Harsh or not...possible custodian sentance?

Harsh no, far and correct yes.

The law states that no mobile should be used (In hand) and thats why its a possible custodial sentance for dangerous driving.

Regards.

PS.

I have no sympathy for drivers that use a mobile while driving.
 
The critical question is whether she could have reasonably expected to avoid the cyclist had she not been speeding or using her phone. It could be that the cyclist shot out in front of her and she wouldn't have been able to stop even if she'd been paying attention. In that case the use of the phone and the excess speed wouldn't have been directly responsible for the cyclists death.

That said, any moron who speeds AND texts on their phone at the same time deserves to be locked up.
 
so the cyclist jumped a red light?

sounds like darwins theory of evolution to me. harsh but even if the car wasnt speeding the chances are quite high if someone else doesn't read the road.
 
As stated above - it should be taken into account whether she could have done something about it. She should get 6 points regardless (speeding + phone). Next they should work out whether or not she would have hit him anyways. If yes (no extra charge for phone), they then need to work out whether the speed killed him. If no, she should get nothing other than the above, if yes - she should go to jail for a number of years (not sure what the going rate is these days)...
 
Last edited:
Harsh? Not in the slightest.

I used to use a mobile whilst driving (voice not text) and had no problem with it what so ever, hold phone in hand and talk but then as soon as your driving required it I'd end the call or drop the phone, same as talking to someone in the seat next to you, simple.

But then you have those that talk on the phone as their main/most important activity and driving becomes an after thought (basically something that you try to do whilst chatting).

I ride a bike to work and the amount of times I've had to dodge death because some idiot is on the phone and has no idea of what is going on around them you wouldn't believe (or maybe would).

So if this silly bint is texting whilst speeding and then misses a red light, regardless of where the cyclist was (or whether he should have been there) she's **** out of luck. Doesn't have a single excuse and can't see why she shouldn't be locked up.

/EDIT Doh mis-read, thought she jumped the red light. In that case I still don't see why she shouldn't be charged but have no sympathy for the cyclist.
 
Last edited:
What if she was distracted in other ways not the phone. i.e. rerouting on a sat nav device or adjusting the radio, would this then be treated in the same way do you think?
 
so everyone is saying that even if you have right of way, if you're on the phone it's immediately your fault regardless of the fact you had right of way?

what are you lot on?
 
The OP's link is starred, which is handy for reading more...

Went on the BBC site and it's biased towards the cyclist, nothing about jumping a red, just about being hit by the car. Interesting read at the end of their story though...

BBC version.

InvG
 
Problem she has is they'll just try and make an example out of her. She's a motorist (Guilty until proven innocent in this country) speeding and she was using a phone.
 
helpimcrap said:
so everyone is saying that even if you have right of way, if you're on the phone it's immediately your fault regardless of the fact you had right of way?

what are you lot on?
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to agree with you, do her for careless driving/speeding or whatever, but this guys death was primarily caused by him jumping a red light.
 
helpimcrap said:
so everyone is saying that even if you have right of way, if you're on the phone it's immediately your fault regardless of the fact you had right of way?

what are you lot on?
Click to expand...

I think it is harsh if she was to receive a custodian sentance. I imagine she watched him breath his last breaths while the emergency services arrived after she would have dialed 999. Living with the horror of this would be hard enough. I don't know how I would punish her for this.
 
A HOTEL manageress collapsed in tears after a jury today convicted her of causing the death of a teenage cyclist by dangerous driving at a Southampton junction.
They rejected her claim of 25-year-old Kiera Coultas that she had not been sending a text message to her estranged husband at the time of the crash which happened shortly after 7am on February 7 last year.
Judge Jeremy Burford QC adjourned sentence pending a probation report on February 29. But in extending her bail, he warned that should not be seen as any indication of sentence."Custody is the likely sentence for an offence of this sort."
Southampton Crown Court heard that the accident happened at the junction of Mountbatten Way and West Quay Road. The victim, scaffolder Jordan Wickington had paused at the lights in Mountbatten Way but then cycled through them when they were still red.
He was about two thirds across the junction when he was struck at 45mph by Coultas who was driving out of West Quay Road to see her estranged husband and her young daughter.
The prosecution alleged she had been answering a text message at the time, but she denied it.
advertisement

The judge ordered Coultas to surrender her passport, not to travel outside England and Wales, and to live at the Fountain Court Hotel in Hythe until sentence. He also imposed an interim disqualification.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom