Text driver faces jail over death

[Lemon Eddy]

I wonder what the general opinion would have been if the cyclist had dismounted and was killed while walking across the road.

If he was crossing the road when other traffic were on green, then I'd have still thought he was an idiot, and had contributed to his death

If he was walking it at a crossing that was at red/amber to traffic, then I'd think he was completely blameless.

 

[jæd]

I wonder what the general opinion would have been if the cyclist had dismounted and was killed while walking across the road.

That would be a different situation, where only one person was in the wrong... (Depending on the circumstances)

 

[The Groke]

The point is that it matters hugely. Your simplistic analysis that if you hit something it's down to you is just wrong. A driver is expected to exercise sufficient care, and make allowance, to deal with all that is reasonably foreseeable. Not "all", all that is reasonably foreseeable. If it were any other way, no-one would ever go anywhere.

Therefore a driver is not really expected to position their vehicle, and adjust their speed so as to take account of a potential vehicle ignoring a red cross light (though an driver trained to advanced level would always do so). Any attention they do devote to the issue will be (and should be) way down the list of priorities after things like looking out for pedestrians, looking out for turning vehicles, choosing an appropriate lane and being able to stop safely if the lights change.

And so even not paying attention to the smallest degree may mean that looking for someone going through a red light drops off the bottom of the list - something that the majority of drivers, the majority of the time never do anyway.

And so her offence, whilst quite rightly proven and quite rightly about to be punished, but the fact that someone died is hugely dependent of the fact that HE committed an offence she was quite entitled not to expect. What if she HADN'T been textingm, but had still been speeding - would you still want her taken out and shot? What if she hadn't been texting or speeding? What then?

The blame is shared, no matter how much you wriggle.

Can't argue with that.

I don't think any of the rest of you can - convincingly - either.

IN summary:

Texting speeding driver = idiot.

Jumping red lights = stupid.

No one is saying that the cyclist deserved to die, no-one is saying that the woman shouldn't be punished, but the cyclist was also in the wrong in this scenario and his actions contributed to his death arguably as much as those of the negligent driver. The fact that he came off worse doesn't change that.

The above is not a pro-car or anti-cyclist rant, just a simple statement of fact.

If people actually want to waste their time arguing over degrees of blame on this one then I can settle that too as I have just worked it out:

The woman was 40.00% to blame.

The cyclist must also shoulder 40.00% of the responsibility

Finally, the Red light is 10% at fault.

Can't argue with the maths.

 

[The Groke]

You don't half spout some bullshit. Your line of argument is tantamount to the rape defence of "she was asking for it cos she had a short dress on"

Except that it isn't.

At all.

Not even a little bit.

 

[The Groke]

I wonder what the general opinion would have been if the cyclist had dismounted and was killed while walking across the road.

As that didn't happen in this instance, does it matter?

 

[_angel_]

Can't argue with that.

I don't think any of the rest of you can - convincingly - either.

IN summary:

Texting speeding driver = idiot.

Jumping red lights = stupid.

No one is saying that the cyclist deserved to die, no-one is saying that the woman shouldn't be punished, but the cyclist was also in the wrong in this scenario and his actions contributed to his death arguably as much as those of the negligent driver. The fact that he came off worse doesn't change that.

The above is not a pro-car or anti-cyclist rant, just a simple statement of fact.

If people actually want to waste their time arguing over degrees of blame on this one then I can settle that too as I have just worked it out:

The woman was 40.00% to blame.

The cyclist must also shoulder 40.00% of the responsibility

Finally, the Red light is 10% at fault.

Can't argue with the maths.

That only makes 90.

 

[tommers]

That only makes 90.

that was the gag.

 

[beeboo]

Suppose I'm on my bike going along at 20mph. A driver pulls out from a side road without looking. Their fault! But if I can stop in time without crashing into them, but don't because I wasn't paying attention or just couldn't be arsed to brake, it's blatantly my fault too.

By the way, I believe this is the junction in question, an unpleasant bit of road: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Sou...pn=0.001373,0.004184&t=h&z=19&iwloc=addr&om=0

The news article said she looked to her right and saw stationary cars in Mountbatten Way, which can only mean she came up the road from the south east. It's a big open junction with a shallow angle, and IMO it would be difficult to have an accident there unless you really weren't looking.

The article I read suggested that investigators were baffled as to why she hit the cyclist (ie why she didn't see him) until they checked her mobile phone records.

I agree that the cyclist was a fool to be going through a red light on a traffic junction, but from what I've read it suggests that if the driver was paying attention to the road the accident wouldn't have occurred.

 

[_angel_]

that was the gag.

i am slow today

 

[citygirl]

That only makes 90.

and 10% for fateful bad timing...both being in the wrong place at the wrong time

 

[dream_girl]

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!"

And he probably had an iPod on too.

And lycra - the bastard!

Burn him!!

 

[i_hate_beckham]

So you think the young man on a bicycle who was killed by the car driver was a twat. Nice.

The fact that he is dead doesn't make jumping a red light an untwatish thing to do.

 

[Catlady]

KeyboardJockey Posting (having problems with Login so using other halfs logon)

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.

Yeah I've done that and its bleeding scary. Not so bad if you are sitting in stationary traffic or a clear motorway at night (as I don't go more than 45mph that is an extra safety factor ) but not a good thing to do in principle and I definitely wouldn't do it in modern fast car.

As an aside the rules regarding phones don't appear to apply to cb radios and other communication devices where the conversation is simplex ie each person in the conversation has to take their turn as it was proved by govt studies that this is far less distracting than a duplex ie like a phone conversation.

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

Agreed

 

[Cobbles]

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.

How - if the cyclist hadn't been breaking the law then they wouldn't have been in the car's path.

Who's to say that even if the motorist had been within the speed limit and not texting, that they would have been able to avoid the idiotic light-dodger?

 

[Jografer]

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.

It's the rules, innit...

 

[mauvais]

How - if the cyclist hadn't been breaking the law then they wouldn't have been in the car's path.

Who's to say that even if the motorist had been within the speed limit and not texting, that they would have been able to avoid the idiotic light-dodger?

Me - I live here & I went through that junction this weekend. Horrible road for cycling but very good visibility.

What if the cyclist had gone through on green/amber and simply taken their time getting through?

 

[Mr Smin]

Me - I live here & I went through that junction this weekend. Horrible road for cycling but very good visibility.

What if the cyclist had gone through on green/amber and simply taken their time getting through?

Amber means Stop



[declaration of interest: former cycle commuter, current emergency motorist]

 

[detective-boy]

Your line of argument is tantamount to the rape defence of "she was asking for it cos she had a short dress on" imo. cyclists apologentia my arse

Bollocks. Wearing a short dress is not an offence (let alone which causes significant danger to others). Jumping a red light is. Cyclists apologentia QED.

 

[soulman]

Bollocks. Wearing a short dress is not an offence (let alone which causes significant danger to others). Jumping a red light is. Cyclists apologentia QED.

Captain Bollocks is back again.

 

[detective-boy]

Amber means Stop

And Green (for the car) means proceed if / when safe, not "Go" (i.e. they would be expected to make allowance for any vehicle (or pedestrian) crossing the junction as the lights changed.

 

[i_hate_beckham]

Captain Bollocks is back again.

He is talking complete sense unlike many others on this thread.

 

[soulman]

captain bollocks Vs many others

 

[scifisam]

I wonder how they know that the cyclist ran the red light? CCTV? Otherwise, how would they be certain he didn't just cycle too slowly for some reason?

Anyway, even presuming this is true:

Southampton Crown Court heard that the accident happened at the junction of Mountbatten Way and West Quay Road. The victim, scaffolder Jordan Wickington had paused at the lights in Mountbatten Way but then cycled through them when they were still red.

He was about two thirds across the junction when he was struck at 45mph by Coultas who was driving out of West Quay Road to see her estranged husband and her young daughter.

That's makes it sound like he checked for approaching cars and decided (wrongly, and illegally, of course), that it was safe. He made it two-thirds of the way across. If the driver had been going more slowly, she wouldn't have crossed the junction at the time she did. So her speed was important.

I do feel for her too - causing a death in such a stupid way, probably being sent to prison away from her young daughter. But I guess that's what happens when you text and speed while in possession of a big piece of fast-moving metal.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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!"

If you run a red light and end up in front of a vehicle that has the right of way, then it is the fault of the cyclist.

 

[scifisam]

If you run a red light and end up in front of a vehicle that has the right of way, then it is the fault of the cyclist.

Even if the driver's texting and speeding? It wouldn't have happened otherwise (given how far across the junction he'd got).

The joint culpability should reduce the sentence, yup, but it is joint culpability.

 

[i_hate_beckham]

Even if the driver's texting and speeding? It wouldn't have happened otherwise (given how far across the junction he'd got).

ARGH!!!! Everyone stop presenting opinion as fact.

 

[scifisam]

ARGH!!!! Everyone stop presenting opinion as fact.

Fine. It seems extremely likely, given how far he'd got across, that he wouldn't have been killed if she hadn't been speeding.

Happier?

I guess pleading 'not guilty,' telling lies and calling someone else before calling the ambulance does make it all seem worse. I mean, she's going to have to live with the guilt of what she's done - but all that doesn't make it seem as though she feels particularly guilty about it.

I'm still not certain a custodial sentence is the best thing - but what else is there?

 

[mauvais]

I wonder how they know that the cyclist ran the red light? CCTV? Otherwise, how would they be certain he didn't just cycle too slowly for some reason?

Witnesses behind him, presumably.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Even if the driver's texting and speeding? It wouldn't have happened otherwise (given how far across the junction he'd got).

The joint culpability should reduce the sentence, yup, but it is joint culpability.

Yes, the speed, texting of the driver makes him/her partially at fault, but I'd think the majority of the culpability would rest with the bike person who ran a red light.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

[scifisam]

Yes, the speed, texting of the driver makes him/her partially at fault, but I'd think the majority of the culpability would rest with the bike person who ran a red light.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

Well, whatever the balance of blame you'd apportion to him, he's certainly been punished for it. She should be punished for hers, too.