- 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
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)'Speed limits are not a target' says judge after handing suspended sentence to 'dazzled' motorist who killed cyclist training for charity ride
A driver who knocked a Ceredigion councillor off his bike near Aberystwyth, causing him to be hit and killed by another motorist, has been handed a six-month suspended prison sentence and 12-month driving ban. Lowri Powell denied causing Paul James’ death by careless driving and said she had been dazzled by low sun. She was told by the judge that she had been "generally unattentive to the road conditions" and driving “unquestionably too fast” despite being within the speed limit.
On April 11, 2019, James was out training for a charity bike ride. He was riding uphill towards a bend between Waun Fawr and Comins Cochon on the A487 near Aberystwyth, when he was hit by the wing mirror of Powell’s car.
He fell from his bike and was then hit by Christopher Jones who was driving behind.
Both drivers told police that glare from the setting sun meant they had not seen him.
Powell said she had lowered the car’s sun visor, slowed down and was concentrating on the road ahead.
She said she had done "absolutely nothing wrong" and there had been "nothing she could have done differently."
Asked how she had failed to see James, she replied: “The lighting coming through the trees and foliage on the side had created a flickering effect and I believe the high visibility jacket blended in with that.”
Jones told the court he had “tenths of a second” to react after spotting James’ jacket as he lay on the ground.
Jones was found not guilty, but after five hours of deliberations, Powell was convicted.
Wales Online reports that Judge Geraint Walters said he was satisfied that James "was there to be seen been by an attentive, careful and undistracted driver.”
He said Powell’s speed, which had been estimated at 52mph, had been "unquestionably too fast" for the road and weather conditions, despite the 60mph limit on that stretch.
"National speed limits are not a target," he said.
Walters added that death by careless driving cases were difficult to sentence as while the harm caused was severe, culpability was low as the court was dealing with carelessness rather than intent.
Virginia Hayton, defending Powell, said her client was "deeply sorry for her involvement," but knew nothing she could say would mitigate the loss.
She added that Powell felt "genuine remorse" and would have to live with this for the rest of her life.
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
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 15 min ago
Thank goodness for that. I don't suppose anyone would want you to. You certainly behave like one though.
- Eton Rifle 5 hours 23 min ago
You do see some utterly ridiculous examples of car use....
- Eton Rifle 5 hours 45 min ago
Exactly. Every road death is a tragedy but this is at the "twat deserved it" end of the spectrum, looking at the state of that car.
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 53 min ago
I'm not the editor of this article, nor indeed of anything on this website. One would have thought that didn't require explaining.
- Eton Rifle 5 hours 53 min ago
I think the answer is in your question. I genuinely didn't know he was married to her. It does kinda explain it. Disappointing, nevertheless.
- Daclu Trelub 10 hours 38 min ago
In a perfect world, we'd have a measure of how easily distracted someone is, as part of their driving test....
- Sredlums 11 hours 6 min ago
These products are nothing but ridiculously expensive and superfluous, and they bring nothing but bragging rights....
- Daclu Trelub 11 hours 25 min ago
Of course they are, and not so different. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09B662CDN?crid=34M42BETAMFT0&th=1 The bugger's got four versions up now!
- squidgy 11 hours 42 min ago
At least the van driver was nowhere near the stationary cyclist.
Add new comment
33 comments
Sad state of affairs. All I can say is arm yourself with a high intensity rear light even if you think it's overkill for daylight conditions.
Nice bit of victim blaming.
Not victim blaming at all.
I don't like it as a solution, but I can see some would be happier using the roads with one.
Rich was just suggesting an extra defensive layer. You campaign for drivers to act more responsibility and think about the ones that do not and how to react.
I should not have to take primary but it is often required.
I don't want to wonder how irresponsible drivers react, I want them removed from the road and from driving a machine that kills over a million people a year.
We need a massive change in mindset from the "most drivers are fine and they only kill people accidentally." to "We need to ban drivers who are not capable of driving and considering the safety of others."
A driving licence is not a licence to kill. If all you think about is getting from A to B without thinking about the lives of the people you might kill, you shouldn't be driving.
" If all you think about is getting from A to B without thinking about the lives of the people you might kill, you shouldn't be driving."
On the other hand, if you actually spend your commute thinking about the lives of the people you might kill, you should be in jail.
I do this MYSELF as it lowers the odds of being the victim to myopic drivers long past their shelf life.
The ideal world in which you can ride in camo, no helmet and no lights doesn't exist. Nobody should get run over EVER but you know this isn't going to happen.
It does exist. It's called Holland and Denmark. Let's learn the lessons they are only to keen to share with us, and stop excusing the "it wasn't my fault, honest." drivers of the UK.
Scariest bit of my winter bike commute, slightly uphill directly into low sun. I generally flash 2x 1W retina burning rear lights, in the vague hope they might compete with the sun & make some difference for the potential idiot SMIDSY driver...
Nice use of the Measures Defence by Powell.
I appreciate what the judge said about speed limits, and agree; but someone needs to tell the driving instructor industry - I remember often being reprimanded for driving too slowly and being instructed to pick up my speed...
Measures Defence? Isn't she that killer driver?
Why yes, Dr Helen Measures. She was acquitted, y'know.
What? Dr Helen Measures was acquitted of careless driving after overtaking two cyclists, driving on the wrong side of the road at up to 50mph and then hitting and killing another cyclist?
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=1345460
even this lot appeared concerned about it.
Yes, but we all know that if the cyclist hadn't tried to avoid Measures car, she would have been fine. TBH, I wonder what the justified the jury to decide that someone doing all the things you mentioned was not Careless or Dangerous Driving. Was there some instructions by the judge that told them to ignore something? Or did they all think it is justified to do that on the road?
doesnt take all of them, just 3, or possibly even 1 if the judge won't accept a majority verdict.
so you need to convince 4 below average drivers tht the driving on display was worse than they would have done, since everyone considers their own driving to be fine. Or get lucky and have a jury with only competant drivers.
For all the newbies not familiar with the Measures Defence:
https://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-consultant-who-killed-...
Obviously a huge amount of detail presented to the court that is not reported in a short summary but how does Mr Jones avoid any responsibility?
??? Travelling too close to the vehicle in front? Equally too fast for the conditions? Also failed to see the cyclist before the collision or in the road after. Did Powell not brake or swerve at all even after clobbering Mr James? Did Jones fail to observe that and take any action?
I cannot get my head around the mentality of killing someone, all be it accidentally, and not accepting responsibility for doing so on the grounds of failing to drive to the conditions. You might not have control of those external factors but you do have control over how you modify your driving to cope. Sun dazzle as a factor in a road traffic collision is no different to skidding on ice, losing control in the wet or driving too fast in fog. It is not bad luck to have a crash in such conditions it is bad driving.
not unusual to travel 2 seconds behind the vehicle in front, in terms of reacting to the vehicle in front this is normally plenty. if the first vehicle moves out the second can follow their line. But not sufficient to stop in the event of someone falling between the vehicles.
So this time hi-viz is an excuse not to see a cyclist?
So next time a guy says "you have to wear a hi-viz" tell them somebody claimed that a hi-viz was the reason of causing his death. And you receive the answer "ok, but the judge put a sentence so it was a silly claim" you may answer that the only price to pay for taking away a life was a 12 month driving ban.
you may answer that the only price to pay for taking away a life was a 12 month driving ban
That's the point- the end result of the judicial process, which presently gives multiple ways for motorists who kill cyclists to 'get away with it'. Juries frequently let them off altogether, and if not, the judge can select the joke sentence option allowing the villain to play the 'I will be wracked with remorse for ever, even though I didn't do anything wrong and wouldn't do anything differently next time' dodge. Yesterday a Transit reversed 20+ yards from a red light the wrong way down the A6 while I was filming red light crashing at a local hotspot, in order to shout threats that he and his friends would 'sort me out'. It's likely that Lancashire police will just ignore my first 'hate crime' report- we'll see.
"Sun in the eyes" is the equivalent to "I only had a couple of pints".
Joke sentence, joke driving ban. Jury full of drivers who would all like to get away with killing the odd cyclist when there are 'unpredictable adverse driving conditions' like sun, dark, rain, ice etc- especially when the driver uses the standard 'I didn't see him and I didn't mean to do it'. There is no merit in a 'conviction' if there are no significant consequences.
This like the 2 brothers who were killed by a bus near Keswick- driver just says 'the sun was in my eyes' and the drivers in the jury (we're vastly outnumbered, remember) sympathise. In this case the standard response of drivers to 'low sun', which is put your foot down, has essentially been given the approval of the legal system.
You realise that the jury found her guilty?
You realise that the jury do not determine the sentence?
Two quotes demonstrate more clearly than I could say what is wrong with drivers today;
"She said she had done "absolutely nothing wrong" and there had been "nothing she could have done differently.""
And;
"She added that Powell felt "genuine remorse" and would have to live with this for the rest of her life."
How you can feel "genuine remorse" but not admit that you could have done something different e.g. slowing down, is beyond me. I'm not sure this counts as cognitive dissonance, just an entitled driver absolving herself of all blame. I'm glad the judge recognised that you don't have to break the speed limit for driving to be dangerous.
Shifting the blame and self-victimising
Yep.
I know that stretch of road, there's a solid white line on one or both sides up the hill. It is a winding section, a bit narrow and sightlines/visibility aren't good. Local drivers would know exactly what it's like.
Living in Penrhyncoch, she would drive that road daily if she worked in Aber.
And still managing to blame the cyclist's clothing choice - now both wearing hi-viz and not wearing hi-viz can be used to excuse a motorist.
Or even a mix, I expect. If Mr James had been wearing both hi and lo viz, she might well have blamed him for lack of chiffon or plaid.
The central problem here is the failure to realise that an everyday activity carries such danger to others. We badly need to find a way of reversing that mindset, so that drivers are aware that what they are doing is a hazardous thing that needs concentration on safety.
Perhaps we could take all drivers to climbing walls, teach them to tie on and then belay for someone else. That focuses the mind somewhat, especially if it's a while since you learnt. Then swap places and have your partner tie on and belay for you. Hope the sun isn't in anyone's eyes or the wrong viz is being worn.
I know people who think that the speed limit isn't a target, but a lower limit, and also one who thinks it's the recommended speed even around sharp corners.
Perhaps we could take all drivers to climbing walls
There are very many drivers, the majority haven't been on a bike in decades and have no intention of doing so. We have seen that it's viewed as quite acceptable for newspaper columnists, albeit wizened obsolete ones, to threaten to kill cyclists for getting in the way and then laugh it off as 'just a joke'. It's not much of a step to therefore view actual cyclist death as a joke, it being their own fault for being on the road and in the way and not being a respectable car. When the actual killers of the cyclists are essentially forgiven by society, evidenced by 'punishment' of only the joke 1 year driving ban, it is not surprising that this view of the dispensibility of cyclists becomes more and more prevalent. Punishment is the only remedy.
Sorry, I didn't make it clear that I'm as in favour of proper punishment as you are - and you put it well. I'm just thinking of prevention strategies, as well as deterrent sentencing (although lots of research questions the effect of that).
Years ago I was an electrical engineering student. A lecturer encouraged us to concentrate in Power Electronics lectures because he said "one day you'll be the person who has to tell transmission line repair squads whether the line is safe". I didn't want that sort of job.
I think drivers worry about scratching their car, about getting points on their licence, scratching someone else's car and their own safety, in that order. Everyone else's safety comes last of all, but it should be first, and while we are teaching 3 point turns, we should saying "you could easily kill someone with one of these things so never, ever, forget that."
Pages