Death crash cyclist is jailed (From Dorset Echo)
When news happens get involved. Send your pictures, views and video to us by text and email
Death crash cyclist is jailed
9:55am Thursday 13th August 2009 in News By Harry Hogger
A YOUNG man jailed for seven months for cycling into a pensioner who later died will ‘live with the consequences for the rest of his life’, a court was told.
Pedestrian Ronald Harry Turner died from a head injury days after falling in a collision with cyclist Darren Kevin Hall, who admitted recklessly cycling around a blind corner on a Weymouth pavement.
Hall, 20, of Cromwell Road, Weymouth, admitted a charge of causing grievous bodily harm by ‘wanton or furious cycling’.
Ian Fenny, prosecuting, told Dorchester Crown Court that on Friday, August 8, last year, Mr Turner, who was just two days short of his 85th birthday, was walking along Dorchester Road in Weymouth, near the junction with Littlemoor Road.
He said Hall, who claimed he had been forced on to the pavement by a motorist, was riding his bike at ‘considerable speed’ as he approached the blind bend from the other direction and struck Mr Turner.
Mr Fenny said witness Sandra Vian described Hall as cycling ‘like a bat out of hell’ before the collision, which knocked Mr Turner into the road.
He said Hall immediately showed remorse for his actions, even trying to assist the off-duty medical staff who treated Mr Turner at the scene.
Mr Turner was taken to hospital and appeared to be in a ‘reasonably stable condition’.
A scan revealed a brain haemorrhage but Mr Turner was not deemed fit enough for surgical intervention.
Mr Fenny said that, despite initial signs of recovery, Mr Turner died on August 20 – 12 days after the incident – from a pulmonary embolism that a pathologist confirmed was a ‘direct result’ of the head injury sustained in the collision.
Mark Ruffell, in mitigation, said Hall had since been ‘plagued by guilt’, suffering nightmares and anxiety attacks.
He said: “No punishment that this court imposes will ever replace the loss to the Turner family for what the defendant did.”
Mr Ruffell added: “This is a young man who will live with the consequences for the rest of his life.”
Mr Ruffell said that, while Hall accepted he had been cycling in a reckless manner, ‘phrases like a bat out of hell are inappropriate’.
Judge Gary Burrell said: “Your recklessness on this evening has resulted in the death of a perfectly law abiding man. The family understandably are completely devastated by what you did.”
Judge Burrell also banned Hall from driving for 12 months.
Hall was convicted under an act that dates back to 1861 and refers to ‘drivers’ of carriages.
Comments(50)
southwellman
says...
11:45am Thu 13 Aug 09
We all do things that we regret and this I think was an unfortunate accident by a moment of recklessness... it is ver sad that someone died and yes a punishment should have been given.... but a prison sentence for an accident is appaling... if it was a fight or a mugging then indeed a custodial sentence would be expected... ! the CPS have I think acted in a foolish way and have left themselves wide open in this case!
dragonm8
says...
11:46am Thu 13 Aug 09
What we have is a young father cycling around a blind corner on a pavement.
Reckless at best, but a prisonable offence? I don't think so for one minute.
There are some people who deserve to be in prison, but this guy doesn't
The judge needs a reality check.
Genghis
says...
12:16pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Sidney Hall
says...
12:17pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Accident or not, this lad KILLED someone. It was an accident that could be avoided VERY EASILY.
Let's all learn from this and hope nobody else suffers DEATH in the same way or has to learn of DEATH OF FRIEND OR RELATIVE in the same way.
Genghis
says...
12:55pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Sidney Hall wrote:If it wasn't an accident you'd think the penalty would be higher wouldn't you? Rhiannon Bennett was 17 years old when a cyclist ran her down and killed her. He was fined £2,200. Full story here:
If it wasnt an accident then the penalty would be much, much, much higher. Accident or not, this lad KILLED someone. It was an accident that could be avoided VERY EASILY. Let's all learn from this and hope nobody else suffers DEATH in the same way or has to learn of DEATH OF FRIEND OR RELATIVE in the same way.
www.guardian.co.uk/u
k/2008/jul/09/ukcrim
e
Dorsetdumpling
says...
1:25pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Reality check for cyclists: -
(a) you ARE subject to the laws of the land, and;
(b) at speed, you and the bike have the capacity to do serious harm - choose to reclessly ignore this fact for your own 'thrills' then don't complain when you are held accountable.
weymouthfox
says...
1:31pm Thu 13 Aug 09
CoogarUK.com
says...
2:30pm Thu 13 Aug 09
As for this being an accident and the punishment too harsh, how might this young man's parents have reacted if their son had been knocked off his bike and killed by a reckless motorist?
freeopinion
says...
4:00pm Thu 13 Aug 09
And for those people who are claiming it to be an accident the moment he decided to take to the pavement it no longer became an accident but total disregard for the safety of pedestrians rightfully on the pavement and i think he should have been prosecuted for manslaughter, no sentence can bring the man back and no sentence will ease the pain felt by relatives and friends but 7 months out in three maybe is an insult. And for those comparing it to other cases we all know the whole judicial system has become a joke with judges and magistrates that have completely lost the plot.
rh
says...
4:40pm Thu 13 Aug 09
How many paedos kiddy fiddlers and pervs get sent home to "get well"
These guys are said to "need help" not punishment. yet a naive young man caused an horrendous accident and get potted where all the nonces should be! Lets home he goes home on appeal.
Genghis
says...
4:55pm Thu 13 Aug 09
rh wrote:Indeed it's a question of priorities. How much is a life worth? As for the sentences given out to other types of crimes, you won't get no argument from me. They should be tougher and it's about time the judges and courts got their acts together and did something about it. That would be my solution in preference to yours of "we were too lenient with him so let's be too lenient with everybody else."
Question of priorities innit guys!! How many paedos kiddy fiddlers and pervs get sent home to "get well" These guys are said to "need help" not punishment. yet a naive young man caused an horrendous accident and get potted where all the nonces should be! Lets home he goes home on appeal.
freeopinion
says...
5:08pm Thu 13 Aug 09
joff
says...
5:09pm Thu 13 Aug 09
2.Cycling on the pavement is illegal.
The Old Rec
says...
5:25pm Thu 13 Aug 09
It would appear that the young man must have been perilously close to facing a manslaughter charge.
I do have sympathy for his family, but no more than I have for the bereaved family.
tolpuddle martyr
says...
5:52pm Thu 13 Aug 09
siratb
says...
6:17pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Genghis
says...
6:36pm Thu 13 Aug 09
siratb wrote:Not too sure on the facts of that as the OHEC report didn't go into detail. If any law was broken though I'd expect the Police to take action. Road safety is the responsibility of everyone motorists, cyclists and pedestrians so everybody has to be accountable for their own actions.
I'm looking forward to seeing the sentencing of the woman who walked oiut into the road on Portland (?) knocking a cyclist off his bike. I assume that she will be taken to court for reckless walking?
mark@greenhill
says...
6:59pm Thu 13 Aug 09
He rode on the pavement on a bicycle, obviously too quickly and with possibly a careless attitude, but for all those wishing to see him hung drawn & quartered, just think back to when you were young and stupid.
We have all ridden bikes on the pavement and to a degree, I still do.
When plenty of scum escape jail, after choosing deliberately to burgle your home, or driving drunk etc, jailing this lad is beyond all reasoning
Yes, fine him, impose a driving ban if you think it will help, but leave him out of jail for gods sake, the jails should be full of proper criminals.
Genghis
says...
7:58pm Thu 13 Aug 09
mark@greenhill wrote:Think you need to get a grip as nobody has said he should be hung, drawn and quartered. Unfortunately people do have to take responsibility for their actions whether it's reckless driving, drink driving or the same offences on a bike. If you put other peoples' lifes at risk, or, in this case kill someone, why should you just get a slap on the hand?
Get a grip you people, this lad did not get into a car whilst drunk, did not drive without insurance, or a hundred other serious driving crimes that are premeditated. He rode on the pavement on a bicycle, obviously too quickly and with possibly a careless attitude, but for all those wishing to see him hung drawn & quartered, just think back to when you were young and stupid. We have all ridden bikes on the pavement and to a degree, I still do. When plenty of scum escape jail, after choosing deliberately to burgle your home, or driving drunk etc, jailing this lad is beyond all reasoning Yes, fine him, impose a driving ban if you think it will help, but leave him out of jail for gods sake, the jails should be full of proper criminals.
As I said to rh of andover above I want to see Judges handing down tougher sentences. I'll help out on campaigns and petitions on this subject. Get the justice system working for the law abiding for a change. From your comments what you want is for even more people not to be held responsible for their crimes because somebody else got community service for a different offence. They'll be no need for prisons in that case because nobody will ever be sent there.
What the apologists are forgetting is that the Court was presented with all the facts. It wasn't just an accident, it was one caused by totally reckless cycling. No the poor lad did not get into a car drunk. But what he did left a completely innocent man dead. Just as dead as if he was runover by a drunk driver.
Tautologist
says...
8:41pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Our first poster on this story (boxfile, Dorchester) quite rightly questions a 147 year old Act of Parliament.
.
(1) I wonder what events prompted this act of 1861 which refers to ‘drivers’ of carriages. ?
.
(2) Mr Hall ". admitted recklessly cycling" , however, the offence is
‘wanton or furious cycling’. What is the difference ?
.
(3) Finally, does anyone know what the maximum penalty is for this offence ? ( possibly a free one way ticket to Australia)
.
Guess a legal eagle (or Rt Hon MP...ha..ha..) may have some of the answers ???
F1
says...
9:14pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Even on foot many need to take note of whats going on around them.
Young mothers suddenly take a turn in the middle of St Thomas St, and there is you walking along suddenly having to hurdle a push chair!
The underpass by the old libary. Has cycle lanes. I have to dodge pedestrians every day who are walking along in cuckoo land day dreaming on the cycle path side of the pavement with total disregard to that it is a cycle lane.
See pedestrians are just as bad.
And too many car drivers dont give a f**k about cyclist, too interseted in saving an extra second on a journey. Which is no doubt why this chap ended up cycling for his own safety.
The council should build more cycle lanes, but if they do no doubt it will fall into a state like the one between Chafeys and the football ground. So over grown now that you have to duck under and around the overgrown trees and bushes (as well as pedestrians daying dreaming listening to their ipods not hearing you ring you bell)
Lets keep blaming the cyclists.
neiljbaker
says...
9:29pm Thu 13 Aug 09
Grimble
says...
11:02pm Thu 13 Aug 09
siratb
says...
11:20pm Thu 13 Aug 09
IF a cyclist can be sentenced to a prison sentence for knocking someone over on the pavement (I am not defending this person, I am trying to put the law into perspective) then I assume a pedestrian (or a car driver or dog owner with an "extension" lead) acting in a simillarly irresposible way should also be dealt with by the courts.
Grimble
says...
11:35pm Thu 13 Aug 09
CoogarUK.com
says...
11:37pm Thu 13 Aug 09
I imagine the sentence would have been much more severe had he actually been charged with and convicted of causing the death of the elderly pedestrian.
Genghis
says...
11:44pm Thu 13 Aug 09
siratb wrote:As already stated that's up to the Police to take action in regard to that matter. if they did you won't see any complaints from me.
Only this week we saw a cyclist knocked off his bike on Portland by a pedestrian walking out in front of him. We poor cyclists get a lot of unjustified stick, though I am glad to see on the W&PBC website that cycling WILL be allowed on the Prom. IF a cyclist can be sentenced to a prison sentence for knocking someone over on the pavement (I am not defending this person, I am trying to put the law into perspective) then I assume a pedestrian (or a car driver or dog owner with an "extension" lead) acting in a simillarly irresposible way should also be dealt with by the courts.
As for everyone who thinks this is about the poor cyclists being oppressed and picked on, it isn't. It's about the death of a completely innocent man who was ridden down while he walked quite legally on the pavement where he should have been safe. You can throw in all the red herrings you like but that is what this case was about.
For those that have a problem with a 147 year old law. I trust you haven't made or are thinking of making a will (Wills Act 1837) nor will you want any murder prosecuted based on the Offences against the Person Act 1861?
Genghis
says...
12:02am Fri 14 Aug 09
ontent/cycling_and_t
he_law.php
Fabian
says...
8:22am Fri 14 Aug 09
freeopinion
says...
11:33am Fri 14 Aug 09
Fabian wrote:HE TOOK THE LIFE OF A MAN AND RUINED THE LIVES OF OTHERS END OF STORY>
I don't think he should have been jailed for this. I wouldn't blame anyone for cycling on the pavment in Dorchester Road, it is a terrible road to cycle on. Clearly an accident, I am sure he would never have dreamed to cause an accident. What public good is it serving to jail a young father who made a mistake?
robinho0d
says...
12:32pm Fri 14 Aug 09
Dorsetdumpling
says...
2:00pm Fri 14 Aug 09
(1) It's the same act that creates the offences of manslaughter, ABH and GBH assault etc., and it largely pre-dates the internal combustion engine - the later Road Traffic acts deal with motorized vehicles; cycles fall between two stools, and I suspect that until relatively recently cyclists' behaviour was unlikely to give rise to substantial injury, hence there's no specific act to cover dangerous riding.
(2) very little - for wantonly and furiously read dangerously.
(3) Two years.
Robinhood - do the words innocent until proven guilty ring a bell?
treacle91
says...
4:52pm Fri 14 Aug 09
CoogarUK.com
says...
5:16pm Fri 14 Aug 09
I'm sure any mitigating circumstances would have been taken into consideration before sentencing.
The concensus in the above posts appears to be that he should consider himself lucky not to have been charged with causing the elderly man's death.
freeopinion
says...
5:30pm Fri 14 Aug 09
treacle91 wrote:Do we assume from your comment his brakes were not working or maybe he was going to fast in the first place, whether you like it or not he took a man’s life as a result of his reckless illegal riding or are you saying that it’s ok to take to the pavement every time things go wrong? If that is the case then pedestrians had better look out because cars lorrie’s and buses will be next. That is if you believe the story about being cut up in the first place? Was the driver ever traced.
For all you people that think Darren deserved imprisonment for this accident, you do not always get the full facts in newspapers in fact a car cut Darren up which caused him to go onto the pavement, i do have sympathy for the mans family so does Darren and family, Darren has not been on a cycle since the accident. Looking at most important articles in the paper the claims of a peodofile was mentioned with a small article on page 6 how is it Durdle Door has a big article on page 2, Darren caused an accidental death.
F1
says...
6:20pm Fri 14 Aug 09
http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/uk_national_
news/4547710.Death_c
rash_driver_spared_j
ail_term/
Mr Toad
says...
7:46pm Fri 14 Aug 09
Genghis wrote:.
Just for balance this may be worth everybody reading it. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. www.bikeforall.net/c
ontent/cycling_and_t
he_law.php
Thank you for the link.
It provides the balance and common sense that is conspicuously lacking in many of the contributions to the echo.
I noted the following extract with interest, because it relates to those cyclists who use the Preston Beach promenade in preference to the dangerous stretch of road at Greenhill. :
.
Quote// "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.
"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004) " // Quote
annie64
says...
8:44pm Fri 14 Aug 09
I feel as if i have been robbed of my son,he should have been punished but not 7 months in prison due to an accident he was remorsefull he has to live with this for the rest of his life he wanted to see the man the police told him no you will look guilty he wanted to write to the family but he was told he would look guilty.
We have been missimformed, We are so sorry for the family concerned if we could turn back the time we would, we know what it is to lose someone close. We are not heartless life is precious my sympathay is with the family but it has ruined my family all i want is this ache in my heart to go away but it wont while my son is in prison. Community service would have been enough he could have put back in to the community, instead of costing the tax payer £700 pounds a week to keep him in there. Darren is not a crimanal!!!!
Ms Smith
says...
9:51pm Fri 14 Aug 09
This man and his family are filled with pity for themselves rather than the innocent man whose life he took and his grieving family.
He chose to cycle illegally on the pavement and compounded that crime by riding at extreme speed around a blind corner. That is not "an accident". It was his choice to do this and he is a criminal.
annie64
says...
10:50pm Fri 14 Aug 09
Genghis
says...
11:22pm Fri 14 Aug 09
F1 wrote:Not one rule for one and one for another. Yet another example off an over lenient judge. It's time the Courts and judges were given a kick up the backside. Too much sympathy is shown to the perpetrators and none to the victims. Mustn't send the guilty to jail as they've suffered enough. Suspended sentences or community service isn't a punishment for killing somebody nor does it do anything as an example to deter others. Who's going to show other road users respect when if you kill somebody you may not even see the inside of a cell or if you do you'll still be home for Christmas.
One rule for one, and one for another http://www.dorsetech o.co.uk/uk_national_ news/4547710.Death_c rash_driver_spared_j ail_term/
Flotsam
says...
11:39pm Fri 14 Aug 09
Ms Smith wrote:Ms Smith, The young man made an unfortunate mistake. He is now reaping the consequences in accordance with the legal process, and two families are distressed.
How many times did this thug cycle at speed on the pavement causing fear and distress to pedestrians? Cycling on the pavement is illegal and a growing problem because the police don,t crack down on it.
This man and his family are filled with pity for themselves rather than the innocent man whose life he took and his grieving family.
He chose to cycle illegally on the pavement and compounded that crime by riding at extreme speed around a blind corner. That is not "an accident". It was his choice to do this and he is a criminal.
.
However, to call him a thug reveals more than a degree of ignorance on your part:-
.
* Thug, a person, often a criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, especially for hire. Often a member of a gang, as an enforcer in organized crime
* Thug (from Hindi ठग ṭhag), the member of the former Indian cult Thuggee. This is the original meaning.
.
.
As a 'closet-vigilante' You may as well apply the noun to anybody who causes any accident /injury through foolish carelessess.
Like all but the most saintly people, I've had narrow escapes because of a moment's inattention, but if they had been close enough to merit a court appearance, that doesn't make me (or even you) a thug.
.
Regarding the illegality of cycling on a pavement, and the attitude expected of the police, Why not look at the text of a letter from the Home Office in Mr Toad’s post.
It's far more accurate than the hysterical comments from a Closet Vigilntew
Genghis
says...
11:56pm Fri 14 Aug 09
Flotsam wrote:I have to point out though that the quote isn't actually law but guidance that relates to the issuing of fixed penalty tickets. Cycling on the pavement is still against the law. The Government had a chance to clarify the law but instead chose to fudge it (surprise, surprise) by leaving the existing law as it was but contradicting it with the guidance on fixed penalties. So basically you could get out off receiving a fixed penalty if you were riding responsibly but still get taken to court for riding on the pavement whether your riding was responsible or irresponsible. The link to bikeforall in one of my earlier posts gives an excellent article on laws relating to cycling.
Ms Smith wrote: How many times did this thug cycle at speed on the pavement causing fear and distress to pedestrians? Cycling on the pavement is illegal and a growing problem because the police don,t crack down on it. This man and his family are filled with pity for themselves rather than the innocent man whose life he took and his grieving family. He chose to cycle illegally on the pavement and compounded that crime by riding at extreme speed around a blind corner. That is not "an accident". It was his choice to do this and he is a criminal.Ms Smith, The young man made an unfortunate mistake. He is now reaping the consequences in accordance with the legal process, and two families are distressed. . However, to call him a thug reveals more than a degree of ignorance on your part:- . * Thug, a person, often a criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, especially for hire. Often a member of a gang, as an enforcer in organized crime * Thug (from Hindi ठग ṭhag), the member of the former Indian cult Thuggee. This is the original meaning. . . As a 'closet-vigilante' You may as well apply the noun to anybody who causes any accident /injury through foolish carelessess. Like all but the most saintly people, I've had narrow escapes because of a moment's inattention, but if they had been close enough to merit a court appearance, that doesn't make me (or even you) a thug. . Regarding the illegality of cycling on a pavement, and the attitude expected of the police, Why not look at the text of a letter from the Home Office in Mr Toad’s post. It's far more accurate than the hysterical comments from a Closet Vigilntew
Flotsam
says...
8:41am Sat 15 Aug 09
.
Yes, so what guidance does the cyclist take?
.
The Highway Code is the official government Guidance on correct road usage, and that's what would be used in court.
However, I think that any cyclist could confidently quote the home office guidance if the circumstances warranted use of the pavement, and I believe that one circumstance would be when Greenhill is jam-packed with motor vehicles.
.
Test case anyone?
Mads
says...
1:35pm Sat 15 Aug 09
My deepest sympathy obviously goes out to the man killed and his family, but I also feel terribly sorry for Darren and his family. It seems to me that he was just terribly unlucky to happen to hit someone and for that person to be a vulnerable pensioner.
I would agree that a prison sentance for this seems very harsh.
Iona
says...
3:31pm Sat 15 Aug 09
Pedestrians are at increasing risk from cyclists who ride on paths whether legally or illegally. Now that riding amongst pedestrians is a growing norm, perhaps it is time to introduce compulsory third party insurance for all cyclists over the age of 12(?).
The injured and the families of those killed have little chance of any form of compensation for their loss.
.
.
A Thought: The under fives and the over sixties are most vulnerable. They are too young to know or forget that they are walking in traffic (bikes, roller blades, disabled scooters) and fail to look behind before changing direction.
Every year in Weymouth several elderly people fall and break a hip never to recover. They do not need greater risk due to bikes.
Flotsam
says...
5:08pm Sat 15 Aug 09
"It seems from the reader comments here that a cyclist killing a person whilst riding illegally is more forgivable than a motorist doing similarly.".
.
.
I don't think that's a true reflection. There was certainly little sympathy from Cycling clubs on the other thread.
.
Also, see this link:
http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/6482-cycling
-groups-back-jail-te
rm-killer-cyclist
.
Where the CTC (the country's largest cycling organisation) said:
.
“On average, motor vehicles kill about as many pedestrians in an average day as bicycles do in an average year. Even on the pavements, the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles is far greater than from cyclists.
In addition to the 600 or so pedestrians killed annually by motor vehicles on our roads, they also kill around 40 pedestrians every year on pavements or verges – that’s almost one a week.
In contrast, this latest incident is only the third time a cyclist has killed a pedestrian on the pavement this decade.
''
'=================
"perhaps it is time to introduce compulsory third party insurance for all cyclists over the age of 12(?).".
.
"Show me an insurance compoany that would do that.. age 16 maybe.
However, most club cyclists do have insurance.
Flotsam
says...
5:12pm Sat 15 Aug 09
.
oger Geffen, CTC’s Campaigns and Policy Manager said on the matter: “There can be no excuse for the actions of a cyclist who rides at speed on a pavement and crashes into a pedestrian. CTC believes that all road users, cyclists and drivers alike, have a responsibility to respect the safety of other people. Those who act dangerously should face the force of the law, as has rightly happened in this case.”
..
pepsi
says...
9:00am Fri 4 Sep 09
boxfile says...
11:24am Thu 13 Aug 09
I feel for the victim and those that are left behind. But surely this was an accident, a tragic and avoidable accident granted, but an accident afterall. How is this serving the interest of the public. And to be charging this young man with an offence dating back a 147 years shows the depth of determination the CPS had to prosecute at any cost.