- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgDrivers who ‘didn’t see’ cyclists they killed both escape jail
Two motorists who said they “didn’t see” the cyclists they killed, with one of the fatal crashes taking place in Cambridgeshire and the other in Lincolnshire, have escaped jail, with one handed a suspended jail sentences, the other a community order.
George Donaldson, aged 88, died in hospital on 5 October 2017, five days after he was struck by 78-year-old Josephine John in Sawston, Cambridgeshire at around 1.15pm on Saturday 30 September.
The motorist, who lived locally, had been driving around the roundabout at High Street and Link Road when she hit Mr Donaldson, reports the Cambridgeshire Independent.
When she was interviewed by police in June 2018, she said that she heard a “clatter” as she drove around the roundabout, and said she “didn’t see” the cyclist before the collision.
John was voluntarily interviewed in June 2018 and claimed she was negotiating the roundabout when she heard a “clatter”.
She pleaded guilty at Cambridge Crown Court to causing death by careless driving and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and was also banned from driving for a year.
PC Ian Masters of Cambridgeshire Constabulary said: “This is a tragic case that has sadly resulted in an elderly man losing his life.
“Although John did not intend for this collision to happen, it is a stark reminder of the importance of the responsibility motorists have in staying alert.
“I urge people to ensure they pay careful attention when driving, and be particularly aware of vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians,” he added.
The second case related to the death of Flight Lieutenant Barrie John Docherty, 43, who was cycling home from work at RAF Cranwell when BMW driver Michael Bohan crashed into him on the A607 at Leadenham, Lincolnshire, on the evening of January 7, 2019.
Bohan said that he had not seen the cyclist, who was wearing bright clothing and had working lights on his bike at the time of the fatal collision, reports The Lincolnite.
Prosecutor David Lee told Lincoln Crown Court: “The cyclist was thrown onto the windscreen and died shortly afterwards.
“The defendant, in fairness to him, dialled 999 and others who appeared on the scene helped including a nurse who helped as best she could the deceased man.
“The defendant was going to pick up his daughter. There was a text sent to him and he then made voice calls.”
The court heard that Bohan’s mobile phone was fixed to his car and that the motorist was using a Bluetooth earpiece.
“The position is that at the time he was carrying on a conversation and not texting. It does appear, therefore, that was a fact which may have been the reason why he said he simply didn’t see the cyclist,” Mr Lee said.
“There was no fault with the vehicle that he was driving and there was no fault with the cycle. There is no evidence of excessive speed. It is simply a case where he didn’t see the cycle.
“He has been driving without blemish for some time so he obviously normally drives carefully. This ordinarily careful driver has not seen the cyclist.”
Bohan, who admitted causing death by careless driving, was handed a 12 month community order with 300 hours of unpaid work and was made subject to an electronically monitored night-time curfew for four months. He was also banned from driving for 12 months.
Sentencing Bohan, Judge John Pini QC said: “The consequences of what happened could not have been more catastrophic and they have caused utter devastation to the lives of Mr Doherty’s family.
“On the other hand the culpability is the lowest in the criminal calendar, namely carelessness.
“Mr Bohan had a momentary lapse of concentration and failed to see Mr Doherty.
“In passing sentence I am not putting a value on Barrie John’s life. His life was beyond value to his loved ones and they have the deepest sympathy of this court.
“Mr Bohan accepts that he was using a hands-free phone to talk to his daughter.
“The accident investigator’s report says that he simply did not see Mr Doherty and he was there to be seen.
“Hands-free phones are clearly lawful, although it does not follow that because they are lawful they cannot be a distraction.”
The judge added that “The difficulty I have is one of evidence,” explaining that he could not be certain, based on the evidence presented in court, that the driver’s use of the mobile phone was the reason he had not seen the cyclist.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mattw 2 sec ago
The road is an in-out No Motor Vehicles Except Access loop with no vehicle access in the middle of the loop ie effectively a crescent....
- cyclisto 18 min 12 sec ago
I understand that if it is on sale, most likely it will be sold. I am just trying to understand its benefits....
- DJameson 26 min 19 sec ago
My regular Aldi is urban, and the bike racks are heavily used and fantastic. I appreciate that they're right outside the plate glass, so any...
- Rendel Harris 33 min 18 sec ago
So, just as an example, what had five-month-old twins Naeim and Wissam Abu Anza, killed in an Israeli airstrike on a civilian house, done in their...
- Rod Marton 55 min 58 sec ago
The good news is that GWR no longer insist on bike bookings. Though this doesn't solve all the other issues with carrying bikes on GWR trains....
- Steve K 1 hour 28 min ago
On the subject of other vehicles blocking cycle lanes, there is a point on the Croydon Tram between Waddon and West Croydon where it is designed in...
- daccordimark 1 hour 41 min ago
I've had one of these since November and agree it's good value for money. For me, the ride is a bit harsh and I can't really detect any comfort...
- mark1a 2 hours 12 min ago
I tried something similar with some timber and a pair of Delta hitches, with (unlike yourself) limited success, and so for people like myself with...
- David9694 12 hours 17 min ago
You and a friend have won first prize, a day out at Diddly Squat Farm.
- matthewn5 12 hours 23 min ago
Does not compute! If you ride a lot you're going to be boiling your chain every week or every fortnight.
Add new comment
55 comments
Phone calls whilst moving need to be banned. Bluetooth or not. Too much attention is diverted.
It is hard to imagine any other dangerous piece of machinery that you'd be given a second chance to operate if you killed someone through careless use of it. How many nuclear power station operators who caused a leak, ship captains who sunk their vessels, or train drivers who caused a derailment would be told to take a year off then come back. Even if they said, "I didn't see the gauge/rocks/signal because I was talking-the-phone/showing-off-to-my-girlfriend/too-old-to-give-a-shit-anymore, and there's no law against that."
There's a suggestion here that the second driver's use of a hands free phone was contributory.
My car has a built in hands free system and I can dial and answer calls by just speaking. Am I allowed to use it when driving? If not why is it fitted? The govt needs to be clearer about the use of these systems.
I think that is the core of the complaints upthread.
Using a phone and making/receiving calls can be distracting regardless of whether you are holding the phone or using handsfree, but the legislation has never been updated to keep in line with the research (and so it is perfectly legal to use handsfree even though later research has shown it is probably just as distracting).
In all fairness, holding a conversation with someone else in the car or listening to thrash metal on the stereo at volume=11 can also be distracting...
When driving a car, I think that the original idea was that you would focus on the act of driving the car and leave everything else until you parked up and/or reached your destination.
But, there is a massive difference between holding a conversation with a passenger and over the phone. The passenger is not, as a rule, going to ask mentally taxing questions just as you negotiate a busy junction. And it is far easier to just tune them out and focus on the driving when it gets tricky, whereas we feel compelled to give our attention over a phone call without undue silent pauses.
Handsfree is a sham and should be banned.
Make an old lady happy - take my mother in law out for a drive ...
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The passenger is a party to the driving exercise. An adult passenger can see when its tricky and will naturally not engage when there is lots going on and will understand if you are just quite and ignore them as your focus moves fully to the road - a telephone participant will not. An a passenger will also potential show warnings and assist if you do get distracted.
I don't have children so have no experience driving with them in the background but can imagine how warring kids would be a massive distraction but presenting that as a problem is somewhere between whataboutery and reductio ad absurdum. Because we can't solve all problems it definitely doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make improvements where we can - its a bit like saying, well because we can't cure cancer we shouldn't bother treating any many medical conditions.
Driving with kids in the car can be awful . Not only can they not see what's coming whilst in the back, they have no concept of what it all means anyway - how can they?
Conversations, "I feel sick", "are we there yet", "want to play a game", and worst of all tantrums can be massively/dangerously distracting, and also help to induce anger in the driver - this is also the drivers' responsibility clearly.
Ipads/ipods have been a brilliant - the only time the cubs get unlimited screen time.
Apparently the phone calls stimulate/make use of part of the brain that uses images/conceptualises images. Therefore there is less capacity to focus on the external surroundings and chanign environment.
Don't think 'thrash metal' (whatever that is) is as distracting.
This is so true. I can't suppose that my brain is wired so differently to everybody else's - whenever I have any non-trivial conversation I find myself conjuring images into my mind, it's just how I think, how I process ideas. Then a whole lot can happen in my field of vision that does not get attended to.
People must know this of themselves, even if the law allows them to make excuses.
Found the clip now 3m 15s long.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/can-you-really-multitask-finally-an-a...
The research existed well before the government* passed its laws; they knew that hands-free phoning was distracting and are culpable in the deaths of their own citizens. People wonder why I'm so bloody cynical.
*A collection of people who struggle to make simple decisions, most of whom have been promoted well above their capabilities, who do not understand the most basic evidence.
You will already know the answers to your questions.
Is it legal, yes. Will you feel culpable if - due to the distraction of a handsfree phone call - you kill somebody's child, yes. Will telling yourself the law allows it help bring closure and peace of mind thereafter, no. Are you already aware through experience how conducting a handsfree call can be very distracting - I'm betting that you certainly are. Do you have to use it, just because you can?
The deceit is in the term "hands free", because the hands are not first in line responsible for attending to the road. That would be your eyes and crucially you mental faculties. "Hands free" does nothing for the mental distraction.
The Highway code is clear. Use of mobile phones or anything that may distract you is unsafe (emphasis is mine)
Rule 149
You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.
So the next time there is a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian resulting in the death of the latter, the former has a cast iron defence; they didn't see them.
Unfortunately motorists often do miss targets smaller than themselves. Remember the SMIDSY signs? These came about because often the first thing motorists would say to a motorcyclist after knocking them over was "Sorry mate, didn't see you." There is some research somewhere that shows why the brain does this. Of course it could have been a screen pillar problem when the best solution is look twice look bike. So sad that deaths occurred.
Drivers really should be taught and expected to look properly. This is an interesting read.
https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
Thanks for that, unfortunately in my car moving the head doesn't give a really better view round the screen pillar but I always look twice.
Move your torso too. Changing the angle and pausing slightly as you move also helps.
Momentarily lapse in concentration, no it bloody well wasn't, he was having a conversation on his phone. We're all been lucky that he hasn't killed some of us already. Absolutely scandalous sentencing, justified by a load of nonsense.
As for the woman on the roundabout, she plainly wasn't looking ahead and again driving well below the standard required. Most likely played the sweet old lady routine for the police.
Momentarily lapse in concentration, no it bloody well wasn't, he was having a conversation on his phone
I'm familiar with this 'momentary loss of concentration' dodge, as it was used on me by the police to excuse someone driving down the wrong side of the road and hitting the stationary cyclist, me
When you are in charge of something that will kill if you lose concentration, you aren't entitled to momentary lapses of concentration, you should bloody well be concentrating because you might kill someone.
How did we get to this situation, where a lethal machine can be operated in public without an absolute guarantee that the operater is giving it full, total 100% concentration? We should all be equipped with meat cleavers and swing them around until it becomes second nature so we start thinking of what we're having for tea and accidentally slice someone in half; but it won't be our fault, just a momentary loss of concentration.
I might just stop filling in my tax return because I can't see the letter. If a driver can fail to see a cyclist wearing hi-viz and using lights due to inattention, I can fail to see a letter as I step over it while leaving the house.
No evidence whatsoever needed to accept driver's version.
Can't possibly disregard with driver's version without evidence.
Whilst ubiquitous self driving cars are still some way off, there is an awful lot of the same technology which can be incorporated right now into all new motor vehicles that would go a long way to mitigating the appalling failure rate of the current vehicle guidance system (aka the driver).
Just hope I live long enough to see it!
The downside is that drivers then rely on these extra aides and actually look less. Tesla drivers letting the car self drive even into the backs of lorries. Sat Navers turning into lakes or other impassable routes because the "voice told them to".
...or that Tesla tester who let her car run down a pedestrian because it didn't recognise the pedestrian walking alongside a bicycle and she was watching American Idol on her phone.
Uber driverless taxi but essentially the same point. The Tesla AP has crashed into big trucks twice including this one recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hrKnv0dPQ
Oh, OK, thanks (was trying to do it from wetware memory instead of using google...).
Don't get your hopes up for ADAS tech in cars. In the US, the AAA tested pedestrian AEB in four cars (Tesla, Toyota, Honda and a Subaru) and they performed appallingly. Useless if the vehicle is travelling at 30mph or more. Useless when turning right. Useless at night. Hit stationary pedestrians on the side of the road 80 percent of the time. The technology has a long way to go yet before being something you can trust.
In any case, we shouldn't be using technology as a substitute for personal responsibility.
Pages