We’ve all been there, crossing a road when the traffic light has turned red signalling vehicles to stop and a cyclist zips past you having no regard to the stoplight. You’ve jumped out of your skin but they are long gone before you can utter your remonstration. You look to the heavens in despair and just get on with your day. Are the cyclist’s actions criminal though?
It must be said firstly that the majority of cyclists are safe, law abiding road users. The commentary that follows is aimed at the few that find themselves on the wrong side of the law and not the many.
You would be forgiven for believing that the Highway Code does not apply to cyclists. After all, when last did you undertake the theory test before jumping on a “Boris bike” in town? The Highway Code, though, does, in fact, apply to all road users and contains information and guidance as well as setting out the mandatory rules by which road users must abide, for instance, the requirement to have front and rear lights on a bicycle during the hours between sunset and sunrise.
So, is it an offence for a cyclist to jump a red light? In a word, yes and doing so may find you having to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) to the value of £50. This seems an obvious answer but there are a number of offences that you may find yourself inadvertently committing when you jump on that bicycle. The rules that govern cyclists can be found in the main in the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Highway Code and the Highway Act 1835. Some of those offences are listed below:
Riding a pedal cycle whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol (£1,000 fine)
Dangerous cycling (£2,500 fine)
Careless, and inconsiderate cycling (£1,000 fine)
Bicycle racing on a public highway (were not part of an organised and authorised event)
One of the more serious examples came in recent years when the press covered the story of Charlie Alliston who received an 18 months term of imprisonment when he caused the death of a pedestrian Kim Briggs in February 2016. Alliston was acquitted of manslaughter. The offence he was convicted of carries a maximum of 2 yrs imprisonment and can be used when a cyclist displays wanton and furious cycling. Of course this is subjective and will depend on all the circumstances of that riding. Perhaps the cyclist was driving at high speeds, on pedestrian paths, weaving through crowds, or riding aggressively. In the case of Alliston, Judge Wendy Joseph QC referred to his “whole manner of driving” as being to blame for the collision. This clearly was an extreme case where the bicycle was not fit for the purpose of riding on the streets. However, cyclists should all take note that all factors which fall foul of the rules may contribute to a determination as to culpability.
Save for this last example of wanton and furious driving, all other mentioned offences are non-recordable offences and as such will not be included on a standard check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). However, an enhanced check may, if deemed relevant, flag up these offences. Their status as non-recordable offences is also important when considering the taking of samples. For instance, if you are stopped for riding a bicycle whilst intoxicated, the police do not have the power to take a sample of breath (urine or blood for that matter) from you in order to prove whether you are intoxicated. They will have to rely on other physical indicators; that your speech was slurred, your breath smelled of intoxicants, you were unsteady on your feet, etc. All of which you may dispute for any manner of reasons.
These, it should be said, are not commonly prosecuted offences. By way of example, a Freedom of Information Release by the Metropolitan Police for the period April 2017 – March 2018 showed that 289 FPNs were issued for cycling on a footway. No further action was taken in 39 cases, presumably where these had been challenged. In 77 of the recorded cases, the recipient either failed to pay or requested a court hearing and was still made to pay the fine (which by then was increased to £75).
In some cases, FPNs may be cancelled where a training course is offered and subsequently undertaken or where you can demonstrate that you have now purchased and installed appropriate lighting on your bicycle where previously it was not in place.
When all is said and done, safety is king on our streets, so do be safe out there. However, if you find yourself requiring legal advice on any of the topics discussed herein or other matters please contact us and one of our experts will be happy to assist you.
The government has announced its new zero tolerance policy towards those who drive under the influence of drugs.
Police will be able to take a road test saliva test and then take the arrestee for a blood test at the police station.
Anybody convicted of such an offence can expect to be banned from driving for twelve months and be liable to pay a fine to a maximum level of £5,000. A prison sentence of up to six months will also be an available sentencing option.
If you are in need of legal advice and assistance in any sort of motoring offence, please complete our online enquiry form or call us on 020 7387 2032.
There has been some interesting research by Gocompare.com, the comparison site, released in June 2013, and by Santander earlier this year (April 2013), focusing upon driver behaviour and distractions.
The research by Gocompare.com concludes the following:
Drivers in the age group 25 to 34 are most likely to be distracted while driving; 48% of this age group had either read or sent a text and 22% had either written or checked email when driving.
Santander’s research concluded that 25% of drivers sent a text or fiddled with the car stereo while driving, behaviour which accounted for near misses for 25% female drivers and 33%+ of male drivers.
Additionally, 11% of men and 15% of women admitted to crashing a vehicle because of a distraction. This means that large sections of the driving population are at risk of causing injury to themselves and others, and are at an even greater risk of facing criminal prosecution for careless or dangerous driving, or death by careless or dangerous driving.
The penalties can range from points on your licence and substantial fines to disqualification from driving and even imprisonment.
Next month police will be able to impose ‘on the spot fines’ for lesser offences of careless driving.
If you are facing such an allegation, whether by charge or summons, or need to save your licence, you will need top motoring lawyers to help you through the whole process.
Leading traffic offence lawyers such as us provide a first class, effective, supportive service for reasonable fees. We have an excellent record when defending driving offences over the last thirty years.
Contact Jeffrey Lewis or complete our online enquiry form.
The Government has announced the introduction of new powers that will allow the police to issue fixed penalty notices for careless driving.
It says that the changes will give the police greater flexibility in dealing with less serious careless driving offences – such as tailgating or middle lane hogging – and will free them from resource-intensive court processes.
The fixed penalty will also enable the police to offer educational training as an alternative to endorsement. Drivers will still be able to appeal any decision in court.
In addition, existing fixed penalty levels for most motoring offences – including using a mobile phone at the wheel and not wearing a seatbelt – will rise to £100 to bring them into line with the penalties for similar non-motoring fixed penalties.
The fixed penalty for careless driving will be £100, with 3 points on the driver’s licence. The most serious examples will continue to go through court, where offenders may face higher penalties.
The changes – which the Government aims to bring into force in July this year – are being introduced following extensive public consultation with road safety groups and police forces.
Contact Lewis Nedas’ Criminal Lawyers in London
For specialist legal advice please contact our solicitors Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.
This blog post is intended as a news item only- no connection between Lewis Nedas and the parties concerned is intended or implied.
Every area is to have a dedicated ‘Traffic Court’ to deal with low-level road traffic offences, Justice Minister Damian Green announced last week.
There are around half a million summary motoring cases heard every year, including speeding, traffic light and document offences. Although these offences are relatively minor they often take longer from offence to completion than much more serious cases.
A task force of partners across the criminal justice system was set up to look at why this was the case and to recommend how the system could be improved, to ensure the cases are dealt with both justly and efficiently. The traffic courts are just one of the suggestions resulting from the initiative.
“Enforcing traffic laws is hugely important for road safety, and saving lives. However these cases take nearly six months on average from offence to completion, despite the fact that over 90% of cases result in a guilty plea or are proved in absence – this is simply unacceptable,” said Damian Green.
“The justice system must respond more quickly and effectively to the needs of victims, witnesses and local communities and these dedicated courts will enable magistrates to better organise their work and drive greater efficiency,” he added.
The types of offences that could be dealt with by the traffic courts include:
For specialist legal advice please contact our solicitors Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.
The Crown Prosecution Service last week published an update to its Guidance on Charging Offences arising from Driving Incidents. The two most significant changes concern drivers in emergencies and deaths where the victim is a close friend or relative of the driver.
“This guidance strikes the right balance between protecting the public and recognising that there are situations when a prosecution for a driving offence may not be in the public interest. Prosecutors will look at all of the facts of a case when making charging decisions,” said Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions. “If a driver was responding to an emergency and took proper care, a prosecution is very unlikely to be in the public interest, but nothing in this guidance excuses recklessness or taking unjustifiable risks.”
In cases involving drivers in emergencies, prosecutors will consider:
The nature of the emergency known to or reasonably perceived by the driver – for example, whether the driver was responding to a 999 call in compliance with the agreed operating practice in that service;
The level of culpability of the driver (including the nature of the driving); and
Whether there is evidence the driver may be a continuing danger to others – for example, such evidence may include relevant convictions or internal disciplinary proceedings against the driver.
The guidance for prosecutors considering cases where the victim is a family member or close friend of the driver has also been revised.
“A driver who makes a genuine mistake that ends the life of a close friend or family member will bear a particularly heavy responsibility,” continued Mr Starmer. “Following the death of a close friend or family member, it will be presumed that a prosecution is in the public interest, but the emotional trauma suffered by the driver and the consequences of bringing a prosecution for those closest to the victim and driver will be taken into account. These factors will be weighed against the driver’s culpability and a driver who continues to pose a danger to others is likely to be prosecuted.”
Contact Lewis Nedas’ Criminal Lawyers in London
For specialist legal advice please contact our solicitors Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.
The most dangerous drink drivers will now have to pass a medical before they are allowed back on the roads under a change in the law announced by Road Safety Minister Stephen Hammond.
The changes, which come into force from 1st June 2013, mean that High Risk Offenders will need to pass a medical confirming they are no longer alcohol dependent at the end of their disqualification – and before they start driving.
At the moment, all High Risk Offenders must pass a medical examination before they can be issued with a driving licence following their disqualification. However, drivers can start driving as soon as they have applied for their driving licence. Evidence suggests that some High Risk Offenders delay their medical in order to continue driving. The changes will prevent High Risk Offenders from driving until they have passed their medical examination and been granted a licence.
The changes also mean that drink drivers who refuse to give permission for a blood sample to be analysed will now be High Risk Offenders. This means that they will only get their licence back following disqualification if they pass the required medical.
For specialist legal advice please contact our solicitors Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.
A new offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a specified controlled drug in the body above a prescribed limit is being introduced in the Crime and Courts Bill, currently making its way through Parliament.
Drug driving is a growing problem in the UK and, according to Transport Minister Stephen Hammond, is a factor in an estimated 200 road fatalities each year.
The Government commissioned a review of the law relating to drink and drug driving back in 2010 and has been working to tighten the rules since then. The focus of this latest change is on the fact that the existing law seems to be of limited effect in tackling drug driving.
At the moment drug driving is dealt with under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence to drive while unfit to do so through drink or drugs.
In practice, however, few prosecutions are actually brought and of those which are initiated, many are eventually thrown out or withdrawn.
This is because of the technical difficulty of securing a conviction for driving while unfit through drugs: to succeed, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant was driving or in charge of the vehicle; that he was so impaired that he was unfit to drive; and that the impairment affecting him was caused by drugs.
The Government has therefore decided to introduce a new strict liability offence of driving with a controlled drug in the body – removing the need to prove impairment. This will mirror the position with drink driving, and will run alongside the existing Section 4 offence.
However, as Stephen Hammond said in a recent statement:
“We must ensure that the new offence would not unduly penalise drivers who have taken properly prescribed or supplied drugs in line with medical advice.”
The Crime and Courts Bill therefore gives a defence to people who have driven after taking a controlled drug that has been prescribed or supplied “for medical or dental purposes.” To succeed in the defence, that person must have followed the directions given for the use of the drug in question.
It’s also worth noting that this defence will not apply to the “old’ offence of driving while unfit to do so under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This will still be available to prosecutors.
The Crime and Courts Bill does not list which drugs will be regarded as controlled drugs, nor the limit of concentration at which they will bring the offence into play. These details are going to be dealt with in separate regulations, currently being developed by the relevant government ministers in England, Wales and Scotland.
However, technical advice on the identity of the specified controlled substances, and the maximum permitted levels of each, is already available. This comes in the form of a report from a specialist panel, published earlier this month.
According to Stephen Hammond, the Government hopes to consult on the draft regulations later in the year.
For specialist legal advice on any of these issues relating to driving under the influence of drugs or other motoring law issues, contact Lewis Nedas on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.
There have been some interesting stories in the press over the last few days about the likely impact of an error in the design of some variable speed limit signs.
The story was first reported by the BBC, which predicts that thousands of speeding convictions may be quashed as a result of the mistake.
The signs in question were displayed on two sections of the M42, to the west of Coventry. They were slightly taller and narrower than the requirements set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions – the document that governs the use of variable speed limit signs.
Signs that do not conform to these requirements are only enforceable if they are approved separately by the Department of Transport – and no approval had been obtained. At least, according to the BBC, no approval had been obtained between 2006, when the signs were installed, and November 2012, when the Crown Prosecution Service raised the issue with Warwickshire Police.
This caused the police to stop using the signs as a means of enforcement and drop pending prosecutions relating to them. However, there is a question mark over the validity of the many thousands of speeding convictions that were imposed previously.
Speaking to the BBC, Warwickshire Police’s Gary Hollis said, “Motorists who have already had their cases dealt with by the courts, conditional offers of fixed penalty or speed awareness courses are advised to take independent advice regarding how this affects their individual cases.”
The Department of Transport has now approved the use of the variable speed limit signs, and they have been subject to the usual enforcement action since 1 January 2013.
Our motoring defence solicitors based in London are specialists in defending speeding charges and challenging speeding convictions and can help you. Please contact Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.