- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Driver who killed cyclist had been checking WhatsApp messages leading up to collision
A man who killed a cyclist after driving into the back of him on a dark and unlit road had been reading and composing WhatsApp messages leading up to the incident, reports The Northampton Chronicle. John Michell, a 26 year old accountant, pleaded guilty to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. He was jailed for 21 months and disqualified from driving for three years.
On the evening of January 9, 2014, 57-year-old Mark Greenwood was cycling home from where he worked at a charity called Abbeyfield in St Albans when he was hit from behind by Michell’s Volkswagen Golf. Prior to the incident, Greenwood had been seen by a number of motorists riding along the A5183 towards Redbourn. He was said to have been cycling slowly and in a straight line, near the kerb, wearing a high-vis jacket.
The court heard that in the two minutes and 21 seconds leading up to the collision, Michell had used his mobile phone to compose three messages using the mobile messaging application, WhatsApp, and had read two messages he’d received in return. The messages, described as ‘trivia’, were with a woman he’d met online earlier but had not yet met in person.
Coincidentally, the two men had lived in the same Redbourn apartment block. Michell subsequently moved to Northampton and gave up his career in accountancy. His barrister, John Dye, said he was genuinely remorseful and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder following the incident.
Judge Andrew Bright QC said he was satisfied the cause of the collision was that Michell had been distracted by his mobile phone and described the use of mobile phones by drivers as being like an epidemic. In handing down the sentence, he said that he had a duty to send a message that those who use mobile phones when driving could expect prison sentences if their actions resulted in loss of life.
In the wake of Greenwood’s death, St Albans Cycle Campaign repeated calls for conditions to be made safer for cyclists on Redbourn Road.
Committee member Mike Hartley said the group supported local councillors’ efforts to reduce the speed limit on the road and had also submitted a request to the county council to convert the footway into a shared pedestrian and cycle route.
Earlier this year, a driver who admitted exchanging texts with his girlfriend before his van hit and killed an 18-year-old cyclist was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving and of causing death by careless driving. The parents of the victim, Daniel Squire, subsequently called for those who text behind the wheel to be banned from driving as a matter of course.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- mitsky 13 sec ago
Probably worth submitting the footage to the police and DVSA so there is a record of the driver's mental state and standard of driving....
- Rendel Harris 5 min 13 sec ago
Hmm, the one who stole $105,000 or the one who effectively stole hundreds of millions of dollars ...
- hawkinspeter 22 min 28 sec ago
Well, a large amount of traffic going along e.g. Beaufort Rd would be people not living in St George but merely travelling through the area and...
- Steve K 1 hour 25 min ago
It is, apparently, "packed with high visibility reflective details on back and shoulder."
- Rendel Harris 30 min 14 sec ago
The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) was one of the most important battles of the ancient world, where 7,000 Greeks, led by the Spartans under...
- ktache 10 hours 47 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- biking59boomer 13 hours 24 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
Add new comment
46 comments
I have a scale I use to impress on people how dangerous motor vehicles are. I hold up a 9mm pistol round and tell them that this is a car at 35 km/hr. I hold up a 20 mm cannon round and tell them this is a motor vehicle at 50 km/hr. I grunt and wheeze and barely lift a 155 mm cannon round an tell them this is a motor vehicle at 90 km/hr. That usually gets through thick skulls pretty well ~X(~X-( But not always.
I dare say he won't enjoy prison, and it will change his life forever. Driving ban should be much longer.
Everyone, write to your MP and demand
-the law to be reviewed, its a joke
-launch a hard hitting education campaign to ram it home that using your mobile device whilst driving makes you a stupid, ignorant dick
Kill someone with your vehicle whilst using a phone? You have killed someone. Killed them. They are gone.
5 years prison + driving ban for life. You take a life so you lose that privilege for life. You want to argue against phone records? Fine. 10 years in prison.
No excuses. No extenuating circumstances or health considerations. You were using a phone and driving a car at speed.
It can and should be that simple.
The only suitable sentence for Michell is a bullet in the head as this is effectively what he did to Mark Greenwood.
This piece of scum John Michell does not deserve to breath the same air as the rest of us.
and the slaughter continues
Frivolous maybe, but will his ban run from the end of his time served? Or from the sentencing date? Or worse still, back-dated to the incident???
Oh yes, +1 for the inductance loop to stop phones operating as messaging devices in vehicles. What on earth did we do before they were invented??
Personally, I don't think that the custodial sentence is that out of order - in fact, I'd say it tended to the severe. The ban, however, is laughable.
It should be simple: if you kill or seriously injure someone as a result of dangerous driving, you lose your license to drive for good. If it's careless driving, you lose your license and must face an extended retest every year (at your expense) to get it back. If you are caught driving while under a ban, you are jailed under the same tariff as assault with a deadly weapon.
Oh, and everyone, without exception, faces a retest every, say, 2 years.
Irrespective as to whether anyone has been injured, what we need to change the culture of poor driving is very long bans for people caught driving dangerously, which would include using a phone at the wheel, and prison (rather than the usual further ban) for anyone found to be driving while disqualified.
Life time driving bans should be introduced, why as a society are we so scared of not been able to drive? Neither myself or my wife drive and we get by ok, I really am at a lose what this obsession is all about.
PTSD
Perennial Totally Selfish Drivers
If he were genuinely remorseful, he'd be prepared to do a full jail term
If he were genuinely remorseful, he'd be prepared to do a full jail term
Good point. I wonder are there any studies showing how many of these people give up driving?
"diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder following the incident."
Meanwhile his victim has been diagnosed as dead. I suppose at least the driver got *some* jail time.
A man died and if it was due to my negligence I would certainly do the time!!Having been through this recently only for the accused to receive a suspended sentence, unless you have been through it you have no idea.I lost my uncle and feel extremely sad justice was not served.I realise the accused will have to live with it, but at least he gets to live. He is currently being treated as the victim, which further sickens my family . Another total travesty! My heart goes out to Mark Greenwoods family.
cars should be made with a phone blocker in them, somehow
driving is a privilege not a right, the sooner the cps, judiciary and police deal with these cases in that light the better.
be interesting to know when the "remorse" started, was it immediately after the accident or when his Solicitor advised him the evidence against him was such that the best course of action was to plead guilty to the lowest possible charge in an attempt to lessen the sentence.
A solicitor would be negligent not to advise a client of a) the fact that he is likely to be convicted and that b) an early guilty plea will attract a discount.
So the job of a solicitor is to make it easier for a killer to get back on the road sooner? Shit, they make bankers look ethical.
The job of the solicitor is to defend his client. It doesn't matter how reprehensible his actions. Everyone is entitled to a defence and - in case it isn't obvious - we only know who is guilty after the trial is finished, so for the solicitor to do anything but his utmost for his client would be to presuppose the guilt or innocence of the client which would rather knock justice into a cocked hat.
Sorry, but when someone who does something they know is likely to put another human being at risk of death is given a gentle slap by way of punishment, justice is not so much knocked into a cocked hat as dragged down the road into the gutter and stamped on.
And by the way, yes we bloody well did 'know who was guilty' in this case. But apparently neither he nor his solicitor are capable of recognising the magnitude of what he did.
He didn't sentence himself. His lawyer didn't sentence him. The state did. It did so having regard to the evidence, the speeches made by the CPS and defence Counsel and with the benefit of having read a pre sentence report. I don't like the sentence. It's still too low and doesn't send the message. That said, amongst similar type of cases, it's not the worst I've seen.
If you don't like the system lobby your MP to make representations that the sentencing guidelines are wrong.
Have a read here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_...
That's the legal regime which applies. Discount for early guilty plea is up to a third. So the sentence is "about right" in relation to the regime which applies.
That you take issue with a specific sentence has nothing to do with the wider issue of what a defending solicitor's job is.
No, we didn't know who was guilty. If we did, we wouldn't have needed the trial. Trials are expensive, you know, we wouldn't have them if they didn't serve some purpose.
Do you read the Daily Mail?
Claiming PTSD is appalling how do you think his family feels?
"Claiming PTSD" and being diagnosed with it are two different things,surely?
No sympathy for him, though and lifetime driving bans should be handed out as standard in these cases.
Sadly, the people causing these incidents are just normal people, not setting out to kill and destroy peoples lives. They are you, me, your mum and dad, your best friend, the person you sit next to at work. Using a phone is so easy and so ingrained in society that people forget to put them away, and that 'just a quick check cos it beeped' leads to more and more distraction.
What we need is more penalty for using them while driving all the time, not more penalty when unfortunate luck turns it into something terrible like loss of life.
if you drive a car without looking where you are going then it is not 'unfortunate luck' when you hit something or someone but an entirely foreseeable consequence of your inattention and I fail to see why the rest of us should have to share the road, whether we are in a cars, on our bikes or walking, with convicted killers
Pages