Unfortunately the almost pathologically anti-cyclist UK media appears to have given a very one-sided report on this unfortunate incident. It has been reported elsewhere that the girls may well have been playing `chicken` with the cyclist as he rode along the road and after he tried to pass through a gap they had left one of the girls stepped back into his path at the last minute.

OK, so the cyclist was also at fault and could have done more to prevent the collision from happening. However, I have read plenty of similar cases where someone playing `chicken` with a car driver was hit and most of the blame was placed squarely on the person hit. Also, would a motorist who tried to pass through a gap in such a manner, and who gave an audible warning first, and who had slowed down to 17 Mph similarly face a `dangerous driving` charge. I very much doubt it, especially given that in cases where a driver has killed someone after trying to squeeze through a gap that wasn’t there (for example bullying their way pat a cyclist on a narrow road or in the same lane when overtaking), with the victim playing no active part in the collision, the driver usually faces no more than a `careless driving` charge followed by a small fine and often not even been served with a ban.

I totally agree with your comments. If it were a car driver who 'killed' the girl, there would be no calls for a 'change in the law' concerning cyclists. But because it was a cyclist, well it seems to be a different story. As usual.

And today I read in Metro (London) that lorry driver Kashmir Nahal, who pulled out on a junction and hit and killed a cyclist, was only fined £275 and no prison sentence.

I think if this cyclist was actually cycling on the pavement, then he should be charged with manslaughter and go to jail. But that also shoud apply to drivers. Killing somebody with a car, when it's the drivers fault, should be changed from "dangerous driving" to simple and plain manslaughter, with a jail sentence.

There are various issues here. Should this cyclist's isolated behaviour result in changes of the law regarding cyclists? Of course not. Are the laws fair? Possibly not. However, should we defend the actions of the cyclist? Definitely not. Even if the girl was drunk and playing chicken with the bike (although as I understand it, this is not clear) it is the responsibility of the cyclist to ride responsibly - not shout a warning and ride on through. If that means slowing, swerving or even stopping, then so be it. Responsible riding means letting go of your ego at times and not arrogantly sticking to "your rights" when the situation is clearly dangerous.

giant mancp wrote:

`it were a car driver who 'killed' the girl, there would be no calls for a 'change in the law' concerning cyclists. But because it was a cyclist, well it seems to be a different story.`

Quite so. What we see at work here - especially in right-wing papers such as `The Daily Mail` is classical hierarchical-authoritarian psychology at it’s worst. (And we would do well to remember that such psychology is the bedrock of political fascism, especially given the direction the political climate in the UK has moved in recent years).

When it comes to low-status `out groups`, such as cyclists, the behaviour of even one errant cyclist is seen to be wholly representative of all cyclists (`they are all the same`) justifying `harsh punishments` directed at the group as a whole. On the other hand the deviant behavior of members of a higher-status or dominant social group ( such as motorists) is regarded as being unrepresentative of the groups, no matter how widespread it is, and as in no way justifying actions which would affect the group as a whole. Hence it is argued that the deviant behaviour of even a minority of cyclists demands the imposition of `zero tolerance` policing methods and higher penalties, whilst at teh same time the enforcement of the law as it affects drivers is held to be nothing more than `the persecution of the beleaguered motorist`.

The Transport Research Laboratory published a major study a few years back entitled ` Drivers Perceptions of Cyclists` which gives some interesting insights into the status of cyclists in the UK as a minority out-group. Will Storr writing in the Guardian summed up this study well when he said:

`A recent report for the government commissioned by the Transport Research Foundation found that drivers treat cyclists as an 'out-group'. According to social-identity theory, this means that there is a multi-forked bias against us, which takes the form of that pernicious trident of hate - discrimination, stereotyping and prejudice.

So, in the head of a typical driver, subconsciously and automatically, things like these happen: the behaviour of the worst cyclist is used to judge them all; any cash the council visibly spends on them seems maddeningly unfair; any accident is the cyclist's fault; when making a decision, the motorist puts the needs of other motorists first; any behaviour at all that is 'different' to the driver's own is wrong. And so on. These are precisely the same primeval mental sparks that lead to football hooliganism, gang warfare and racism. Provocative and hateful newspaper reports about 'two-wheeled terrorists' merely stir up tribalism - basic, brutal and bad. It's the most dangerous and atrocious human impulse there is.`

We need compulsory helmet use among pedestrians, had she been wearing a helmet she'd still be alive . . . this appears to be the solution offered by many in cyclist/motorist collisions, no need to educate road users.

This is my, somewhat badly written, letter to The Guardian on this subject:

I am most perturbed by the above article in yesterday's Guardian

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:PsuNVw3tkqsJ:www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/09/ukcrime+cyclist+fine+guardian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

You seem to have taken a very similar stance to The Daily Mail on this. Like The Daily Mail you also fail to mention that Rhiannon had been drinking - and it may well be that alcohol played a not unimportant part in her accident. That she had been drinking was reported in The Telegrapgh. Two cans of Stella Artois. 5.2% alcohol. Wifebeater stuff. A girl of 17. Daytime.

Walking in the street, as reported by the BBC - and in your article:

"We think Rhiannon was probably a few inches, or a foot, into the road and then she moved towards the pavement," said Sgt Mahon."

Not ON the pavement, but "MOVED TOWARDS" the pavement. So she must have been in the road. So when Mr Howard "hit" her it must have been while she was in the road.

So who was at fault? One cyclist who was cycling in the road or the nine friends who were walking in the road?

The BBC comes up with the father saying: ""He is an arrogant, vile little man." ", yet The Telegraph gives "The court heard that after hitting Rhiannon, Mr Howard had put her into the recovery position." Not one of her "eight ... friends", but the arrogant, vile Mr Howard.

You give your stance away be vilifying the cyclist by using "escapes with fine", while perhaps the correct headline would be/should have been:

DRUNK GIRL IN ROAD STEPS IN FRONT OF BIKE AND ENDS UP PAYING WITH HER LIFE.

To then file the article under CRIME seems even odder.

If you want to see what Verney Close looks like on google maps:

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=gmail&q=verney%20close%20buckingham&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

you'll notice it is a cul-de-sac. Anyone would be hard pushed to get to full speed down such a short stretch of road!

But it seems that you at The Guardian you have made your mind up and have joined all the others in vilifying Mr Howard.

You also report, for example, "He shouted at the youngsters to "move, because I'm not stopping" but rode into Rhiannon, Aylesbury Magistrates Court heard." yet The Telegraph gives it slightly different: "Jason Howard, 36, was allegedly heard shouting "move because I'm not stopping".

It is bad enough that Rhiannon's parents have lost a daughter. Of course it is. But anyone care to figure out exactly why she was drinking in a (The Telegraph) "skatepark" with friends during the day?

I should think that Rhiannon's parents have some serious soulsearching to do. But then it is so much easier to blame someone else.

Mind you, if that Mr Howard can spend money on a (The Mail) "£4,750 custom-built bicycle" then there must be something to get out of him. Surely!?

(signed)

I since then found this - and found it rather odd

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2273214/Family-of-teenager-killed-by-cyclist-call-for-change-in-law.html

"Sgt Dominic Mahon of Thames Valley Police said he could have been travelling at up to 17mph when he struck Rhiannon. "

yet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2263354/Cyclist-knocked-down-and-killed-teenage-girl%2C-court-hears.html

"The court heard that Howard, of Western Avenue, Buckingham, was travelling at between 23 mph and 17 mph down the road and was captured on CCTV. "

Bit odd that... bit very odd!

quote

If you want to see what Verney Close looks like on google maps:

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=gmail&q=verney%20close%20buckingham&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

you'll notice it is a cul-de-sac. Anyone would be hard pushed to get to full speed down such a short stretch of road!

But it seems that you at The Guardian you have made your mind up and have joined all the others in vilifying Mr Howard.

-----

And if you actually bother to check out the close in person you'll see that it has a fairly steep section at the Market Hill end down towards the library.

And if you checked with the council you'd know that at the time of the incident the pavement on the right side (if you're looking at Google maps) of Verney Close was closed due to the renovation of the Library and Council Centre so most pedestrians were walking in the road at that point.

But it seems that you have made your mind up by looking at a 2-d representation of a road on one particular occassion without recourse to actually checking out the place for real...

Ah well, it's probably unlikely that you'll be down that road as there are no red lights to jump...

Whilst it is clear that the full details of this tragedy have not come out - least of all in Britain’s anti-cyclist press - it seems likely that the actions of this cyclist were, in themselves, no more reprehensible than those displayed by thousands of drivers every day. However, I would like to emphasise that in pointing out that he acted much like many an `arrogant` and reckless driver I have seen and encountered is NOT to excuse his behaviour in any way!

Despite the claims of some that he was riding on the pavement, `deliberately` ran the girl down and so on, the police evidence indicates that he was riding on the road, encountered a group of girls walking in the road, shouted a warning to them and then tried to pass through a gap near the kerb, with the victim stepping into this gap at the last minute.

Now, imagine a similar scenario where a group of cyclists are riding along a road equipped with cycle paths along each side (for the sake of argument lets also assume that one path was out of use due to road works). A motorist approaches them and cannot pass as they are, as motorists like to say, `all over the road`. The driver blows his horn at them as if to say `get out of my way` and continues, attempting to drive through a gap between the riders. At the last moment one of the riders moves into his path and is hit and killed. I would suggest that in such a scenario the actions of the driver and the victim would be interpreted in a very different manner. The horn blowing would be taken a legitimate warning, to be ignored at the riders peril, the cyclists themselves might well be labeled as being the `arrogant` party for not riding in single file or using the cycle path. (Who know the cyclists might have been summonsed to court for not doing so had they been riding in Shropshire, as happened in the case of Daniel Cadden!) and if the driver were doing 17-23 Mph I very much doubt that they would end up facing a dangerous driving charge.

A similar picture could be drawn relating to all those drivers I have seen blowing their horns as a `get out of my way` gesture whilst carrying on a the same speed when encountering children playing in the road, let alone deliberately `playing chicken`.

Again, I am not trying to defend the cyclist in the least, merely pointing out just how differently the actions of this person have been interpreted than they probably would have been if the individual involved had acted in a similar manner whilst driving a car. An anti-cyclist bias and the `loaded` use of language in the way this story has been reported is apparent in every report of this unfortunate incident which I have seen. One favourite is the way the Daily Mirror’s headline claimed that the girl was killed by a `speeding cyclist`. To use the term `speeding` in such a way when the rider was doing 17-23 is particularly galling when the car-centric press so often argues that motorists should be allowed to do double that speed in a built-up area without fear of prosecution, with any driver fined for doing 35 Mph plus in a 30 zone being a victim of `the persecution of the beleaguered motorist.

The cyclist is crazy, he must have faced jail time. I do understand the girls got in his way, but sometimes it just takes some common sense. Lets bring different scenarios like the other user just posted before me; what if it would have been a group of little kids, what if it was a group of mentally challenged, or maybe the person was deaf.

Lets just go to the extreme; all the group is highly intoxicated and high on ecstacy, it does not matter the condition of the group who blocked the cyclist. It is the cyclist's call to make a responsible judgement, to see safety as main priority, it would just have taken a few extra seconds of braking, or even just getting off the bike and walking around them and everyone would have gone peacefully home. But the cyclist decided to push his luck and for one very bad judgement call someone has died, this is very terrible indeed.

psiturbo wrote: `The cyclist is crazy, he must have faced jail time... the cyclist decided to push his luck and for one very bad judgement call someone has died, this is very terrible indeed.`

As do thousands of motorists every year, and yet THEY are rarely jailed for their `bad judgment calls`. Often they don’t even have their driving licence suspended! ! Again, consider that motorist in North Wales who, as a consequence of quite willfully driving at a speed excessive for the conditions and on three bald tyres, killed 4 cyclists and was fined just 180 pounds! Innumerable similar examples could be given.

If only drivers would accept that the safety of others, especially children, the elderly and so on should also be THEIR primary responsibility! One again, I am not excusing the riders behaviour, merely pointing out that most other road killings should be met with the same sense of outrage as this one clearly has, but this is rarely the case largely because those killings occur at the hand of motorists - a powerful and socially dominant group - rather than a member of a demonized, low-status social `out group`.

Once all the details have come out let this rider be metaphorically crucified if the facts justify it. However, lets then act with the same outrage every time a driver kills someone after making a `bad judgement call` or breaking the law! In fact given just how frequently drivers kill others in comparison to cyclists our outrage should be all the greater in the case of motor vehicle associated road deaths!

(Around 2 pedestrians per year die in the UK after being hit by a cyclist. Some years there are no such fatalities and some years more cyclists die as a result of being unseated by a careless pedestrian who steps into their path as they cycle along the road than pedestrians die as a result of being in a collision involving a cyclist, as was the case in 2004. In comparison approaching 700 pedestrians die every year after being hit by a motor vehicle and around 35,000 are injured!).

To a large degree this story reinforces the impression that cyclists are held to carry a greater duty of care towards pedestrians than do motorists, even though the users of motor vehicles pose by far the greatest risk.

The comments made to the effect that the cyclist should have `veered` out of the way of the girl (potentially into the path of following traffic…) bear a lot of similarity to those made in the case of Bath cyclist Richard Brady who was found guilty of careless cycling when he was unable to `swerve out of the way` when a pedestrian stepped straight into his path. The prosecutor in this case argued that the cyclist was at fault because the speed he was traveling at meant that 'he was unable to swerve out of the way'. However, no such responsibility appears to be placed on motorists and in fact the faster a driver is going the greater the responsibility which is placed on the pedestrian to take proper observations and to not `get in the way`. For example, in stark contrast to the case of Richard Brady, in 2005 the courts awarded motorcyclist Amy Ratter damages of £184,728 against 60 year old pedestrian Margaret Halcrow when the pensioner stepped into the road in front of her machine whilst she was riding along at 60 Mph. Similarly, when, again in 2005, Liverpool footballer Steve Finnan overtook a taxi in a 30 Mph zone at a police-estimated 58 Mph, hitting a pensioner on the opposite side of the road and inflicting injuries that the pensioner died from the police brought no charges whatsoever!

I find it sad and pathetic that again we have this two sided law. As a (ex) motorist I understand how hard it can be driving, and how hard it can be to spot people and cyclists sometimes. However, that does not explain this ruling.

The motorist that was speeding on an icy road, driving while disquilified and using an unroadworthy car, crashes into and kills 4 cyclists, says that the council should have gritted the roads and gets off with a £180 fine. What about the drivers responsability to drive at a safe speed, maintain his car perhaps...?

I was hit by a car a few months ago, suffering a few nasty cuts to leg and arms, buckled wheel and a smashed helmet (a £110 s-works 2-d), and where was the car driver? Off down the road and gone. I didn't get chance to see a number plate. At least this "arrogant and vile little man" was caring enough to warn of his passing and care for the victim after the accident.

p.s. I also noticed in the coverage of the case that "A 16-year-old boy, who was also walking with Rhiannon...told the court that he did not see the collision himself but when he turned around moments later, he described the defendant's bike as being on the pavement.

He told the court that in his opinion the defendant had mounted the pavement."

No possible chance that the bike had landed on the pavement after the collision then?

p.p.s. The Law is clear: If you want to kill someone, use a car. It's cheaper with such tiny fines, easier cos you can do it on the way to work, and almost no chance of going to prison.

Rant over, I'm off for a bike ride.

In any of the media reports I have seen, the scenario was not explained to this full extent. I thought he must have been on a cycle path and they were walking along 9 abreast in the opposite direction. Which seems to be the norm around where I live, often with hoods up and potentially a ipod (no, it is not the Bronx...yet!?) Seems to be a bit late in the day, for the father to be playing the strong parenting card. 17 years old and drinking beer in a public park...but, she was a doting daughter according to the national press. That makes everything alright then!

I cannot imagine how this even got to prosecution stage, although a very sad incident - she was certainly not without somekind of blame for how it happened.

Just another incidence of self-accountability being non-existent in this strange society.

If this had been a cardriver and the victim a cyclist people would have been calling for him to be sent down. What he did was deliberate and inexcusable.

It's a pity that the 'dangerous cycling offence doesn't allow inprisonment - he should be serving time for what he did.

I've been in the situation of cycling past/through drunk and aggressive delinquents, if you stop or slow down you get twatted.

It's basic "dog psychology", if you show any fear or even courtesy then they have the upper hand, you make yourself a victim.

I don't know the circumstances of this situation, but I can imagine similar happens across the country a hundred times a day, it's just tragically unfortunate that someone has lost their life in a wholly avoidable incident.