Distracted driver who crashed into and killed cyclist then claimed infant son was using his phone found guilty

Slime green/bronze, particularly unpleasant close up!

ktache wrote:

An Audi you say. Being driven aggressively you say...

White or grey???

Gold

https://road.cc/content/news/bmw-drivers-most-likely-show-psychopathic-t...

The driver was actually white and grey, about 70 years old.

I agree with Hirsute n the likelyhood of getting caught.
Those of us old enough to remember the roads before automatic speed cameras I reckon about 90% of drivers were speeding (my younger self included), and long mtorway drives were often done at around 90 and invariably saw someone passing at 100+. These days I rarely see anyone much over 80 on a Mway andthe general speed has definetly been reduced.
Now if only the increased income had been used to fund additional traffic cops rather than an excuse to reduce the number

I hardly ever get over 70 now on Mways or trunk A roads. There was a period of at least 2 years where the A12 of M25 or M1 all had average speed cameras due to some form of roadworks. I got so into the habit of putting on the cruise control that I stick with it now regardless of cameras.

Fignon's ghost wrote:

I am surprised the defence went along with such an absurd lie. Did they not model a cross examination? The insurer was prepared to do anything to avoid restitution. This cUNtry Shameful. Despicable. RIP Ms Thomas

You've mixed a few things up there. This is a criminal case, the insurer is not involved. The defence is the defendant. But, I assume, by defence, you mean lawyer (he will have had a solicitor (running the case) and a barrister (doing the trial). 

Modelling a cross examination is not permitted. Witness coaching is not permitted.

So, turning to the incredulity, those are the D's instructions. How do we know this? Because, if the Defendant had told his lawyers that he was doing the things he claimed not to be doing (when he gave evidence) then the only possible outcomes would be a) they would have to withdraw if he said he was going to lie b) he would have been entitled to 'test' the prosecutions version but NOT give his own evidence or c) he would have to plead guilty.

There are loads of rules to what you can and can't do as a lawyer. You can advise them that a jury is unlikley to believe them AND that the evidence is overwhelming but they are entitled to run a defence, however implausible it may seem. And I am glad that they are still able to do so.

Thanks for the informative post. I learned some new things today. While modelling isn't permitted, surely the defendant's legal team are allowed to consider whether the defendant's excuse/story is vaguely likely to hold water under examination? I would have thought the defendant's legal time would advise the defendant to keep their mouth shut on that one. Although perhaps that was the most plausible story they could come up with, despite not being plausible.

The barrister's job is not to invent arguments, but to present the defendant's arguments in the best possible light. This requires a highly intelligent person to suspend disbelief to some extent or else they cannot do their job. If they discover in trial that the argument they put forward is a lie, as opposed to highly implausible they are potentially professionally embarrassed. 

A barrister  must not devise facts or make allegations unsupported by instructions and the evidence. So we can see that from that the story about the child must have come from the defendant, but the clothing argument could have been the work of the barrister based on testimony of the witness.

I do hope you are being cynical.
Have you forwarded this viewpoint to Nick Freeman?

Cycloid wrote:

I do hope you are being cynical.
Have you forwarded this viewpoint to Nick Freeman?

I can guarantee you, whatever your views of Freeman, he doesn't do this either. If a defendant takes the stand and gives evidence, that's the evidence he's told his legal representative. It may sound like a fiction, a lawyer will tell them that, but that's their case.

Now, you get into slightly different territory where a defendant doesn't give evidence (as is their right). In those cases it's possible that the aren't giving evidence because, in effect, they've 'confessed' to their lawyer. So, the only options are no evidence OR the lawyer withdraws. Of course, there may be other reasons for silence.

What lawyers like Freeman do do, (and this was also done here) is push the boundaries to what people might think morally objectionable, such as 'loopholes,' poor witness recall or, things like wearing high vis. This is their job, no matter how repugnant society thinks it is.

bendertherobot wrote:

What lawyers like Freeman do do, (and this was also done here) is push the boundaries to what people might think morally objectionable, such as 'loopholes,' poor witness recall or, things like wearing high vis. This is their job, no matter how repugnant society thinks it is.

I think you more or less voiced my thoughts.
Our adversarial system means that when defending someone who is as guilty as hell, a not guilty verdict becomes a measure of success.
Council telling overt lies in court may not be the done thing, but leading the defendant beforehand certainly is. "Do you think the cyclist may have swerved?"

It was the female passenger giving evidence and the prosecution asked if she was paying as close attention as if she was driving and she answered no.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live-updates-lynwen-thomas...

After reading the reports in the link it occurred to me that a better defence lawyer and a worse prosecutor may well have led to a different verdict. It's a shame the article doesn't mention the judges summary.

The law needs to get serious with these deadly mobile distractions.

Sentencing needs to get tougher if idiots are going to pay attention.

The mobile phone is only one element. The fundamental issue is that drivers do not take driving seriously - it is a nuisance to be tolerated while getting from A to B.

Our club ride nearly got wiped out in a serious incident. It was clear to me that the driver simply was not driving, they must have been in another world. Then I get the incident discussed where a driver is so fixated on a MGIF they've totally ignored more than half a dozen warning indications that say an overtake is wrong.

These are not rare occurrences. The country's drivers and the law needs a reset on what is an acceptable standard of driving.

The starting point should be zero tolerance for mistakes. The whole concept that there are understandable mistakes needs to go, if driving is dangerous, it doesn't need assessing against what some adequate driver might do, it can be an absolute assessment - was that a dangerous thing to do? The momentary lapse should be an aggravating factor not a mitigation - it is an admission that they were not giving their full attention.

The law needs to get comfortable that a licence is a privilege and start accepting that breaking driving laws consistently means no driving is the result. Feet, bike, taxi, bus, lift of a mate are all solutions, some that people have no choice about - I often wonder what those victims of car accidents who are now banned from driving due to physical or brain injury feel when they hear miscreants bemoaning their lives are ruined if they can't keep their licence... let alone the families who have lost loved ones.

Totally agree with this. In my opinion, the rot started 20 years ago in 2002-3, when road policing units were reduced by over 30% in favour of self-funding pyramid schemes aka "safety camera partnerships" - after that there was much less chance of being pulled over by a highly visible and skilled police officer, and the only time someone may have realised that their driving was not right was a S172 NIP in the post 2 weeks later. Driving adequacy just became about a number on a speedometer  

A generation later, hardly anyone seems to give a fig about safe & considerate driving, or in fact, paying VED, and other things like ensuring their vehicle is safe, roadworthy and legal.

The answer has to be along the lines of making the DVSA standard driving test a bit harder, followed by 2 years of something like P plates with restrictions, followed by a further test similar to IAM/Roadcraft training & test, otherwise you go back to L plates and start again. 

When I did IAM 16 years ago, the parting shot from the (class 1 police driving instructor) examiner was along the lines of "less than 1% of other drivers have done this, use what you've learned." In fact much of it applies to cycling, in terms of observation, anticipation, road position, hazard awareness, etc. 

So in summary, we need to get the traffic police we used to have back doing what they did, and driving education needs to be more about observation and anticipation, rather than just learning to pass an easy test.

Just my £0.02 (and indeed $0.02 by Monday morning). 

I haven't refreshed my IAM training so I feel slightly fraudulent claiming it these days, but the depressing thing about the advanced driving test is that it simply tests that you can drive properly. What are these "advanced" skills? Sticking to the speed limit, keeping a proper distance, use of mirrors and signals, observation, being in the correct gear, estimating the correct speed to go round a corner. There is absolutely nothing in the test that is not a compulsory skill for being a safe and careful driver.

The IAM test should really be the standard one in the UK.  Current one is not really fit for purpose.   Germany has a far higher standard of driving and when we were in the EU there was a move to standardise on that level for EU countries.  

Absolutely. It seems now the case* that "momentary lapse of attention" is less "once a lifetime" but more "once every 20 minutes". And there are clearly lots of people whose basic attitude to task - never mind skills - makes them unfit to drive.

* Maybe always was though? Maybe it's just that there are more drivers now, or we're more aware of it?

I object to the plethora of TV and YouTube presenters who use the driven car as a suitable place to do presentations. Week 1 Strictly had some couple finding out "Their Song" hands off wheel, screams attention.not on the road. The BBC should know better. It's like smoking or no seatbelt, it just sends the wrong message that such behaviour is acceptable. We always scream at American films where drivers are incapable of looking at the road! I'm sure it rubs off, I hate sociable drivers who have to look at you when they are talking, scary.

Good point. And we're back to driving as a party in a car, cyclists "single up" and watch out for crap drivers (including behind you). Remind me of a reason why most people aren't cycling again?