Driver jailed for killing cyclist sent text message 34 seconds before 999 call, phone analysis shows

hutchdaddy wrote:

"Martin claimed he had not seen the cyclist as he was blinded by the sun" This sort of crap should not be allowed, it's driving dangerously from the start. If he was "blinded by the sun" he must slow down to a safe speed.

It's an admission of incompetence and should be treated as such.

You wouldn't be able to pass a driving test if you used that as an excuse for poor driving, so why should it work for a more serious case?

(I think too many driving cases seem to be deciding on the intention/malice of the driver rather than their competence. e.g. momentary distraction, otherwise law abiding, didn't see)

It's fortunate the police examined his phone records as otherwise this excuse would have probably worked.

It may be a function of when the crime was committed... I think the max sentence was increased for crimes which occured after June '22

According to the report Jimmy linked to, the maximum went up from 14 years to life, but the solicitor expresses disappointment that he didn't even get the old maximum - he got 12 years for killing a pregnant woman by driving one handed at 123mph while using his other hand to film it. 

And leaving 2 young boys in comas, with their long term futures uncertain.

cyclisto wrote:

A worrying situation is that the car industry enhances somehow reduced awareness with some recent changes. Fat A-pillars than increase passive safety for car occupants, but reduce visibility, complex infotainment systems, with touch screens that require eyes off the road.

If you add bigger dimensions, much greater horsepower, any safety gains from electronics driver aid may be fully mitigated

A big problem with touch screens is that they're going to be very difficult to use by drivers with eyesight issues (e.g. legally blind, cataracts etc).

Sure but I think (no medical expert here) but these people would already fail health checks for driving.

cyclisto wrote:

Sure but I think (no medical expert here) but these people would already fail health checks for driving.

Have you seen the standard of driving?

To be honest yes sometimes, seems like blind people driving, but I think they are more dangerous the distracted drivers in big numbers, rather the old guys driving super predictably at 10mph.

Yes I understand that there will be many people who will not see well and not being checked, but I think their bigger problem wil be not being able to see the road not their screens.

Also shame to the motor industry that made 500miles electric cars and self driving cars for having forgoten windscreen cleaning technology practically unchanged the last century.

A big problem with touch screens is that they're going to be very difficult to use by drivers with eyesight issues (e.g. legally blind, cataracts etc)

I think HP has received insufficient credit for this analysis of otherwise inexplicable UK driving behaviours. However, he has failed himself to give due weight to the value of car choice as an indicator of criminality and psychopathy issues (MOT expired a month ago)

I'm not a car buff - does that logo represent two pairs of handcuffs?

Rendel Harris wrote:

A copy of this judgment should be sent to every idiot who whines about "vigilantes" reporting drivers for using their devices in stationary or slow-moving traffic, saying "what's the harm?" Clear evidence of the distraction effect that continues even after the phone has been put down.

Condolences to Mr Lawrence's friends and family.

while I agree with the distraction effect

"Analysis of his mobile phone found that the motorist had sent a message 34 seconds before a 999 call was made to report the crash"

34 seconds to put the phone down, hit the cyclist, come to a stop, get out, survey the damage and then call 999 suggests he was likely texting until it was too late to avoid the impact.

wycombewheeler wrote:

"Analysis of his mobile phone found that the motorist had sent a message 34 seconds before a 999 call was made to report the crash"

34 seconds to put the phone down, hit the cyclist, come to a stop, get out, survey the damage and then call 999 suggests he was likely texting until it was too late to avoid the impact.

Not entirely clear from that report if it was actually him that made the 999 call, but agree it seems likely he was still on phone

If he had been dragging him for 70m, I guess he most likely used his phone while driving.

The scenario that he used his phone in a stationary car at a traffic jam, then the traffic stopped, he put the phone down, accelarated while still being distracted by his stationary car phone use and because of that persistent distraction dragged down that unlucky guy for 70m seems unlikely to happen.

It's standard practice in Surrey. And even more prevalent in traffic queues (plenty of them) as it would appear that doesn't count as driving.

Condolences to the family.

It's standard practice in Surrey

Mikey has it easy! There aren't many queues round here, so catching them is difficult, but Lancashire Constabulary refuses to do anything about phone offences anyway, even when they're driving at 40 'on the phone' with good evidence and GPS timing (corresponds within a second with phone network time)

https://upride.cc/incident/kd10wer_porsche_mobilephone/

There's a double whammy effect - when I notice this in my rear view mirror, I have to fight not to let it distract me too...