Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Sep 07, 2024 13:25

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 14:23 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
the story so far

Quote:
'Driver sending text killed cyclist'
By John Hoskins

Jordan Wickington
A SPEEDING driver was texting her estranged husband when she hit a teenage cyclist at a major road junction in Southampton, jurors heard.

Kiera Coultas, 25, was replying to a message when she crashed into 19-year-old scaffolder Jordan Wickington, it was alleged.

The teenager - who was not wearing a helmet - died from head injuries in hospital later the same day.

Prosecutor David Jenkins told the city crown court: "She was texting at the time of the impact and that's why she didn't see the cyclist."

The accident happened at the junction of West Quay Road and Mountbatten Way shortly after 7am on February 7 last year. Jordan was cycling in the direction of Totton along Mountbatten Way.

Jurors heard that Jordan, who lived in Woolston Road, Netley, had momentarily stopped at the traffic lights but then went through them when they were red.

advertisementHe was about two-thirds across the junction when Coultas struck him in her BMW.

She had driven along West Quay Road, intending to turn left into Mountbatten Way. She was on her way to see her estranged husband at the hotel where she worked.

Mr Jenkins said: "It was a cold, clear morning, not quite daylight, and the street lights were still on.

"She had gone through the lights, which were green in her favour, and only saw the cyclist when she collided with him.'' The court heard that police could not understand why Coultas had not seen the cyclist and queried her speed in the 30mph limit. But the answer became clear when checks were made on her mobile phone.

Mr Jenkins alleged that shortly before the crash, her estranged husband had sent her a text. It read: "I hope ur up, have no bread if you want a sandwich, just let me know."

Mr Jenkins told jurors she was sending a message back when the accident occurred.

"Although she was going through green lights, we suggest she was doing that in excess of the speed limit, something like 40-45mph which is quite dangerous.

"If she was doing that and texting, that is certainly dangerous because she wasn't looking ahead."

Coultas, of Frost Lane, Hythe, denies causing death by dangerous driving.

Proceeding

MAP HERE Cyclist travels right to left
car bottom right to left... cycle path along the side of the railway unused...
Note: west quay rd painted 30-40 mph
mountbatten rd painted 50-70 mph (even though the 50 limit starts in 100m on.


They seem to assume that if you receive a text you must be replying to it?? There seems to be a leap of assumption in motoring cases that if there is no cause then they must have been texting/on the phone rather than a smidsey.

_________________
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


Last edited by anton on Tue Jan 29, 2008 15:02, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 14:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Yikes. What a difficult case!

Unless they could tell from her inbox that she HAD opened the text or replied to it.

But then, why did the cyclist decide to go through on a red light?

I remember someone saying to me that "a green light only ever means proceed with caution, as you can't tell what someone else will do."

Like that silly, poor lad. :(

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 14:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
there's no defence angle given there to suggest she wasn't texting.. in fact there's no defence side given at all (balanced journalism anyone?).

whilst running a red on any form of transport is clearly illegal, surely its just the kind of hazard an alert drive is on the lookout for? be it car, cycle or pedestrian.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 14:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
As this case is on day one the prosicution are just laying out thier case. I doubt they will lay out the defence case for a few days.

_________________
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: Tue Jan 29, 2008 15:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
ed_m wrote:
there's no defence angle given there to suggest she wasn't texting.. in fact there's no defence side given at all (balanced journalism anyone?).

whilst running a red on any form of transport is clearly illegal, surely its just the kind of hazard an alert drive is on the lookout for? be it car, cycle or pedestrian.


That's why they said "proceeding" it means the defence haven't got to have their say, yet.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 15:22 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Before any flack breaks out. I think red light jumping and texting whilst driving are equaly suicidal.

However I believe that this motorist would receive substancially different punishments if she was texting/not texting.

It is a big junction and a cyclist would be in the door pillar region on a dark Febuary morning. The driver would have gone through a red light camera(on green).

_________________
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: Tue Jan 29, 2008 16:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
It could have been a pedestrian(in different circumstances), and in cases where there is no specific pedestrian crossing assosiated with the lights it would be diffiult to argue that they "jumped" the lights. So I don't think it should have much baring on the outcome of the case unless there was little the driver could have done to avoid collision.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 17:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
At this junction there are no pedestrians, pavements, shops, schools, etc. It is the duel carriageway leaving the town center sandwiched between the port and railway line. The cycle path is fenced apart next to the railway line. there is a red light camera and two speed cameras about 500m in each direction. one 50mph one 30mph

_________________
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: Tue Jan 29, 2008 18:41 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Ignoring the illegalities, it seems like both parties weren't looking well enough. If either had been it could have been avoided.
Although I'm sure we don't know the full details.

You have to wonder if the cyclist ignored the red light, and the driver was going so fast through the green light because of the way the council have set up their lights to cause as much inconvenience as possible? This is Southampton.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
Ziltro wrote:
You have to wonder if the cyclist ignored the red light, and the driver was going so fast through the green light because of the way the council have set up their lights to cause as much inconvenience as possible? This is Southampton.


I think it's far more relevant to wonder if either the driver or the cylist could have paid more attention and avoided this tragic accident. But keep blaming the council for everything, it's not like a motorist could ever be even remotely at fault!!

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
anton wrote:
At this junction there are no pedestrians, pavements, shops, schools, etc. It is the duel carriageway leaving the town center sandwiched between the port and railway line. The cycle path is fenced apart next to the railway line. there is a red light camera and two speed cameras about 500m in each direction. one 50mph one 30mph


Yes but what I'm getting it is if the driver was driving with due care and attention and had chance to avoid this accident, then they should have done so irrespective of the cyclist jumping the red light. Because as said, in other circumstances it could be that it was a pedestrian that was crossing (I don't know the area well enough but unless pedestrians were specifically prohibited I don't see why it couldn't be).

But the defence case will be interesting. Maybe she wasn't texting, she wasn't driving at an inappropriate speed and had little chance to avoid the accident. In which case it was sadly the cyclists own carelessness.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Smithy wrote:
Ziltro wrote:
You have to wonder if the cyclist ignored the red light, and the driver was going so fast through the green light because of the way the council have set up their lights to cause as much inconvenience as possible? This is Southampton.


I think it's far more relevant to wonder if either the driver or the cylist could have paid more attention and avoided this tragic accident.

You mean like I suggested in the paragraph before that one?

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
Exactly! So why add another irrelevant caveat that it might be the councils fault?

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:41 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I would imagine that if you travel in Southampton a lot then you learn to associate a green light with "go quickly, it's going to change soon" and a red light with "stop if it's been on for a few seconds unless there's noone looking".
They have standard cross-road junctions where only one road gets a green light at a time! Even if that road has no traffic on it.
It is the only place where (further down West Quay Road actually) I have turned right across a dual carriageway, done a U turn and turned right back across the road and it was faster than if I had waited to go straight on in the first place!

So I don't think the council's attitude has helped. And if they are causing people to think like that then maybe something should be done about it.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:47 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Ziltro wrote:
I would imagine that if you travel in Southampton a lot then you learn to associate a green light with "go quickly, it's going to change soon" and a red light with "stop if it's been on for a few seconds unless there's noone looking".


:yesyes:

That's very true....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 19:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
Well if you insist the council are to blame they must be.

Could it not possibly true that it had nothing to do with them and it was the carelessness of the cyclist, motorist, or both? But of course it's easy to make a cheap shot at the council as usual.

If we think hard enough, maybe we can blame EVERYTHING on them! :lol: I like that idea. No personal responsibility!!

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:11 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
If this accident had been CARvCAR the red light jumper would have been alive and in court for due care and attention.

Without any text messages this car driver would also be up for due care and attention.
With text messages it rightly be dangerous driving.

What worrys me is that the police seem to prove texting by receiving a text message.

If an accident happened to me.
I would not want to be found guilty of texting, which I never do , just because someone sent me a text message.

_________________
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: Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:16 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I believe I have been avoiding the issue of blame, as I have realised how futile it is to appoint blame after something tragic has happened.

What I'm more interested in is seeing what can be done in future to stop this happening again.

If the council/s are encouraging dangerous behaviour, and I believe they are, then this is something which could and should change.

Having "watch the road ahead and look for anything approaching from anywhere" being more important than "watch the lights, you know they'll change then you will have to wait even though there is nothing coming the other way" would be a good thing.

Maybe some people need reminding that looking out of the window is more important than looking down at... well anything. It doesn't have to be a phone.
The bus driver who I saw (apparently) sending a text message while pulling out of a bus stop on Ashley Road in Poole certainly could have done better! :shock:

I wonder if, especially due to the junctions with only one green light at any one time, people are learning that "green light means nothing is coming"?

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
anton wrote:
What worrys me is that the police seem to prove texting by receiving a text message.

If an accident happened to me.
I would not want to be found guilty of texting, which I never do , just because someone sent me a text message.


I've no idea on the technical aspects of mobile phones about whether they can be examined to see what the recent activity has been but on mine it's clear when an incoming text message has been read because the 'envelope' changes to being open. If this was the case it would be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the text message was read on the move, unless she can legitimately challenge that by saying she had stopped at the side of the road. What would be more difficult was proving if she was reading it or replying to it at the time.

Though if it has been read on the move it would start to cast doubt in my mind on her defence. But I acknowlege that that alone is not enough to convict.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
Ziltro wrote:
I wonder if, especially due to the junctions with only one green light at any one time, people are learning that "green light means nothing is coming"?


I think you are over-analysing this. Even if people are thinking like that (and it's quite a leap of faith in my opinion) then there is still no suggestion that they have stopped paying any attention to the road ahead.

I think the lights are detracting slightly from the issue here. For some reason the car did not see a cyclist crossing the road. The court need to determine if that was as a result of the driver driving at a standard way below or below that of an reasonably competant motorist.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.021s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]