The parents of killed triathlete Daniel Squire have called for those who text behind the wheel to be banned from driving. 18-year-old Squire was riding on the A258 at Ringwould in Kent when he was hit and killed by a van driven by Philip Sinden. Although Sinden admitted exchanging texts with his girlfriend immediately before the incident, he was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving and of causing death by careless driving.
Speaking to the BBC, Daniel’s mother, Tracy, said: "If you are caught drink-driving you lose your licence. No questions asked. For me, if you are either on your phone or texting on your phone you have lost your liberty to drive."
During the trial, the court heard that Sinden had sent 19 texts and received 22 from his girlfriend between 6.07am and 8.32am. He and his girlfriend continued texting until she sent a message at 8.39.49 and he was alleged to have composed a message at around 8.40am which was never sent. Squire was hit at around 8:40am.
Sinden, however, claimed that he had not been distracted by his phone. He said that he had been texting using his left hand, typing without looking at the phone so as to keep his attention on the road. He claimed that Squire had unexpectedly joined the carriageway from the pavement and that this was what had brought about the incident.
Daniel's father, Symon, said that people needed to take responsibility for their actions with regards to mobile phone use in cars. "People need to make a moral stand and say, 'It is dangerous, there are consequences and I don't want to take the risk'."
Tracy Squire said she had been unable to visit Daniel’s grave since the court case. "I don't know how to explain this to him, because he is lying in there and I can't do anything to help him any more. We are right back to where we were on the day he lost his life – nothing has changed."
Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) denied press reports claiming that officers had been instructed to seize mobile phones at all road traffic collisions, but insisted it was taking the issue seriously. It is currently standard practice to seize mobile phones from drivers at the scenes of very serious collisions as part of the information and evidence gathering process.
Add new comment
48 comments
An optional extra to disable all phones in the car while the engine running might be useful - lowers your insurance costs. I could see company fleets going for that.
I really don't see why not? Why should people have 'every right' to use a phone at all times? Some physical system must be developed as it is obvious that enforcement is virtually non-existent.
Because passengers in a car aren't causing any danger by using a phone, and because it's disproportionate to ban all phone use in cars just because of drivers using them. If you want to restrict a right then you need to have very good reason to do it, and at present you don't. Never mind that the technological requirements would be astronomical, in terms of fitting this technology in all new and existing cars, and that disreputable folk would be able to trivially disable it within about 5 mintues of it being introduced and would then just turn it back on for their MOT, same as people do when decatting cars.
I do agree with you but the counter argument might be that a ban would reduce incidence of "wasn't me doing the texting, it was my passenger". Is that an actual problem at the moment? In some places, open alcohol containers are not allowed in cars, for this reason I think.
I assume people have seen @beztweets takedown of the seemingly piss poor prosecution case from the CPS. Long but well worth a read
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wron...
This is a very good read.
Of course it's only one side of the story, but the "Trial Notes" section seems to highlight extremely well what a farce of a trial this was, how the defence relied on muddying the waters and hiding behind the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and how in doing so, the jury lost sight of the most tangible facts of the case.
If there's one thing that I fear, it would be a trial by a jury of your peers. If you think of what the morals, intelligence and socio-political views are of your average person in this country and realise that half of the jury would fall short of this expectation, that is what you would have to deal with on a jury.
I don't understand how the police/courts can possibly enforce a 'no texting while driving' rule when even if you Kill someone, you still get off scott-free.
It does sound an amazing skill, but does it need to be demonstrated in order to be believed?
More importantly, how did he know what he was replying to without looking at the text messages received. The decision is a complete farce.
An even more amazing skill is his ability to read the texts sent by his girlfriend without looking at his phone.
The outcome of the trial is just staggering.
Drivers don't care. The chance of getting caught doing anything wrong is miniscule, and the odds of being convicted in a case where something does go wrong are equally small.
Agree a ban is the only option
Texting while driving - immediate ban and minimum 1 year suspension. If involved in an accident then possible jail sentence. Worse than drink-driving
And if caught a second time, same thing but 5 year ban, and also confiscate the vehicle (regardless of who owns it, owner can sue the driver for losses if relevant) and auction it off.
I honestly don't know who is wish most harm on in this case, the jury of drivers, or Sinden. I hope they all get what they deserve, whatever that might be......... Perhaps at the hands of another driver txting at the wheel, the justice would be poetic at least.
This case makes we so angery I can taste it, like blood in my mouth.
Yep. That works with me.
I'd wish they would give more power to the cyclist
41 counts of mobile phone use at 3 points and £100 fine a time would be a start....
totally agree
Pages