"Distracted by an interesting lorry"

[Karla]

Draft 2: this will be sent later today if you don't suggest something better.

Dear Hugh Bayley,
         I write regarding the recent conviction of Peter Barraclough for the death of Leonard Grayson last August, of which I am sure you are aware – it has been reported by the BBC, Guardian and Yorkshire Post.  I am concerned at the excessively light sentence that has been handed down to Barraclough, which is inconsistent with those handed down for non-motorised killings, and does not reflect the gravity of the offence.  I believe his charge of 'careless driving' was inappropriate, and I write to ask that you take action to win justice for those killed on the roads.

Len Grayson was killed while competing in a time trial on the A19 near Thirsk, when he was hit from behind by Barraclough, who has now been convicted of careless driving and received a suspended 5 month sentence, an 18 month driving ban and 250 hours community service.  I am extremely worried by the laxity of this sentence; I was riding in the same event, so know something of the conditions.  Visibility was perfect and the road was straight and flat; there was no excuse for not seeing a cyclist.  Barraclough admitted seeing the “Cycle Event” signs at the start of the course, and he would have ridden past many fellow competitors, all of whom were wearing large, fluorescent race numbers, before he hit Grayson.  There were no mitigating factors: he simply drove into the back of another road user and killed him, because he wasn't looking where he was going.

As a fellow competitor, it strikes me that had I swapped numbers with Len Grayson before the start, I would not be here to write this now.  I am even more concerned that as a cyclist, I am apparently not under the protection of the law.  How is it possible that someone can kill another person through sheer negligence, with no mitigating factors, yet not go to jail?  Surely this is completely unjust.

Police investigators concluded that Barraclough could see Grayson for nine seconds before the collision, yet he said he was looking at a lorry in the opposite carriageway.  Given this, his standard of driving must surely fall well below that of  'careless', which “falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.” to at least 'dangerous', which “must fall far below what would be expected … ”.  His sentence follows the CPS guidance for driving “arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors”, yet a 9 second distraction, i.e.  280 metres at 70mph – is surely far from 'momentary'.  The CPS, however, is well-known for nearly always prosecuting for the lesser offence of careless driving, and thus do the perpetrators escape with far lighter punishments than they would receive for killing someone by any means not involving a car.  I am not alone in this concern: the CTC's 'Road Justice' campaign focuses on exactly this issue.

I ask that you raise this matter in the house.  Drivers who kill should be charged with appropriate offences, not the least serious on the book.  The CPS “Guidance on charging offences arising from driving incidents” should be rewritten more strongly, so that it is impossible for a perpetrator to escape so lightly, through inappropriate charging, for killing a fellow human being due to gross negligence at the wheel.  I would be most gratified if you did this, as it seems to me and my fellow cyclists that under the law as it currently stands, our lives are not worth protecting. 

Yours sincerely

[Ham]

Excellent

[mcshroom]

Very good.


Very trivial and probably worth ignoring, but I might just be tempted to switch the distance he would have travelled to yards, basically because: -

a) it keeps the unit system consistent
b) it's just over 300 (280m is about 306yds) so it sounds even further

[Karla]

Funnily enough I was thinking that too, for both those reasons.

[matthew]

Draft 2: this will be sent later today if you don't suggest something better.

Dear Hugh Bayley,
         I write regarding the recent conviction of Peter Barraclough for the death of Leonard Grayson last August, of which I am sure you are aware – it has been reported by the BBC, Guardian and Yorkshire Post.  I am concerned at the excessively light sentence that has been handed down to Barraclough, which is inconsistent with those handed down for non-motorised killings, and does not reflect the gravity of the offence.  I believe his charge of 'careless driving' was inappropriate, and I write to ask that you take action to win justice for those killed on the roads.

Len Grayson was killed while competing in a time trial on the A19 near Thirsk, when he was hit from behind by Barraclough, who has now been convicted of careless driving and received a suspended 5 month sentence, an 18 month driving ban and 250 hours community service.  I am extremely worried by the laxity of this sentence; I was riding in the same event, so know something of the conditions.  Visibility was perfect and the road was straight and flat; there was no excuse for not seeing a cyclist.  Barraclough admitted seeing the “Cycle Event” signs at the start of the course, and he would have ridden driven past many fellow competitors, all of whom were wearing large, fluorescent race numbers, before he hit Grayson.  There were no mitigating factors: he simply drove into the back of another road user and killed him, because he wasn't looking where he was going.

As a fellow competitor, it strikes me that had I swapped numbers with Len Grayson before the start, I would not be here to write this now.  I am even more concerned that as a cyclist, I am apparently not under the protection of the law.  How is it possible that someone can kill another person through sheer negligence, with no mitigating factors, yet not go to jail?  Surely this is completely unjust.

Police investigators concluded that Barraclough could see Grayson for nine seconds before the collision, yet he said he was looking at a lorry in the opposite carriageway.  Given this, his standard of driving must surely fall well below that of  'careless', which “falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.” to at least 'dangerous', which “must fall far below what would be expected … ”.  His sentence follows the CPS guidance for driving “arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors”, yet a 9 second distraction, i.e.  280 metres at 70mph – is surely far from 'momentary'.  The CPS, however, is well-known for nearly always prosecuting for the lesser offence of careless driving, and thus do the perpetrators escape with far lighter punishments than they would receive for killing someone by any means not involving a car.  I am not alone in this concern: the CTC's 'Road Justice' campaign focuses on exactly this issue.

I ask that you raise this matter in the house.  Drivers who kill should be charged with appropriate offences, not the least serious on the book.  The CPS “Guidance on charging offences arising from driving incidents” should be rewritten more strongly, so that it is impossible for a perpetrator to escape so lightly, through inappropriate charging, for killing a fellow human being due to gross negligence at the wheel.  I would be most gratified if you did this, as it seems to me and my fellow cyclists that under the law as it currently stands, our lives are not worth protecting. 

Yours sincerely

One minor correction where you state the driver will have "ridden" past other competitors unless he was on a motor bike then that should read driven.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Mr. B.

[Canardly]

Spot on.