- 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
A603 roundabout near Grantchester Driver who killed cyclist was using hands-free phone at time
A driver who claimed she did not see a cyclist when she crashed into him and was later discovered to have been making a hands-free mobile phone call at the time has been jailed for causing death by careless driving.
Michael Roff, aged 57 and from Cambridge, died at the city’s Addenbrooke’s Hospital five hours after 27 year old Lauren Hughes of Braintree, Essex, crashed into him as she entered the A602 Barton Road roundabout in Grantchester, close to Junction 12 of the M11.
Mr Roff sustained fatal head injuries as a result of the crash, which happened on Friday 31 July 2020.
Lauren Hughes, 27, said she did not see Michael Roff on his bicycle as she drove her Vauxhall Astra along the A603 Barton Road and entered the roundabout with the M11, near Grantchester, at about 7.30pm on Friday 31 July 2020.
Cambridgeshire Constabulary say that Hughes was in the outside lane as she approached the roundabout, then slowed down and braked suddenly, leaving skidmarks on the road and crashing into the cyclist.
A police digital media investigator discovered that at the time of the fatal collision, Hughes was using it hands-free through an in-car system.
But when she was interviewed by police, the driver insisted she simply had not seen the cyclist.
Yesterday, Hughes was sentenced at Peterborough Crown Court to 15 months’ imprisonment after she was convicted of causing death through careless driving.
She was also handed a driving ban of three years and seven and a half months.
Detective Sergeant Mark Dollard of Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s Serious Collision Investigation Unit said: “Michael Roff was a much-loved family man and keen cyclist.
“Lauren Hughes, through her inattention and lack of care for the task of driving, has caused Mr Roff’s family untold pain and suffering.
“This sentence and tragic loss should be a reminder to all about the importance of careful and attentive driving, and that particular attention for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians is paramount.
“I hope that Mr Roff’s family can now look to the future and attempt to rebuild their lives and I would like to thank them for the patience and dignity shown during the investigation and the trial,” he added.
While tougher laws governing the use of handheld mobile phones while driving were brought in earlier this year, the use of hands-free phones is permitted – although a charge of offences such as driving without due care and attention can be brought if the driver is believed to have been distracted through their use of the device.
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
- cyclisto 1 min 59 sec ago
I strugle to think other as cool bikes as this. If my city was flatter and I fitter, I would drool over it....
- Robbiedondo 9 min 2 sec ago
I find issues all the time for a car driver that wouldn't be an issue on the bike, ie roads closed to vehicles that are still passable on a bike, ...
- Cugel 19 min 30 sec ago
If RoadCC and similar specialist mass media organs were serious about being not just ethical about climate change factors but about the whole...
- Fursty Ferret 1 hour 16 min ago
I'd like to think that in addition to the very well exposed supply chain argument made by Patrick, the simply outrageous price of Shimano...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 12 min ago
Hellish! Barely used, clearly dangerous, slowing competent cyclists down while pandering to the clueless, a serious threat to pedestrians, won't...
- David9694 1 hour 39 min ago
"I ran into the back of him because I was traumatised by seeing the latest petrol prices, m'lud"
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 20 min ago
Are you sure? Norway is socialist and has a very high quality of life.
- ErnieC 4 hours 43 min ago
Glad I got mine before that change in ownership.
- yellowjack 10 hours 41 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- NOtotheEU 11 hours 21 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
Add new comment
51 comments
There has been a lot of research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) into the use of phones at the wheel, with and without hands free kits, as well as into drivers speaking with passengers in their vehicles.
The upshot is that hands free kits are useless. the distraction is mental not physical. The human brain cannot process having a phone conversation and a complex driving function at the same time.
If you have a hands free kit for your vehicle, throw it away and also tell your friends/family to do the same. they are dangerous.
Having a conversation with someone in your vehicle is not the same as having a conversation on the phone. TRL research shows if you are talking on the phone, you wil prioritise talking over driving. If you are talking to a passenger, you will prioritise driving over talking.
Check the TRL website as there various papers on these topics, all written by experts and all peer reviewed.
Hands free kits should be banned.
I totally agree with you.
There is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel, if the brain is not connected to the hands.
Unfortunately banning it would involve legislation banning manufacturers from installing it, as most modern cars have this as a built in function which connects to the phone via Bluetooth.
Given the current government's lack of enthusiasm for vehicle safety legislation, I don't think it's going to be high on their list of priorities!
The technology does have some advantages, with the car calling the emergency services automatically if the airbag is deployed and providing GPS coordinates.
My car reminds me a couple of times every time I start the engine if the phone is not connected.
I do not use it to make or receive calls, except in stationary traffic on the motorway.
What concerns me even more is the ability of newer cars to receive and send social messages via the car's dashboard. "Android Auto" is quite proud to promote how it can all be done via voice activation, but I would say the distraction is even worse than a hands free phone call.
Thanks to all who responded to my request/question. Seems that neither party is particularly cycle friendly despite what their policy documents might say. I find it quite interesting how many contributors on this forum blame the current ruling party for cycling issues but it seems that will not change should labour win the next election - probably just bias creeping in.
Well, let's look at the hopeful things. Paris seems to be heading in the right direction even starting from a bad place.
On the pull side Chris Boardman's creeping closer to the centres of influence. I mean he's got a national role now, not that he's a pal of Carrie J or a party donor.
I'd guess a few more people have seen / heard stories about cycling. Could go either way.
I'm not sure whether the moaning about "I can't get to my job through the jam", "I can't afford to fill my tank / buy an EV", "but climate change", "where are we going to put all the people" makes for a useful push for people? My feeling is on balance it's more likely to increase irritation with cyclists / resistance to spending on active travel.
Well, I for one, am baffled. What question, what responses?
Is this a classic A pillar "where did the cyclist come from" blind spot. As the driver approaches in the outside Lane the A pillar blocks the view (of someone not taking care to look clearly), as they near the white line the car is turning left slightly and and the cyclist is hidden until the collision? Drivers need to be aware of this - but so do we
That plus some cognitive overload.
A combination of inattention, large A posts and the CBDR (Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range) phenomenon maybe.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/
This is a tragedy that is the result of not paying proper attention when driving and I'm pleased that that was highlighted by the judge. I do however question whether a custodial sentence is best course of action. I appreciate that it sends a clear message to the driving public at large (although I'm not sure that it makes much difference) but I think I would prefer to see Ms Hughes lose her licence either permenantly (my preference) or for a much longer period that a few years, and to have to do some proper community service. Locking her up will only cost the tax payer a lot of money and mean that even more dangerous criminals get suspended sentences because prisons are overcrowded. I see custodial sentences as a tool for protecting the public from those who present a danger. If Hughes has her licence removed and doesn't drive then that danger has been removed. Obviously should she continue to drive having had her licence removed then she should be jailed for the above stated reason. However I would rather see her repay something to society and hopefully learn from the experience. Maybe even get her to talk to drivers on awareness courses of the impact of killing someone.
I don't disagree with what you say, but...
... as we know, the deterent is in the probability of being caught, and drivers without licences have little fear of being caught. The law would never know whether she flouted her ban or not, and others in her position would assume she did, so the deterrent effect of a ban is minimal.
If driving bans are to be meaningful, both as a punishment to the offender and as a deterrent to others, then there must be robust mechanisms to monitor and enforce, with equally robust consequences for defiance. At the moment it seems there is no monitoring, no enforcement, and if you are caught the consequence is more of the same.
I have no idea how realistic they are or if this is standard procedure but watching Police Interceptors and similar shows on TV the police often wait near an offenders car to catch them driving away from court after getting a ban. Maybe this is just for TV or particular officers are more proactive?
Happened where I live. Driver claimed he could not get home without driving, yet the court is next to a railway station and the station the other end was less than a mile to his house. When stopped, Police found two bottles of beer, one of which was open, on the passenger seat !
Good to know the Police get it right sometimes.
From (the more informative) comments on the local FB story, it is claimed that the driver involved had worked a 12 - 14 hour shift and was then expected to make deliveries. I don't know if she was on work business at the time of the incident or if the call was a work call, but if it was then surely there has to be an element of corporate responsibility that needs proper investigation. Even then I don't buy into the narrative that the "driver is also a victim in this tragedy" narrative that is being pushed.
Like you I am conflicted over prison time for people who went out with no intention to harm others and who are unlikely to repeat the offence, but there has to be a recognition that if your actions by neglect of basic safety rules result in death or serious injury then you can lose your liberty. Personally I think that for most drivers, the real possibility of losing your licence, effectively permanently would be both more of a deterrent, and a punishment easier for Judges to justify.
Employers do have corporate responsibility for their employees' business phone use.
From the RoSPA "Mobile Phones and Driving" factsheet:
The “Driving at Work” 13Guide from the Health and Safety Executive makes it clear that employers have a duty under health and safety law to manage the risks faced by their employees on the road. One of the biggest risks they face is when using mobile phones while at the wheel. Research clearly shows that using a hands-free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a hand-held phone – there is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel, if the brain is not connected to the hands.
https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/mobile-phones-and-driv...
It's difficult to judge individual cases, unless you were in court to observe the trial.
I think drivers should go to jail for causing careless driving if the driving was just short of dangerous, or there's a lack of remorse / refusal to take responsibility, or a history of previous offences. If none of the above apply then they shouldn't be jailed, but I think we need much longer driving bans and extensive retraining before letting them back on the roads.
I agree about not giving prison sentences for careless driving. What should happen is a variety of driving bans, so a simple close pass may be banned for a month and more dangerous behaviour banned for a year or more.
However, that needs to be coupled with a very strict attitude towards driving whilst banned. Anyone caught driving without a licence should get immediate prison time (unless it's exceptional circumstances such as driving for a medical emergency) and a lifetime ban as well.
There's way too many cars on the road, so it just makes sense to remove the worst drivers from them.
It does make sense, which is why it will sadly never happen.
We just need to get some adults in charge
Agreed, If those adults aren't politicians, don't use Twitter and cycle to work every day we might just have an outside chance of some positive change.
The incredible incompetence and lack of judgment of our current government cannot better be illustrated by their approach to mobile phone use whilst driving. It isn't serious, just a bit of a misdemeanor, nothing to worry about, and it's perfectly ok to take a call when you're driving. They have had multiple opportunities to deal with this via legislation, but chose to take the line that it doesn't matter much, and anyway it would upset their voters.
God, but I hate this bunch of self-serving, entitled, arrogant bunch of pig-ignorant ministers and their sycophantic supporters.
I'm not a UK resident so not au fait with the nuances of the political system so please take that into consideration. Will Labour be all that different when it comes to cyclists rights and protection when they come into power?
Cyclist protection in terms of cycle lanes etc generally falls under the remit of local or city councils, and yes, Labour councils definitely have a better overall record in that respect, in this year's London elections the Tories almost exclusively made removing cycle lanes and other active travel measures a key part of their campaign whilst Labour generally promised to keep them - a move that seemingly proved pretty popular.
Road deaths fell by 50% under the last Labour Government. That decline flat-lined when the 2010 Tory Government declared an end to "the war on the motorist", or as people who aren't fuckwits call it "expecting drivers not to kill people".
https://citymonitor.ai/transport/why-it-acceptable-kill-someone-mysterio...
Labour have always been entirely rubbish when it comes to cycling as we've seen numerous times in the last few years with Labour MPs and local councillors opposing active travel schemes and low-traffic neighbourhoods. But in terms of overall road fatalities, something was clearly going right through to 2010.
Not half as much as Tory councillors have though? Just my general impression and possibly London biased, I admit, but...
You could be right and I could be suffering from a sort of confirmation bias in which being generally left-leaning I notice it more and am more disappointed when Labour politicians oppose progressive traffic schemes.
I may steal that line.
Great article, too, thanks.
Labour government has typically been as car-fixated as the Tories, so I wouldn't bet money on them being better for cyclists. However, the current Tory government seem to be trying to do everything as wrong as possible so hopefully Labour wouldn't be as willfully incompetent plus it's tricky to pick out someone that's as malevolent as Pritti Patel.
The problem is more to do with late-stage capitalism than political parties as the big parties do seem to just follow whoever's writing them the biggest cheques.
As I'm fond of saying - frankly they're all as bad as each other. Labour government in Wales, SNP in Scotland - anything significantly better in either of those places?
Current Labout Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said "I'm delivering on my manifesto promise to be the most pro-cycling mayor London has ever had." Of course he is a politician, so keep a pinch of salt handy.
Pages