YET ANOTHER SLAP ON THE WRIST.
====================================

A milkman who was cycling to start his late-night milkman shift and was only months away from retirement was killed by a speeding learner driver in Manchester, who has now been jailed for 14 months for causing death by careless driving and driving
without a full licence.

63-year-old Roger Parris was cycling to work in Eccles from his home in Salford before his 1AM shift when he was hit from behind by Ravi Singh-Ratthore of Old Trafford who was driving at speeds of up to 58mph.

Singh-Ratthore was in his Volkswagen Golf and was following the driver of a BMW, when he hit Parris, according to Mirror (link is external).

The driver did not stop initially and kept on driving, before returning to the spot. Parris, a grandfather, was rushed to Royal Salford Hospital, but died an hour later of his injuries in December 2021.

The police later found that the driver only had a provisional licence and was making a phone call at the wheel of his car when the collision happened. The prosecutor also mentioned that Parris had complained about the state of the cycle lane to his
partner earlier.

Minshull Street Crown Court, hearing the case, sentenced Singh-Ratthore to 14 months in prison after he admitted causing death by careless driving and driving without a full licence.

John Kennerley prosecuting said: “He was a milkman who made this journey frequently. He was wearing a helmet, bright reflective clothing and had lights fixed on the front and rear of his bike. As a result, we can be sure that he was clearly visible to
road users.

“Before the incident, he had complained to his long-term partner about the poor state of the cycle path on Centenary Way in Old Trafford.

“The defendant was driving a Silver Volkswagen Golf and travelling alongside a BMW 1 Series at the time of the incident. Before the incident, the occupant of the BMW had got out of the vehicle and interacted with the defendant when their cars were
parked up.

“The defendant then drove behind the other car in the run-up to the incident. They were passing over the Manchester Ship Canal on Centenary Way at around 12:50am. The road was a dual carriageway with a clearly marked 40 mile per hour speed limit.

“Mr Parris was cycling on the road at the time, rather than the cycle path - perhaps for the reasons we heard earlier. It was still dark at the time of night, but the road was well lit with street lighting.

“The defendant's speed was calculated to be travelling at between 52 and 58mph. Phone evidence showed that he was using his phone to make a call before the incident.

“This call started at 12:40am and lasted approximately 13 minutes. This means he was on the phone at the relevant time of the incident. He had a hands free system installed in the car, but we cannot say whether he was using it at the time.

“When the BMW driver saw Mr Parris, he applied his brakes. The defendant was immediately behind Mr Parris, but he was oblivious and drove straight into the back of him. It was clear he did not see him because he only applied his brake lights after the
collision.

“Another road user who was driving by thought she saw rubbish in the road before realising it was a person. She stopped her car, put her hazards on and called 999.

Mr Parris's brother Andrew said: "If he had not been killed by this man's callous and carelessness, my brother would have continued to outlive us all. Now I am missing a brother who has always been there for me.

Andrew also described his brother as fit and zesty, and said that he was planning to retire in Spring 2022, just a couple of months before his death.

“The biggest impact of all will be on his three months and two-month-old grandchildren, who have been completely denied any memory of having their pops,” he added.

Mr Parris' daughter Heather said in a statement: "Losing someone just days before Christmas is a pain that lingers.

“Every time I hear a bike bell or see a cyclist, I am reminded of that fact. His wisdom and humour has now been replaced by a silence that echoes throughout our lives. I have since had to sell the family home, the sale of which was going to fund his
retirement by the sea.”

https://road.cc/content/news/learner-driver-jailed-killing-63-year-old-cyclist-302371

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/07/2023 01:44 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

YET ANOTHER SLAP ON THE WRIST.

Fourteen months in prison (unsuspended)?

====================================

A milkman who was cycling to start his late-night milkman shift and was only months away from retirement was killed by a speeding learner driver in Manchester, who has now been jailed for 14 months for causing death by careless driving and driving

without a full licence.

63-year-old Roger Parris was cycling to work in Eccles from his home in Salford before his 1AM shift when he was hit from behind by Ravi Singh-Ratthore of Old Trafford who was driving at speeds of up to 58mph.
Singh-Ratthore was in his Volkswagen Golf and was following the driver of a BMW, when he hit Parris, according to Mirror (link is external).
The driver did not stop initially and kept on driving, before returning to the spot. Parris, a grandfather, was rushed to Royal Salford Hospital, but died an hour later of his injuries in December 2021.
The police later found that the driver only had a provisional licence and was making a phone call at the wheel of his car when the collision happened. The prosecutor also mentioned that Parris had complained about the state of the cycle lane to his

partner earlier.

Minshull Street Crown Court, hearing the case, sentenced Singh-Ratthore to 14 months in prison after he admitted causing death by careless driving and driving without a full licence.

There's a specific offence of causing death by driving without (or
otherwise than in accordance with) a driving licence. That charge would
seem to have been a slam dunk, had it been proffered. Perhaps it was,
but the illiterate road.cc just didn't bother reporting it.

And since he did not have a relevant driving licence and was driving
otherwise than in accordance with a driving licence, he too should only
have been riding a fairy-cycle. It's all he was entitled to do, isn't it?

John Kennerley prosecuting said: “He was a milkman who made this journey frequently. He was wearing a helmet, bright reflective clothing and had lights fixed on the front and rear of his bike. As a result, we can be sure that he was clearly visible

to road users.

“Before the incident, he had complained to his long-term partner about the poor state of the cycle path on Centenary Way in Old Trafford.
“The defendant was driving a Silver Volkswagen Golf and travelling alongside a BMW 1 Series at the time of the incident. Before the incident, the occupant of the BMW had got out of the vehicle and interacted with the defendant when their cars were

parked up.

???

“The defendant then drove behind the other car in the run-up to the incident. They were passing over the Manchester Ship Canal on Centenary Way at around 12:50am. The road was a dual carriageway with a clearly marked 40 mile per hour speed limit.
“Mr Parris was cycling on the road at the time, rather than the cycle path - perhaps for the reasons we heard earlier. It was still dark at the time of night, but the road was well lit with street lighting.
“The defendant's speed was calculated to be travelling at between 52 and 58mph. Phone evidence showed that he was using his phone to make a call before the incident.
“This call started at 12:40am and lasted approximately 13 minutes. This means he was on the phone at the relevant time of the incident. He had a hands free system installed in the car, but we cannot say whether he was using it at the time...

...so the phone call is of no relevance.

Not, of course, that that excuses that qualified cyclist, who was
purportedly in control of a motor vehicle without an adequate driving
licence. And presumably there'll have been an insurance offence as well,
as well as the offence of causing death by driving otherwise than in
accordance with a driving licence.

“When the BMW driver saw Mr Parris, he applied his brakes. The defendant was immediately behind Mr Parris, but he was oblivious and drove straight into the back of him. It was clear he did not see him because he only applied his brake lights after

the collision.

“Another road user who was driving by thought she saw rubbish in the road before realising it was a person. She stopped her car, put her hazards on and called 999.
Mr Parris's brother Andrew said: "If he had not been killed by this man's callous and carelessness, my brother would have continued to outlive us all. Now I am missing a brother who has always been there for me.
Andrew also described his brother as fit and zesty, and said that he was planning to retire in Spring 2022, just a couple of months before his death.
“The biggest impact of all will be on his three months and two-month-old grandchildren, who have been completely denied any memory of having their pops,” he added.
Mr Parris' daughter Heather said in a statement: "Losing someone just days before Christmas is a pain that lingers.
“Every time I hear a bike bell or see a cyclist, I am reminded of that fact. His wisdom and humour has now been replaced by a silence that echoes throughout our lives. I have since had to sell the family home, the sale of which was going to fund his

retirement by the sea.”

https://road.cc/content/news/learner-driver-jailed-killing-63-year-old-cyclist-302371

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

QUOTE: The police later found that the driver only had a provisional licence and was making a phone call at the wheel of his car when the collision happened. ENDS

Are learner drivers actually getting LESSONS on using mobile phones when driving now?
That would explain why you see these lawbreaking morons everywhere these days.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

eburtthebike | 4491 posts | 1 hour ago
6 likes

In what other field of human activity in this country would you get such a minor sentence for negligently killing someone? Especially when you aren't even qualified to do the activity, and know you aren't. The choice to drive while not qualified isn't
negligence, it was a completely deliberate act.

Whether he was using hands-free or not doesn't make any difference to the distraction caused by the call, a fact very well known to the government when they declined to make hands-free illegal. Scum.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Avatar
Robert Hardy | 138 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes

The definition of dangerous driving is ridiculously lax. This should have been manslaughter charge there should be nothing careless about driving more than 25 percent faster than the maximum speed limit nor using a mobile phone at the wheel nor driving
when you gave not proven the minimum skills to do so by passing a driving test.

These are all examples of dangerous driving and should be much more strictly defined as such. Perhaps we need motoring offences to be defined and judged by AI systems rather than by law makers and a judiciary that seem to have more than half an eye on
the deficiencies of their own road conduct.when setting standards and judging others.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

eburtthebike | 4491 posts | 1 hour ago
6 likes

In what other field of human activity in this country would you get such
a minor sentence for negligently killing someone? Especially when you
aren't even qualified to do the activity, and know you aren't. The
choice to drive while not qualified isn't negligence, it was a completely deliberate act.

Scum.

14-year-old killer on e-scooter gets…Referral Order

A 14-year-old has been sentenced for causing the death of a woman while on
a privately-owned electric scooter.

The boy, who cannot be named, hit Linda Davis on a pavement in Rainworth, Nottinghamshire, on 2 June.

The 71-year-old grandmother died six days later in hospital.

At Nottingham Youth Court on Wednesday, he was handed a 12-month referral order. Police say Mrs Davis is thought to be the first pedestrian to die in
an e-scooter collision in the UK.

The teenager had admitted causing death by driving a vehicle otherwise than
in accordance with a licence, and causing death by driving a vehicle while uninsured at a hearing in February.

Avoidable tragedy

The boy was also disqualified from driving for five years.

Both of his parents have been given a six-month parenting order and ordered
to pay the prosecution costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £26.

District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles
of any type.

"This mode of transport should not be there. This tragic incident was avoidable."

The judge told the court the teenager's father had bought the e-scooter for
him six days earlier and "in that short time", the defendant had already fractured his thumb while riding it on a separate occasion.

The court heard Mrs Davis was about to go into a charity shop in Southwell
Road East when she was struck, hitting her head as she fell.

Her husband of 52 years, Gary, came out of another shop to find her on the floor, with the defendant on the phone to emergency services.

The court heard the defendant said at the scene he was travelling at 20mph (32km/h), but investigations had not been able to calculate the speed of
the e-scooter at the time of the crash.

Kelly Shooter, prosecuting, said it was believed Mrs Davis could not have
been seen by the boy before being hit as he travelled along the pavement
past several cars parked along the kerb.

She said: "According to a witness, Mrs Davis stepped out from behind a Ford Transit van into [the boy's] path.

"It is likely that Mrs Davis, as she walked behind it, would not have been
able to be seen, so it seems very likely that Mrs Davis did step out from behind the van into [the boy's] path."

'My heart was broken'

In a victim impact statement, Mr Davis described his wife as "my spark and
the centre of my world". Mrs Davis's daughter, Rebecca Williams, said her mother was "a very youthful, lively and amazing nan".

She said: "To watch your children watch someone they love die is a pain I
would not wish on anyone. "My heart was broken and I never expected to lose
my mum in such a devastating way.

"I understand that accidents happen.

"But I also understand that every time anyone gets on an e-scooter, whether
it be a legal or illegal one, you are taking your actions in your own
hands, so expect consequences if something happens."

It is illegal to use privately-owned e-scooters on pavements, footpaths,
cycle tracks and cycle lanes on roads.

To be used on public roads they must conform to requirements, including
being insured, taxed, and used with relevant safety equipment.

However, the Department for Transport's website states "it is likely that
they [riders] will find it very difficult to comply with all of these requirements", meaning their use on public roads would effectively be a criminal offence.

They can be used on private land, with the landowner's permission.

About 1,300 e-scooters have been made available for hire in Nottingham
where a government-approved trial is taking place.

These are legal on public roads in some areas of the city.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64892358>

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Avatar
cyclisto | 660 posts | 3 hours ago
0 likes

I would very hardly leave the safety of a segregated bike lane. My daily commute has a bicycle path part that seems three times worse than the one shown in the picture here, but I prefer to use it and go a little slower since being segregated seems safer.

The protected cycleways in Trafford Park are generally very poor and give way at every single side road, no matter how minor. It's generally quicker and more convenient to not use them. I was driving along Barton Dock Road yesterday and the cycleway in
one place was completely obstructed by overgrowth. I don't mean a bit - I mean completely.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/07/2023 05:05 pm, swldx...@gmail.com [the Chief Chav], answering
SPIKE's post, wrote:

Avatar
cyclisto | 660 posts | 3 hours ago
0 likes

I would very hardly leave the safety of a segregated bike lane. My daily commute has a bicycle path part that seems three times worse than the one shown in the picture here, but I prefer to use it and go a little slower since being segregated seems

safer.

The protected cycleways in Trafford Park are generally very poor and give way at every single side road, no matter how minor. It's generally quicker and more convenient to not use them. I was driving along Barton Dock Road yesterday and the cycleway

in one place was completely obstructed by overgrowth. I don't mean a bit - I mean completely.

Thank you for answering Spike's post.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If the defendent had a full driving licence and was legally allowed to be behind the wheel of a car, I could just about accept - and I do mean barely accept - this was careless driving... maybe.

However, my understanding of the definition of dangerous driving is that the standard of driving falls well below the accepted standard, and the actions taken were deliberate / a conscious choice.

In this case we have;

- Speeding - conscious choice, potentially close to 50% above the speed limit.

- Mobile phone use - I appreciate that it would be hard to prove if using hands free or not, but again, a conscious choice

- Driving without a valid licence - conscious choice to get behind the wheel having not met the legal standard of driving to do so.

Other than for the convenience of the CPS, why is this not a death by dangerous driving situation?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/07/2023 06:12 pm, Simon Mason [the Chief Chav] wrote:

If the defendent had a full driving licence and was legally allowed to be behind the wheel of a car, I could just about accept - and I do mean barely accept - this was careless driving... maybe.
However, my understanding of the definition of dangerous driving is that the standard of driving falls well below the accepted standard, and the actions taken were deliberate / a conscious choice.
In this case we have;
- Speeding - conscious choice, potentially close to 50% above the speed limit.
- Mobile phone use - I appreciate that it would be hard to prove if using hands free or not, but again, a conscious choice

But NOT illegal unless hand-held. And that cannot be proven.

There are plenty of legitimate charges to levy. Why waste energy
fretting about something which isn't illegal?

- Driving without a valid licence - conscious choice to get behind the wheel having not met the legal standard of driving to do so.
Other than for the convenience of the CPS, why is this not a death by dangerous driving situation?

You forgot driving without valid insurance (automatic when driving
outside the terms of a licence, even if there is a policy which looks as
though it is in force).

Why did you forget that?

Is it because chav-cyclists like yourself don't like the subject of
third party insurance being raised?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

the little onion wrote:

You would have to add to this list the fact that they appear to have been, judging by the evidence presented here, involved in a car chase. Again, a conscious decision to go off in pursuit of someone else.

Does "interacted with" mean that they shouted at each other and threatened violence (chase), or does it mean that the one challenged the other that he could get to <some place> before him (race)?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)