# Four years for killer driver on a mobile.



## spindrift (29 Feb 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm 


Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory. 

I never, ever understand how driving bans run concurrent with a 
custodial sentence- YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!! 

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. 

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

The 25-year-old from Hythe, Hampshire, was banned from driving for 
five years. 

Following the crash, Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, who had not 
been wearing a helmet, was taken to Southampton General Hospital where 
he later died. 

Sgt Alison West, of Hampshire Constabulary, recommended drivers 
switched off their mobile phones during journeys. 

"It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal 
accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed 
to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards 
involved," she said. 
"In this particular incident, it transpired from a phone analysis that 
there was phone use close to the time of the incident."


----------



## Elmer Fudd (29 Feb 2008)

spindrift said:


> A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed
> a cyclist....................
> 
> Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries *when he went through a
> ...


 ? ? ?
I don't quite see the point ? Agree about the helmet though, although if you're going to jump lights........


----------



## Yorkshireman (29 Feb 2008)

Elmer Fudd said:


> ? ? ?
> I don't quite see the point ? Agree about the helmet though, although if you're going to jump lights........



I suppose that one point is "Don't jump red lights - especially on a bicycle". Another might be "Dont text/phone while driving (at speed)"


----------



## Bad Company (29 Feb 2008)

I know I'm setting myself to be shot at here but does anybody else think that 4 years is bit ott??

I'm not defending her, a jail sentance was definately appropriate - but *4 years??*


----------



## piedwagtail91 (29 Feb 2008)

Bad Company said:


> I know I'm setting myself to be shot at here but does anybody else think that 4 years is bit ott??
> 
> I'm not defending her, a jail sentance was definately appropriate - but *4 years??*



my thoughtrs as well
had she not been texting and driving she may still not have been able to avoid hitting and killing him.
it's only 50% her fault at worst.
i'm not trying to defend her as most motorists deserve all they get, but so do red light jumpers, it's russian roulette. you will be killed eventually.
is a few seconds worth it?
maybe motorists and cyclists should learn from this.


----------



## snorri (29 Feb 2008)

The fact that the car was approaching at a speed one and a half times the speed limit probably affected the judgement of the cyclist. Even the speed limit, is just a legal limit and may have little bearing on the safe speed, 30mph through traffic lights could be quite fast in many places.
Although rlj is wrong, the high speed of the car must skew some of the blame from cyclist to driver so I would not agree with the 50/50 blame.


----------



## ChrisKH (29 Feb 2008)

No, it's justified IMO. She was also doing 45 in a 30. Had she been doing 30, the outcome could have been quite different. Had she also been looking she may have been able to avoid him.

Would your view have differed if it had been a 25 year old male? Women usually get treated far more leniently as a gender. It is time this inequality was corrected. She will only serve a proportion of that sentence in any event.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (29 Feb 2008)

snorri said:


> The fact that the car was approaching at a speed one and a half times the speed limit probably affected the judgement of the cyclist. Even the speed limit, is just a legal limit and may have little bearing on the safe speed, 30mph through traffic lights could be quite fast in many places.
> Although rlj is wrong, the high speed of the car must skew some of the blame from cyclist to driver so I would not agree with the 50/50 blame.



i made the mistake of reading the first post, thinking it was a direct quote, and NOT the link , so now after reading the link i would agree it's not 50 50 blame.
i won't edit the previous post as it will make nonsense of subsequent ones
will have to read the links in future


----------



## Danny (29 Feb 2008)

If she was actually texting at the time of the accident, she deserves more than 4 years. How can you possibly be alert to what is going on around you if you are trying to drive and text at the same time.

If it wasn't for the fact that the cyclist was apparently RLJing, I'd say she should get life.


----------



## Bad Company (29 Feb 2008)

Four years seems like an awfully long sentance. The way I see it this woman is unlikely to re-commit so the purpose of the sentance is to send out a message to other drivers. Fair enough but most would shoot themselves at the thought of a 1 year sentance - never mind 4.

IMO people use phonestext etc., because they do not think they will get caught and they do not think an accident can happen to them.

The solution IMO is more traffic police not longer sentances.


----------



## spindrift (29 Feb 2008)

4 years seems trivial for taking a life through being recklessly stupid. Driving at a lethal speed is bad enough, breaking the speed limit whilst sending stupid texts about sandwiches is beyond belief.


Ten years would have been fairer.


----------



## Cush (29 Feb 2008)

I can see the point about the driving ban, That should start after a person has done their jail sentence.


----------



## Bad Company (29 Feb 2008)

spindrift said:


> 4 years seems trivial for taking a life through being recklessly stupid. Driving at a lethal speed is bad enough, breaking the speed limit whilst sending stupid texts about sandwiches is beyond belief.
> 
> 
> Ten years would have been fairer.



Our prisons are already bursting at the seams. I know this lady has done something very bad but I really can't see that she is a threat to anybody.

Are you advocating 10 years as retribution or as a detterent?


----------



## snorri (29 Feb 2008)

Bad Company said:


> but I really can't see that she is a threat to anybody.


Speeding and texting is not a threat to other road users???


----------



## Bad Company (29 Feb 2008)

snorri said:


> Speeding and texting is not a threat to other road users???



Yes of course that is a real and terrible threat - but seriously is she likely to re - offend? Particuarly as she has a 5 year driving ban.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (29 Feb 2008)

Sorry , but the kid jumped a red light. He was partly to blame and unfortunately paid with his life. I'm no fan of speeders and twats on mobiles but this seems harsh.


----------



## andy_wrx (29 Feb 2008)

The cyclist ran a red light and was hit by a car going through it. 

Someone suggests that she was speeding and he misjudged her speed ??
So it's OK to go though a red light, gauging the speed of traffic going through the junction and slot through it, is it ?

No. Obviously not - at least to me.... 

(I don't buy the misjudged-it argument either, she was doing 45 not 75, so you'd be equally likely to judge or misjudge 45 as 30 and get yourself killed...)

Or is it OK to go though a red light and assume that anyone going the other way will see you and avoid you ?

No. Obviously not - at least to me.... 

Red means stop. 

In this case, he jumped a Red and was killed - _that's why you don't do it !_



However, the motorist was also in the wrong - big-time !

Speeding is wrong, particularly speeding though a junction where you're likely to encounter other road users, pedestrians, people turning, changing direction and speed, etc.

But worst of all is sending a bl**dy text - _how could anyone imagine it's OK to be looking at a phone screen and spelling-out a message as you drive along ???_


----------



## snorri (29 Feb 2008)

Bad Company said:


> Yes of course that is a real and terrible threat - but seriously is she likely to re - offend? Particuarly as she has a 5 year driving ban.


It is not uncommon for criminals to re-offend, just as it is not uncommon for people to drive while disqualified.


----------



## ASC1951 (29 Feb 2008)

Dannyg said:


> If it wasn't for the fact that the cyclist was apparently RLJing, I'd say she should get life.


Ludicrous. What's your suggestion for someone who kills deliberately, then, instead of just being stupid and careless - public disembowelling plus two consecutive life sentences?


----------



## yenrod (29 Feb 2008)

It never fails to amaze me this place - the majority are not in support of the cyclist;


FACT: Cyclist killed

FACT: Driver speeding

FACT: Inattentiveness on both parts

FACT: Car Driver in control of a vehicle capable of killing (more so than a cycle will ever wish to be)

FACT: Car Driver due to inattentiveness & driving a CAR (which places the occupants in a seperate atmosphere compared to the 'outside') collides with cyclist who went through red stop light.

FACT: Car Driver is sentenced to a jail sentence.

JUSTICE PRESIDES !

*MY VIEW: Driver of car should have got longer. Driver is in a better position to view the road than a cyclist FACT.

Why do so many round here have such difficulty seeing this *


----------



## tdr1nka (29 Feb 2008)

Bad Company said:


> Four years seems like an awfully long sentance. The way I see it this woman is unlikely to re-commit so the purpose of the sentance is to send out a message to other drivers. Fair enough but most would shoot themselves at the thought of a 1 year sentance - never mind 4.
> 
> IMO people use phonestext etc., because they do not think they will get caught and they do not think an accident can happen to them.
> 
> The solution IMO is more traffic police not longer sentances.



TBH I'd rather see her bannned from driving for life rather than given a custodial sentence that we have to pay for.

The day that people learn that driving as only they see fit is not an absolute right, the better by me.

T x


----------



## tdr1nka (29 Feb 2008)

Bad Company said:


> IMO people use phonestext etc., because they do not think they will get caught and they do not think an accident can happen to them.



*Ahem*

BM, the above statment is surprisingly close the point I was trying put across on the Ss thread about speeding!

Sorry that thread was locked, I was enjoying having a debate without all the name calling, until Sp*nne*r lost all control and decency that is.

T


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Feb 2008)

Interesting angle from Hampshire Police......


A Green Light means you may proceed "if the way to do so is clear".....not an autonatic right to proceed

Not mitigating the actions of the cyclist, btt hey are arguing that if she was not texting, she would have been able to see that the way was not clear, and acted accordingly.


----------



## andygates (1 Mar 2008)

With three other speeding convictions, her speeding the moment before the crash would have made four and her automatic ban. So she had absolutely no right to be on the road at all...

How many such incompetent, selfish idiots do we have on the roads? And why do people tolerate it?


----------



## andy_wrx (1 Mar 2008)

yenrod said:


> It never fails to amaze me this place - the majority are not in support of the cyclist;



Actually I think this thread is quite promising.

There is an attitude from some people on here of two-wheels-good-four-wheels-bad and the immediate assumption in any confrontation between a cyclist and car (or cyclist and pedestrian, cyclist and horserider, etc - between cyclist and anybody else basically...) is that the other party was automatically in the wrong and the cyclist in the right, whatever the facts of the case.

_But in this case, he wasn't !_

So No, I'm not going to support the cyclist.
- he went through a red light. 
I'm certainly not saying 'he deserved it', but he decided to go though the Red.

The fact that I'm not in support of the cyclist does not mean I'm in support of the driver.
She was texting on her phone, as she drove through a junction, in a built-up area, in excess of the speed limit.
Quite a list there, so of course she deserves to be jailed -as punishment, as deterrent to others, and simply to keep her off the roads.

But neither party was 'in the right', I'm not going to 'support' either of them
(although quite what 'support' a posting on this forum is, I don't know...)


----------



## will (1 Mar 2008)

The driver also had a record of speeding/traffic citations in the area. She obviously learned nothing. 

I don't know UK law, but US law, just going within the speed limit through an intersection is no absolution. And speeding as she was is dangerous enough even without the texting. One must approach and enter intersections with caution.

Lots of blame to go around here through.


----------



## MartinC (1 Mar 2008)

When I look at the way some car drivers behave in this country it seems to me that they believe it's OK to kill other vulnerable road users who have, in their view, transgressed the 'rules' of the road. For example the inattentive child, the slow elderly person or in this case a cyclist who has stopped at a red light and then decided to proceed because he neglected to allow for a speeding, texting motorist.

This attitude isn't supported by the Highway Code or by the law and it's gobsmacking to see it parroted here.

The law is that a green light means you can proceed if the way is clear. Exceeding the speed limit by 50% when approaching a junction is criminally stupid and so is texting while you're doing it.

Given that she also has 2 previous speeding convictions and that killing another human being is a serious matter as far as most of us are concerned 4 years doesn't seem excessive.

The 'unlikely to re-offend' argument seems fairly specious too. This is the third time she's been caught speeding in this area. If one of the killed person's relatives decide to exact retribution in kind by killing her should they be let off because they were unlikely to re-offend?

As for the cyclist - yes, RLJ'ing is a criminal offence and people should be prosecuted for it. As far as I'm aware dead people aren't prosecuted in the UK.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Mar 2008)

2 road users chose to break the law. Both were reckless.
The most vunerable paid with his life.
The other will pay with her liberty (albeit for a while).
None of this is good. 
There are valuable lessons to be learnt...but they won't be.


----------



## simon l& and a half (1 Mar 2008)

to go back to the beginning (and to agree with Tdrinka) - prison sentences don't make people into better people, but driving is a privelige that can be withdrawn. In this case a lifetime ban would be appropriate.


----------



## tdr1nka (2 Mar 2008)

TY Simon,
Knowing how some disqualified drivers will still risk driving while not entitled, I would like to ammend my call for a lifetime ban, in this example to also include a mandetory 10 year minimum sentence for those found breaking the ban.

Tx


----------



## Jaded (2 Mar 2008)

Bad Company said:


> Our prisons are already bursting at the seams. I know this lady has done something very bad but I really can't see that she is a threat to anybody.
> 
> Are you advocating 10 years as retribution or as a detterent?



I agree! Once the prisons are full, let people go free.

You know it makes sense.


----------

