Text driver faces jail over death

[swampy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7222690.stm

A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she fatally injured a cyclist has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Cyclist Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries after he was struck by Kiera Coultas's car in Southampton in February 2007.

Coultas, 25, who denied the charge, has been released on bail to be sentenced at the end of February.

The judge at Southampton Crown Court warned her she may be jailed.

Following the crash Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, was taken to Southampton General Hospital where he later died.

His sister, Laura, said the past year had been "extremely hard".

"The loss of Jordan is a pain that will stay with us for ever," she said.

"He was a bright, intelligent and beautiful person who will be sorely missed by everyone who knew him.

"We are pleased with the outcome of this trial and hope Jordon's death will prevent or deter others from using their mobile phones whilst driving."

Sgt Alison West, of Hampshire Constabulary's road death investigation team, recommended drivers switched off their mobile phones during journeys.

"It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards involved," she said.

"In this particular incident, it transpired from a phone analysis that there was phone use close to the time of the incident."

The number of times I've seen drivers using their phone oblivious to all else around them

The cyclist did run a red light though!

 

[editor]

She was apparently speeding and the fact that she denied the charge probably didn't help.

 

[pinkychukkles]

The cyclist did run a red light though!

Doesn't say that in the BBC report, is that info from a local paper?

 

[soulman]

No sympathy from me for the driver. At the very least she should have her licence removed for the remainder of her life.

 

[mauvais]

Doesn't say that in the BBC report, is that info from a local paper?

Aye, http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/lat...driver_guilty_of_causing_death_of_cyclist.php

 

[trashpony]

I loathe seeing people on their phones while driving. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

 

[editor]

There's still loads of fuckwits using their phones as they drive.

 

[Radar]

I loathe seeing people on their phones while driving. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

I doubt it.

The police have been nailing people for this for years now, and its still going on. Riding around the city and on the commute you can stiil approach someone from behind, notice something wrong with their road positioning or speed that sets the auld spidey sense tingling, and when you pass them they're on the fucking phone

The power of "It wont happen to me" eh ?

 

[Herbsman.]

The news article that I read said that she was doing 40-45 in a 30 zone.

 

[detective-boy]

I loathe seeing people on their phones while driving. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

I loathe seeing cyclists riding through red lights when there is other traffic about. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

(If he had done this in front of a motorbike, the outcome would quite possibly have been death or serious injury for the motorcyclist and absolutely no comeback on the cyclist.)

 

[detective-boy]

The news article that I read said that she was doing 40-45 in a 30 zone.

Another fatality down to speed then ... despite the fact it was actually probably fuck all to do with speed in the great scheme of things (or, at very best, speed was third after (a) riding through a red light and (b) using a phone whilst driving)

 

[lighterthief]

The cyclist did run a red light though!

For me this is one of the reasons I dislike fellow cyclists jumping red lights - it gives people a legitimate opportunity to place blame on the cyclist: "So the driver was speeding and sending a text message - but the cyclist jumped a red light!"

 

[Herbsman.]

Another fatality down to speed then ... despite the fact it was actually probably fuck all to do with speed in the great scheme of things (or, at very best, speed was third after (a) riding through a red light and (b) using a phone whilst driving)

Maybe he wouldn't have died if she was doing 30. Who knows.

 

[mauvais]

The fact that he went through a red light is fairly irrelevant to what happened - if she was on a mobile phone, it could have been any hazard.

 

[soulman]

I loathe seeing people on their phones while driving. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

Me too.

 

[soulman]

I loathe seeing cyclists riding through red lights when there is other traffic about. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

(If he had done this in front of a motorbike, the outcome would quite possibly have been death or serious injury for the motorcyclist and absolutely no comeback on the cyclist.)

Have you got something to say about what actually happened here? The death of another cyclist.

 

[trashpony]

For me this is one of the reasons I dislike fellow cyclists jumping red lights - it gives people a legitimate opportunity to place blame on the cyclist: "So the driver was speeding and sending a text message - but the cyclist jumped a red light!"

I wasn't there but it's a fucking stupid thing to do. Perhaps this getting so much coverage will also teach cyclists that as well.

 

[snadge]

Phones and cars are a bad mix.

coupla years ago I was motorway driving and I got a text, instead of waiting and pulling off and stopping to check it, I decided to try and read it, total distraction.

Look at phone, look at road, look at phone, look at road.... I then flung the phone to the floor realising what an idiotic thing I was doing.

I don't even have a hands free in the car, If my phone rings when I am driving, I'll return the call when I next stop.

If this silly cow was trying to text in a built up area at 40mph she deserves more, especially denying it.

 

[MightyAphrodite]

people can be fuckin idiots.

especially behind the wheel.

 

[Herbsman.]

I loathe seeing cyclists riding through red lights when there is other traffic about. I'd hope this would make some of them think twice.

(If he had done this in front of a motorbike, the outcome would quite possibly have been death or serious injury for the motorcyclist and absolutely no comeback on the cyclist.)

So if a motorcyclist hits a cyclist, the motorcyclist is likely to die but nothing would happen to the cyclist?

 

[soulman]

Have you got something to say about what actually happened here? The death of another cyclist.

Nothing

 

[Stobart Stopper]

She was apparently speeding and the fact that she denied the charge probably didn't help.

She was speeding, and using her phone so that makes her a fucking idiot, she deserves to go to prison IMO.

 

[detective-boy]

Maybe he wouldn't have died if she was doing 30. Who knows.

We do, however, know for sure that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't gone through a red light ...

 

[Geri]

Maybe not. But what if a child had run out in front of her? If you are speeing and texting, you can't be aware of what's going on around you.

 

[detective-boy]

The fact that he went through a red light is fairly irrelevant to what happened - if she was on a mobile phone, it could have been any hazard.

No. It isn't. HE was the hazard. HE went through a red light. SHE has a quite legitimate claim that, no matter how distracted her attention, she was perfectly entitled to find HIM an unexpected hazard.

They both committed significant traffic offences. If he had lived, he could quite possibly have faced charges for going through the red light.

In civil law, an insurance claim would undoubtedly be settled on the basis of shared blame - at least 50:50 if not more fault attributed to the cyclist.

You cyclist apologentia had better get your stocks of outrage in for when she gets a significantly reduced sentence from what she might have expected if he hadn't committed a serious offence himself ... (my money is on no more than 12 months, possibly even a suspended)

 

[detective-boy]

Have you got something to say about what actually happened here? The death of another cyclist.

Yes. I've said it. But I'll spell it out again for the hard of thinking.

It's very sad. He was partially responsible for his own demise by committing a serious traffic offence. She committed a serious offence as well and she should be punished appropriately. She will no doubt get a lesser sentence because of his contributory offending. That is unfortunate, but, in the circumstances of the case, just.

 

[editor]

You cyclist apologentia had better get your stocks of outrage in for when she gets a significantly reduced sentence from what she might have expected if he hadn't committed a serious offence himself ... (my money is on no more than 12 months, possibly even a suspended)

You seem to be forgetting the difference between a vulnerable cyclist and a speeding texting fuckwit safely encased in a metal box.

Bigger danger, bigger responsibility, bigger punishment.

 

[detective-boy]

So if a motorcyclist hits a cyclist, the motorcyclist is likely to die but nothing would happen to the cyclist?

If you tried reading through eyes unaffected by your prejudice, you would see that I said "possibly" not "likely". I also used the word "comeback", not "nothing". I was referring to any sort of criminal or civil finding.

I said that because (a) a motorcyclist would quite possibly have had sufficient opportunity to miss the cyclist altogether; (b) in doing so they would be quite likely (I use that word deliberately, having been there) to come off; (c) a motorcyclist flying off their bike at 30mph and hitting something (even the road, let alone lamposts, other vehicles, etc.) is quite likely to receive serious injuries or die; (d) a motorcycle flying down the road on it's side at 30mph is quite likely to be written off (and it may cause significant damage or injuries to other, entirely innocent, third parties); (e) even if the cyclist was collected, they would most likely be deflected by the motorcycle, leaving them with less serious injuries, because a motorcycle, being of less mass than a car, has less energy which is transferred to the cyclist in a collision and, being a lot narrower, is far more likely to catch them a glancing, as opposed to full-on, blow.

And as they would (probably) have no insurance because they don't have to and they may provide false details or even not stop (because they have no obligation to and there are no registration marks for a witness to note) there is no guarantee that anyone will even be able to trace them and hold them to account to the limited extent the criminal law allows, or in civil law.

 

[detective-boy]

Maybe not. But what if a child had run out in front of her? If you are speeing and texting, you can't be aware of what's going on around you.

Who's saying you can?

Who's saying she isn't culpable to some very significant extent?

Who's saying she shouldn't be convicted of a serious traffic offence?

Who's saying she shouldn't be punished?

What the fuck is it with U75 and this "If you're not 100% for me, you're 100% against me" mentality. It's pathetic.

 

[detective-boy]

You seem to be forgetting the difference between a vulnerable cyclist and a speeding texting fuckwit safely encased in a metal box.

Congratulations on a splendid example of emotion-tugging (and prejudice revealing) descriptors ...