Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Apr 26, 2026 01:36

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 18:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
BBC News

Quote:
Text driver jailed for bike death

A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed a cyclist has been sentenced to four years in prison.
Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries when he went through a red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas' car in Southampton in February 2007.

The 25-year-old from Hythe, Hampshire, was driving at 45mph in a 30mph zone.

Miss Coultas had earlier been found guilty at Southampton Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving.

Judge Jeremy Burford also banned her from driving.

"The serious part of your conduct was that you were sending a text on your mobile phone having just received one," he said.

"It occurred at precisely the worst time because you failed to see the cyclist who was crossing the road having gone through the red light and travelling as you were at 45mph you hit him and he suffered injuries from which he later died."

Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, died in Southampton General Hospital.

Speaking after the ruling his sister, Laura, said: "My life came crashing down before me, seeing my 19-year-old brother lying dying in a hospital bed was too much to take.

"These moments were the most soul destroying and traumatic moments of my life," she said.

Sgt Alyson West, of Hampshire Constabulary, said the ruling would hopefully discourage others from using their mobile phones while driving.

"Today's sentence will not bring back Jordan Wickington. However, it will hopefully help to deter drivers who continue to flout the law by using their mobile phones while driving.

"The answer is quite simple - don't use your mobile phone and drive.

"Nothing is so important that it can't wait until you stop or arrive safely at your destination."


I think the sentence is steep if you ask me, also there's not much emphasis on the fact the cyclist when through a red light. :( IMO they've used her to make an example.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 19:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Que:

What is more dangerous...

35mph in a 30 zone from someone in a car who is alert/sober/concentrating on the road and alone?

or

30 mph in a 30 zone while chatting/texting/fiddling with CD/MP3/Radio - mates giggling in the back all pi$$ed?

Next Que:

How does a speed camera differentiate between the two earlier examples in preventing KSI on our roads?

Ans: They don't!

Next Que:

Why are speed cameras used as a panacea for all ills?

Ans: I haven't the faintest :censored: clue other than monetary gain.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 23:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Big Tone, as well as making money it is smoke and mirrors!

Crash happens. Response is erect speed camera. "See? We ARE doing something to deal with dangerous driving!"

(Oh no you bloody well aren't! :x )

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 01:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Dixie wrote:
also there's not much emphasis on the fact the cyclist when through a red light. :( IMO they've used her to make an example.


Frankly, the light was so far away from the junction it played no part in the result, she would've struck anything that happened to be in her path at the time.

If she had been driving the vehicle with due care and consideration then this wouldn't have happend.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 02:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:06
Posts: 301
Location: Swindon
weepej wrote:
Dixie wrote:
also there's not much emphasis on the fact the cyclist when through a red light. :( IMO they've used her to make an example.


Frankly, the light was so far away from the junction it played no part in the result, she would've struck anything that happened to be in her path at the time.

If she had been driving the vehicle with due care and consideration then this wouldn't have happend.


Agreed-but I still think they've made an example of her with very dubious evidence. The 'no phone while driving at all' message could be promoted far better than by making dubious examples of people.

There still wasn't any mention of whether the cyclist had lights on his bicycle either.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Is there any justification at all for so called "exemplary sentences"? Surely the punishment should fit the crime not some political end.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
malcolmw wrote:
Surely the punishment should fit the crime not some political end.


A lot of people are saying she should've got longer and that four years (two inside I'd imagine) is way too short considering the ultimate result of the driving she undertook.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:26 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
weepej wrote:
Dixie wrote:
also there's not much emphasis on the fact the cyclist when through a red light. :( IMO they've used her to make an example.


Frankly, the light was so far away from the junction it played no part in the result, she would've struck anything that happened to be in her path at the time.

If she had been driving the vehicle with due care and consideration then this wouldn't have happend.


What a load of *****

If it had been a car jumping the red light every one would have prosicuted the red light jumper...

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
anton wrote:
If it had been a car jumping the red light every one would have prosicuted the red light jumper...


No, both would've been prosecuted.

Had the dead guy survived (or had gone through the red light in a car) he may well have been prosecuted for the offence he committed, and she for the offences she committed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:43 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
weepej, I would like to invite you down to southampton and see the junction yourself. I would like you to speculate how many times you could cross that junction on red before you were hit.

It is a very safe junction as long as people obay the lights. I am not aware of any other accidents on that junction. I have used that junction around 15 times a week since it was built about 10 yeas ago.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:46 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Isn't this the sort of incident though which if assessing damage would have resulted in a knock for knock decision?
Quote:
Sgt Alyson West, of Hampshire Constabulary, said the ruling would hopefully discourage others from using their mobile phones while driving.

It DIDN't discourage anybody - yesterday while picking up my 10 year old son from school, I witnessed a transit van, driving down the school driveway, with two wheels on the pavement, while the driver was speaking on his mobile phone.
On the other side of the road were cars queued up waiting to pick up other children.

As to making an example... I give you the next Judge Jefferies:
weepej wrote:
A lot of people are saying she should've got longer and that four years (two inside I'd imagine) is way too short considering the ultimate result of the driving she undertook.

We should hang them publicly in football stadiums on live TV perhaps?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
anton wrote:
weepej, I would like to invite you down to southampton and see the junction yourself. I would like you to speculate how many times you could cross that junction on red before you were hit.

It is a very safe junction as long as people obay the lights. I am not aware of any other accidents on that junction. I have used that junction around 15 times a week since it was built about 10 yeas ago.


I know the junction, I'm very careful when I drive through it, it's big wide and open and people go through it at ridiculous speeds, and often very late on amber or even red.

On a cycle I imagine its hard to cross the junction on a late green and actually get across it before the other set of lights goes green.


Last edited by weepej on Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:50, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Ernest Marsh wrote:
We should hang them publicly in football stadiums on live TV perhaps?


Now that's just being ridiculous.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Ernest Marsh wrote:
It DIDN't discourage anybody


You sure about that?

Ernest Marsh wrote:

- yesterday while picking up my 10 year old son from school, I witnessed a transit van, driving down the school driveway, with two wheels on the pavement, while the driver was speaking on his mobile phone.


Well, some people learn from the mistakes of others, but some think they just know best.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 13:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
weepej wrote:
Frankly, the light was so far away from the junction it played no part in the result, she would've struck anything that happened to be in her path at the time.


weepej wrote:
I know the junction, I'm very careful when I drive through it, it's big wide and open and people go through it at ridiculous speeds, and often very late on amber or even red.

Maybe I’m missing something here and I don’t quite understand what you are getting at weepej.

In one breath you’re saying the junction played no part in the result, and yet on the other you’re saying you are very careful when you drive through it. Obviously the cyclist wasn’t that careful when he went through it.

I don’t know the junction in question and I still don’t fully understand what has happened. The story has been a bit vague as to whether the lady was actually using her mobile when the accident happened.

Maybe other’s here can cast a bit more light on it for me, however I still say she has been used as an example, bearing in mind the cyclist went through a red on (from what you are saying) a dangerous junction.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 14:01 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
As I've pointed out before, it's very possible - given the geometry of the junction - for the cyclist to have remained completely hidden from her view behind her A-pillar.
If this was the case then the collision would have happened regardless of whether or not she was distracted by the mobile.
This, IMO, is grounds for reasonable doubt.

There, but for fortune, go you or I...

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 14:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
So we've established that had the cyclist obeyed the red light, he would still be alive today.

Lucky that this woman has been jailed, otherwise we might have just thought that it was the cyclist being a div for crossing a signal at danger.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 15:57 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
Odin wrote:
So we've established that had the cyclist obeyed the red light, he would still be alive today.


More importantly the court, in possession of more of the facts than an internet forum full of biased posters, found that had this woman being paying attention to her driving then a more vulnerbale road user would still be alive today.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 16:13 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
Isn't this the classic scenario that Paul used to bang on about? (One road user makes an error and the other fails to react in time).

My view is that if the cyclist had adhered to the rules he would not have been at that place on the road at that particular time. So he should, IMHO, shoulder to brunt of the fault of the collision.

While accepting that the car driver was aslso at fault, I do find it slightly uncomfortable that she has been sent to jail for an offence that was not premeditated.

Do we think that the car driver has been made an exmaple of?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 16:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Dixie wrote:
a dangerous junction.


I think there about as many dangerous junctions as there are dangerous roads, i.e none, zero, zilch, zip, de nada.

How can a road junction, which just sits there, be dangerous?

If there were big wrecking balls swinging across it and huge circular blades running up and down it then maybe, but otherwise it's just a piece of tarmac.

I go carefully though that junction (as I do all junctions) because sometimes other people do silly things (indeed as do I although I try my hardest to avoid doing so), not because the junction is "dangerous".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.183s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]