Back in May, Bendigo cyclist Tim Ledwidge died following a SMIDSY collision with a ute. Today the Bendigo Advertiser reported on the driver's day in court:

Jeffrey Horton, of Huntly, was visibly distraught during his appearance in the Bendigo Magistrates Court yesterday.

The 40-year-old was charged with failing to give way after his utility hit schoolteacher Tim Ledwidge's racing bicycle on April 28 this year.

The cyclist died a week later in the Alfred Hospital.

Circumstances

Police prosecutor Senior Constable Robert Gibson told the court the collision happened at the intersection of Averys Road and Victoria Street in Eaglehawk about 9pm.

Horton was travelling towards Bendigo when he approached the intersection, moved into the right turning lane and collided with Mr Ledwidge's bike after failing to give way and turning into Victoria Street.

The cyclist has collided with the front passenger side of the vehicle, Sen-Constable Gibson said.

He's then been run over by the vehicle.

And that makes me wonder what speed Horton was travelling around the corner.

…it had been drizzling rain at the time of the crash, and Mr Ledwidge was wearing a reflective vest, a helmet and had lights on his bicycle.

But Sen-Constable Gibson said Horton told police he just didn't see him.

Unroadworthy

Horton was also charged with driving an unroadworthy vehicle because the utility's low-beam passenger headlight, rear brake assembly, horn and windscreen washer were not working at the time of the crash.

Whoa, hang on there! Faulty windscreen washer? On a rainy evening? No effing wonder he didn't see the cyclist and even if he had the faulty brakes would have reduced his ability to stop safely.

What the…?

The prosecution and defence both agreed with Magistrate William Gibb that the incident was an extreme tragedy that had significantly affected the defendant's life.

It would be horrendous, in my view, to be responsible for the death of an individual. Absolutely horrendous, Mr Gibb said.

That's absolutely true—just about everyone would be appalled by such a terrible burden.

The court heard Horton had suffered acute stress since the crash, and that he felt keenly the loss suffered by Mr Ledwidge's family.

It is absolutely abundantly clear to the court that you feel significant pain at the loss of this person's life, Mr Gibb told him.

The court heard that the victim's family had been in contact with the defendant and (presumably) some peace had been achieved there:

It's pleasing to see that the deceased's family attach no blame, the magistrate said.

Although they have every right to feel slighted by the court: Horton, a professional driver for a steel company, did not have his license suspended because Magistrate Gibb reckons

I don't see that the general community having viewed… (Horton) today would see that there's anything to be gained (from that.

It must be tough to be out there driving on the road.

Not half as tough as it can be riding out there on the road. What a totally fatuous thing to say.

Judgement (lack thereof)

So we've got:

  • a (supposedly) professional driver

  • an unroadworthy car

  • a failure to give way

  • SMIDSY despite reflective gear on the cyclist and lights on the bike

  • death of the cyclist

  • forgiveness or acceptance from the victim's family

  • driver tearful in the court room

Total that up and you get sympathetic words from the magistrate, a conviction and a $600 fine.

I don't know anything about sentencing but I understand that the magistrate did have the power to suspend Jeffrey Horton's license, and he should have done so. Let's get this in perspective: Horton is supposed to be a professional driver and yet while driving an unroadworthy vehicle he totally failed to notice an oncoming vehicle that had right of way. I don't want the man strung-up, but surely the amount of culpability there far outweighs his remorse?

Magistrate William Gibb said the court could impose no penalty on Horton that would come anywhere near the remorse he felt.

Maybe but that's no reason not to impose a harsh penalty.

I'm reminded of Schembri's observation from the other day:

The one crucial element always missing from anti-toll campaigns is fear. Every time a driver gets pulled over, the threat of lifelong, irreversible licence cancellation should be front of mind. If you speed, drink, run a red, fail to stop, there it goes - for good.

Or, indeed, if you kill someone. He even sounds like he's reading off my song sheet:

…driving is considered a right rather than a privilege. It ought to be the other way around. Drivers should sweat to keep their licences…It's the very lack of that type of measure that keeps idiots on the road, secure in the knowledge that nobody will care enough to make them suffer when their stupidity claims and ruins innocent lives.

[emphasis added]

Justice was not seen to be done here because Jeffrey Horton was allowed to drive home from court. Justice would have been served if he had been made to do without his car for a while.

Doubly so if he had to get around on a bicycle himself.

Comments

Crowlie

I know this is going to seem really, really callous to a lot of people, but I'm reminded of a comment from a friend today that the guy in the hellride who hit the elderly man should have been charged with murder...

Years ago when I was on a motorcycle, there was always talk that people should ride for a couple of years before being given a car license. Yes, that's looking like a better and better idea all the time.

Treadly and Me

This is part of what I said previously about the Hell Ride collision:

We are appalled when we hear of lightweight penalties handed out to drivers who are responsible for the deaths of cyclists. We should be equally appalled if this rider is punished only with the fine that applies to failing to stop at a red signal. I'm not interested in lynch-mobs or example-making, merely that natural justice should be done…I think any fair-minded person would consider a fine of a few hundred dollars a woefully inadequate penalty for negligently causing the death of another human being.

My argument is just as applicable in this case.

Noel Ledwidge

I have been through similar circumstances when my wife (gwen) collided with a drunk driver travelling in excess of 100mph collided with her vehicle,yep thats right 100mph not kph on the 5/8/2002 on the Maroondah highway at Coldsteam,Total impact speed estimated at in excess of 260KMH,Fortunately she survived after many weeks in the Alfred,one of our best hospitals,Unfortunately this one did not get to court as the other party had a BAC reading of point .2.and did not survive impact

Treadly and Me

I've actually stopped writing as much about traffic collisions because I'm angered so much by the senselessness of it all.

It would be easy to dismiss idiots who drive like that as candidates for the Darwin Award, but sadly all too often they take away or destroy other people's lives as they selfishly make their way to their own unpleasant roadside deaths.

I hope Noel's wife is now fully recovered.

Lia

why dont you try living with killing an innocent person. Thats more than enough to live with that having to deal with the penalties. So whoever wrote "Justice was not seen to be done here because Jeffrey Horton was allowed to drive home from court. Justice would have been served if he had been made to do without his car for a while.

Doubly so if he had to get around on a bicycle himself."

SHOULD SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

Louise Mattuci

Hi I think people reading this should support my campaign for strict liability (penal liability and financial liability).

Strict Liability Concerning Bicycle Car Collision http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-getup-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2431920-strict-liability-concerning-bicycle-car-collision?ref=title

Most of us know of cases where a friend or family member has been hit by a car whilst riding a bicycle. Often it is worse, involving the car driver failing to stop; the cyclist being threatened with violence; the cyclist being unable to recover costs for damage caused; or, as a final blow, the failure of our legal system to assist with following up the case and prosecuting the driver. A recent example of our police failing to protect cyclists has been documented by Bicycle Victoria[1].

The Strict Liability framework forces drivers to be directly and immediately responsible for any injury they may cause. It removes the 'innocent until proven guilty' smokescreen where a perpetrator of injury and damage on our roads can use an excuse as weak as 'but the cyclist rode out in front of me'.

We argue that the current Victorian system removes any responsibility from the individual. The Traffic Accident Commission provides the public insurance scheme that allows a driver who causes injury to remain unaccountable and innocent.

By attributing legal and financial responsibility to road users in proportional to the risks they pose, the roads will become safer and healthier. More people will cycle and health, cost and environmental benefits will be realised.

Internationally, there is a correlation between Strict or presumed liability laws and decreased fatalities (eg in the Netherlands and Denmark [2, 3]). Where these laws exist, higher rates of cycling are visible and injuries sustained per bicycle kilometre traveled are lower.

Changing onus and responsibility is not a substitute for more and safer cycling infrastructure, but it is still a necessary first step to making our roads safer and decreasing the all too regular stories we hear of friends or family members who have been injured by cars whilst cycling only to find justice is not available to them.

1 Bicycle Victoria. Trauma Crash Statistics: Police Bosses Fail on Bicycle Door Death http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/

2 Danish Road Traffic Act §101 in the Traffic Act https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/R0710.aspx?id=139027#Kap16

3 International Traffic and Accidents Database (IRTAD), 2005 and 2010 Annual Reports

facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Strict-Liability-Concerning-Bicycle-Car-Collision/333084976705503