CTC membership is up for renewal.  I admire the work that CTC staff do and will renew in honour of Josie Dew.

Another sentence for causing death by careless driving

Within a few days of my last post there has been another case.  Putting a table into my post is beyond me, so click here for a table of recent cases.  Karl Austin was killed whilst time trialing on the A 50 dual carriageway in Derbyshire on 30th June last year.  He was struck by a lorry driven carelessly by Michael Bray.  Bray claimed not to have seen Mr Austin on a clear straight dual carriageway notwithstanding a strong flashing rear light.

Bray was sentenced to 24 weeks imprisonment though this sentence was suspended.  He was disqualified from driving for 2 years.  This, as my table demonstrates, is a relatively severe punishment for causing death by careless driving.

The facts of this case bear a striking similarity to those in the Katie Hart case.  One difference though is that Katie Hart was driving a small car.  Bray was in charge of a 26 tonne lorry.  It is not at all clear why the CPS in Derbyshire did not follow the lead of the CPS in Cambridgeshire in the Hart case and charge with causing death by dangerous driving.

The Austin family have in my view good cause to be dissatisfied with the way this case has been handled.   They had to fight heard to ensure it was heard in the Crown Court.  Bray's only 'explanation' for running down Mr Austin was that he did not see him.  There was a muted suggestion that perhaps the sun was responsible (this has worked well in other cases) or that he was driving a lorry notwithstanding some visual defect.

Katie Hart may well feel disgruntled.  She got what she deserved but is almost alone in that.

Causing Death by Careless Driving - Some recent sentencing cases

The past three months have seen a run of cases in which motorists responsible for causing the death of cyclists by careless driving have come before the Courts for sentence.  Here is a summary of the 5 cases that have come to my attention and the results.

Offender	Victim	Date of sentence	Plea	Prison	Disq’n	Community Order
Cahill	Rob Jefferies	12.01.12	Guilty	No	18 months	200 hours
Jenkinson	Alastair Pratt	16.03.12	Guilty	No	18 months	150 hours
Luker	Tomas Barrett	26.03.12	Not Guilty	No	12 months	100 hours
Roberts	Thomas Stone	30.03.12	Guilty	12 months	36 months
Mylrea	Pat Kenny	02.04.12	Not guilty	No	12 months	150 hours

One of these cases stands out as attracting a strikingly different penalty from the others.  Nadia Roberts, aged 21, had no driver’s licence and no insurance when she had an informal driving lesson from her boyfriend, Mark Headley, aged 37, in an Essex car park where Thomas Stone, age 13, was riding his bicycle with some friends.  Roberts apparently confused the accelerator and brake pedals and collided with Thomas at walking pace.  So far as the driving was concerned I would suggest that it was clearly less reprehensible than any of that involved in the other 4 cases.  What really sets this case apart was that it involved ‘real’ criminality, namely driving with no licence and with no insurance (yes, required not only on the highway but also in a car park to which the public have access, and ignorance of the law is of course no excuse).  The sentence related not merely to causing death by careless driving, but also causing death by driving whilst uninsured and whilst unlicensed.  Headley, the boyfriend was also imprisoned (8 months) and disqualified for aiding and abetting causing death whilst driving with no licence and no insurance.  The investigating police officer is reported to have commented,

. 
“Our sympathies remain with the family of Thomas Stone,  we hope that the sentences imposed by His Honour Judge King act as a deterrent to other drivers who think they are above the law by driving without a licence or insurance.”

The other cases all involved drivers who were licensed and insured but all claimed not to have seen the cyclist prior to the collision.  Cahill and Luker both used the ‘sun in my eyes’ defence which (as previously mentioned in my blog) worked so successfully for the killer of Anthony Maynard.  On the positive side the days when this kind of excuse would result in no prosecution are hopefully now behind us.  Cahill at least had the good sense (or good advice) to appreciate that he should have modified his driving so as not to drive blind into a space occupied by Mr Jefferies, and therefore pleaded guilty.  Luker, who killed Tomas Barrett on the A40 outside the Northolt Airforce base where the cyclist worked, defended the standard of his driving at a trial before a jury.  Inevitably the jury convicted.  Cahill’s sentence has attracted some understandable criticism from British Cycling, for whom Rob Jefferies was a valued volunteer.  Luker’s sentence, however, was even more lenient notwithstanding the fact that Luker had refused to acknowledge his guilt.

This blinding by the sun effect is something that puzzles me.  I have substantial driving, as well as cycling experience, but I have never been in a situation where I cannot see what I am driving into.  It is not a rare event, even in this country, for the sun to appear, and at predictable times of the day to appear low, in the sky.  It is an even less infrequent occurrence in many countries yet most motorists appear to avoid crashing into things at sunrise and sunset.  I was contemplating this when time-trialling into the setting sun last week.  Whenever I looked anxiously behind to check there was some sign that an approaching motorist had seen me I observed a long dark shadow behind me.  Luker’s account to the jury was reportedly that he had never seen the sun so low and had tried all sorts of measures involving his sun visor and caps to no avail.

Both Luker and Mylrea, who killed the veteran long distance cyclist Pat Kenny, implied that they had not expected to see a cyclist on the A40 and the A38 respectively.  Both roads have cycle tracks alongside them (though these cycle tracks have all the disadvantages that most such facilities have including not going in a direct ‘give way’ free route to the cyclist’s destination).  Luker had pulled into the nearside lane (of three) because cars behind had flashed him; Mylrea had pulled onto the slip road to exit the A38.  As already noted, Luker had the sun in his eyes but Mylrea lacked even such a fragile explanation for failing to see Pat Kenny.  That, however, did not deter him from contesting the charge.  The prosecution needed to emphasize in both cases that the cyclist victims were doing nothing wrong in cycling where they were.  Both motorists, once convicted, were given the very minimum sentence available to the Court.

Obviously Judges are not free to pass any sentence they wish.  They are constrained firstly by Parliament and second by sentencing guidelines whether set down by the appellate courts in similar cases or by the Sentencing Council.   The obligation to take account of the Sentencing Council’s guidelines is itself imposed by Parliament in the Criminal Justice Act.  The Judge also has no power over the charge and all the above cases came before the Courts as causing death by careless driving (I will not elongate this post by discussing whether some of them could or should have been charged as dangerous).

Parliament has said that the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving is 5 year’s imprisonment and the minimum is 12 month’s disqualification from driving.  The Sentencing Council Guidelines split the circumstances three ways into

Nature of offence	Starting Point	Sentencing range
Careless or inconsiderate driving falling not far short of dangerous driving	15 months custody	36 weeks–3 years custody
Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving	36 weeks custody	Community order (HIGH)–2 years custody
Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors	Community order (MEDIUM)	Community order (LOW)–Community

As the recent cases above highlight there is a real tendency on the part of the Courts to slot the careless driving into ‘momentary inattention with no aggravating factors’ in preference to ‘falling not far short of dangerous’.  The words of the Court of Appeal in R v Hall, the cyclist who knocked over and killed a pedestrian on the pavement, that “It was the sort of cycling which, in our judgment, created at least some risk of danger.  It was, therefore, not far short of dangerous cycling” are never applied to motorists who do not see cyclists in the roadspace ahead of them which they are about to occupy.  Instead it is assumed that they are driving attentively (which must surely, on all roads that cyclists are entitled to use, include scanning ahead for cyclists) until the moment when momentary inattention and the presence of a cyclist combine with fatal consequences.  The Guidelines point out that,

“Cyclists, motorbike riders, horse riders, pedestrians and those working in the road are vulnerable road users and a driver is expected to take extra care when driving near them.”

This extra care must, if it is to mean anything substantial, include extra care to notice whether the offender is driving near a vulnerable user or not.

The Guidelines indicate the sentences to be applied following a trial (that is to say they do not include the discount for a guilty plea).  The effective maximum under the Guidelines is therefore substantially less than the maximum that Parliament has set down.  The real problem, however, is not that motorists are getting three year’s imprisonment rather than five; it is that they are almost invariably categorised as third category (momentary inattention) cases. 

My suggestion is that it would be appropriate to alter these guidelines so as to make clear that failing to see a vulnerable road user through no fault of that vulnerable road user is not something that should be placed into category 3.  Category 3 should be reserved for those cases which do not in fact lead to a charge (but should) such as failing to respond with reasonable care to an emergency created by somebody else (whether the deceased or another).

It may help to explain why the sentences in all four of the cases, which resulted from the death of a cyclist using the roads, are unacceptable to almost all cyclists.  It is not that cyclists are vindictive or vengeful, many I speak to are not and some are not in favour of prison sentences for any but the worst cases.  It is because there must be some serious deterrent to bad driving.  Drivers are virtually entirely insulated from the risks around them by a substantial metal cage with increasingly effective safety aids.  It is not hard to exercise appropriate care around cyclists.  My experience and conviction is that every driver who cycles has no difficulty whatever with this.  All these deaths, and many other similar ones, were easily avoidable.  We need to ensure that cycling is not regarded as a risky activity in which we have to accept the chances of these little lapses and accidents, just as a mountaineer or ice-climber must accept some risks inherent in a sport.  This is not an attitude that will encourage cyclists onto our roads.  Motorists must have brought home to them that the consequences of failing to drive carefully around a vulnerable road user could be very severe for them, as well as to the person they endanger.  They should at least have the privilege of a driver’s licence withdrawn for a serious amount of time.  Mylrea is not even required to take a retest before regaining his licence in 12 month’s time (the minimum period that Parliament permits).

British Cycling is right to launch a campaign.  They have written to the Lord Chief Justice and the Sentencing Council.  This is an important area that The Times campaign has overlooked.