lust2luv Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Four years in prison for killing a cyclist who rode through a red light, because she'd been using her phone "close to the time of the incident"? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm Surely there must be more to the case against her than the BBC are reporting? Shouldn't they have to prove she was using a phone at the time of the impact and that the accident was her fault to convict her of death by dangerous driving? If someone cycles out in front of you and you happened to have used your phone whilst driving a couple of minutes prior, you are a dangerous driver, but your actions didn't cause that person's death. Could just be bad reporting from the Beeb of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 That is a bit worrying. It was obviously wrong and dangerous for her to be texting when driving, but considering the cyclist broke more rules than she did, four years in prison is unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multics Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 The sentense is a bit OTT or maybe it's just the BBC not covering the whole story. The guy crossed in red, I mean what else do they want?! And no solid evidence that she was using her mobile at the time of impact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 He broke through a red light AND wasn't wearing a helmet. So if you send a text whilst at home, then immediately get in your car and some pill*ck like that runs out in front of you half a mile from your house, would that classify as dangerous driving due to "phone use around the time of the incident"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Thats not right, there has to be something that is not being told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukeyboy2k Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It depends on how you comprehend the report really. This paragraph can be understood a number of ways: "It occurred at precisely the worst time because you failed to see the cyclist who was crossing the road having gone through the red light and travelling as you were at 45mph you hit him and he suffered injuries from which he later died." Are we sure the "text driver" didn't jump the red light (i.e. not the cyclist)? The report also implies she was travelling at 45mph in a 30mph limit. Many cyclists annoy me on the road, especially ones that do jump red lights and don't wear helmets, but if the car driver was texting, did jump a red whilst speeding and subsequently killed the cyclist, then 4 years is nowhere near enough IMO. I agree that it is a rubbish piece of reporting - not that i could do any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It was definately the cyclist that jumped the red light; "Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries when he went through a red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas' car in Southampton in February 2007." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 All good IMHO. a. She had been texting at the time of the accident - the police examined her phone records and found she'd sent a reply to a text she'd only just recieved. b. She was doing 50% over the speed limit. c. She killed somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukeyboy2k Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It was definately the cyclist that jumped the red light; "Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries when he went through a red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas' car in Southampton in February 2007." I think I saw a news report on the TV a few weeks ago about the same incident, and this said the same thing. So I believe it, and agree with you that the cyclist jumped the red light. I was merely trying to demonstrate that the BBC report wasn't great and that people can very easily be misquoted or misunderstood. The report almost contradicts itself IMO. I think it is very difficult to prove people are texting whilst driving due to discrepancies between time keeping devices, time stamps on messages etc. Doing 45 in a 30 isn't so bright though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I wonder what the sentence would have been if the mobile was not involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz1 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 alsoyou can be sitting in your car and send a text, but sometimes it could take a while to go because of bad signal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lust2luv Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Considering she'd already sent the text, she probably wasn't actually still texting at the time of the incident. Was at 7am in February, so visibility wasn't great. Cyclist had dark clothes on. There was a cycle path available. She did admit she was speeding. Was a 30mph dual carriageway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I would imagine they must have had evidence to prove that she was texting at the time of the impact. She either sent the text seconds before hitting him OR they found her phone in the footwell of the car with a half written text on the screen. You have got to be 100% sure they were guilty to get that kind of sentence!! Either way, you can go out and punch and old woman in the face, nick her purse and get community service!! I don't understand why punishments are not based on whether the act was fundamentally evil or just negligent.... Sorry the guy died but going through a red light on a bike is really asking for trouble.... H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I wonder what the sentence would have been if the mobile was not involved... ...or what it would have been if he'd been wearing a helmet and lived. If the cyclist was wearing a helmet and lived, she'd probably have got a lesser sentence because suddenly texting and speeding is not as bad! Stupid justice system! Either way, you can go out and punch and old woman in the face, nick her purse and get community service!! I don't understand why punishments are not based on whether the act was fundamentally evil or just negligent.... You're soooo right! Unfortunately, I know the answer The problem is that the results are irrefutable. The cyclist died. No-one can argue with that, so it's easy to make a court case if the "crime" is judged based purely on the end result. The problem with judging intent rather than results (ie. charging people for "fundamentally evil" acts) is that evil, scum lawyers are always there ready to find holes in the laws and put up an argument to demand proof of intent, which is impossible. Did I mention that the evil lawyers and the current justice system are a large part of the mess that we're in today IMO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I read this a while ago in the local rag. From what I remember, the reply to her ex was recieved by him after the accident and the police deduced from that that she was actually sending it at the time. Something like that anyway - I remember the evidence was pretty damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 You have got to be 100% sure they were guilty to get that kind of sentence!Everybody found guilty in a British court is "100% guilty". That's why there are no grounds for appeal if a jury finds someone guilty on the basis of evidence which is obvious nonsense to everyone else. The jury system is presumed to be infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuohy Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It reminds me a little of the truck driver who got points and a fine (probably losing his job) for taking his switched off phone out of his pocket and putting it on the dash board... Could have been a bar of chocolate and that would have been fine. I do wish there were some common sense in law enforcement in this country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Everybody found guilty in a British court is "100% guilty". That's why there are no grounds for appeal if a jury finds someone guilty on the basis of evidence which is obvious nonsense to everyone else. The jury system is presumed to be infallible. True.... But this is a case where unless there is concrete evidence that she had the phone in her hand at the time of impact, it would be very difficult to prove even with a jury. If there was doubt, (which a good barrister would find quite easliy if the details reported are correct) then I can't understand how she got 4 years.... Mate of my dads tw@tted his wife repeatedly with a baseball bat repeatedly and only got the same sentence for murder..WTF?? H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 She wouldn't have received four years for driving at that speed and using her phone if she hadn't hit anyone. It's difficult to understand how the offence was interpreted in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I think she should be punished for using her phone and speeding...the death was the fault of the cyclist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I think she should be punished for using her phone and speeding...the death was the fault of the cyclist. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lust2luv Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 As far as I can see, the only way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was texting at the time is if a) she admitted it b) someone witnessed her doing it or c) the exact time of the incident is known and there's a phone record that a text left her handset within 5 seconds of the incident (even then she may not have had a signal until that point and may have hit send 30 seconds earlier). Even if her handset was found in the footwall mid-text (which as it hasn't been mentioned in the press, I assume is not the case), she could have started composing that text 30 seconds before when sat at a red light (in which case give her 3 pts and a fine) or 5 minutes before when she wasn't driving. And you can hardly say this accident would have been inconcievable if she wasn't distracted, given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Maybe there was CCTV in the area, wouldn't be a suprise as Britain 1% of the world's population has 20% of the world's total CCTV systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Because she was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving so she was given a prison sentence. She was texting on her phone and speeding and didn't see the cyclist (the dangerous driving bit) The cyclist jumping the light-well losing his life is probably punishment enough wouldn't you say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 There's still far too many drivers that continue to use a phone whilst driving, it's about time they introduced a harsher punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now