# Chris Boardman's mum



## Lee_M (18 Jul 2016)

*Mod note*:
There is already a thread on this in the Cafe. The Cafe thread is an 'RIP' type of thread, whereas this initial post and the couple of replies are more about blame, which is why this has been left as a separate thread. If you just wish to express your sympathy, please reply in the cafe thread.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/carol-boardman.204132/unread
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the BBC are reporting she died after colliding with a truck. Why not say she was hit by a truck or a truck was in collision with her instead of blaming the cyclist?

Very sad day and blaming the victim just makes it worse.

Ive already posted in the bbc twitter page to complain


----------



## Dirk (18 Jul 2016)

I wasn't there to witness the accident, so I don't know whether she hit the truck, or if the truck hit her.
By reporting that she was 'in a collision' it apportions no blame to either party.
I'm sure the inquest will answer that question.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Very curious reporting of this, most fail to mention the driver fled the scene.


It is very curious: as far as I can see it's only bikebiz that has reported that the driver failed to stop and they have the make, model and colour of the pick-up, so they must have either a good witness or got the details of the driver's car from the scene. There may be other hit-and-run reports but I haven't seen them. So, while it's unlikely that bikebiz have got it wrong, it's still a possibility.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

If the driver was drunk they may present themselves today. They get a lighter sentence that way. Still no mention of arrests, which may not mean anything, but at the same time nothing about the driver remaining at the scene.


----------



## Lee_M (18 Jul 2016)

They didnt report a collision. They reported that she collided with a vehicle which does apportion blame as it places thr action on her


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

Chris never used the word accident.


----------



## Banjo (18 Jul 2016)

Wouldnt it be better to just pay our respects to Mrs Boardman on the other thread than go arguing about the wording of news reports?



Im sure the whole story will emerge eventually.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

If the driver was drunk and banned would you consider this an accident?


----------



## Guyincognito76 (18 Jul 2016)

They're always called a 'road traffic collision' or 'RTC' now until any blame is attributed or not. 

If you work in A&E, for example, you are told never to call them 'accidents'.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

Driver's been spoken to:

http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/16...ay-road-crash-that-killed-carol-boardman.aspx


----------



## jefmcg (18 Jul 2016)

Banjo said:


> Wouldnt it be better to just pay our respects to Mrs Boardman on the other thread than go arguing about the wording of news reports?
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure the whole story will emerge eventually.


I think this is a good time to discuss it. 

Normally when someone dies in a collision, there is very little about it on the internet, so a grieving family member or friend who uses google to find out more about what happened and very likely stumble across the thread on CC. In that case we should be careful what we say. But Carol Boardman's death is widely reported, so it's very unlikely any of her loved ones will linger here.
--------
The thing is, almost all of these RTCs are reported using this language. Typically "the cyclist died when he collided with the lorry". This language is not neutral; it is saying that the cyclist was the main actor in the collision. Neutral language, which the bbc now seems to be using for this case, would be something more like "the cyclist died in a collision" or the "the cyclist died when his bike and a HGV collided ..."


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

Wording is important. The BBC had that the fatality was due to a "cycling incident"- which removed the driver entirely. The Guardian changed Chris's words, so did The Telegraph and Mail. They all changed collision to accident.


----------



## Guyincognito76 (18 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Wording is important. The BBC had that the fatality was due to a "cycling incident"- which removed the driver entirely. The Guardian changed Chris's words, so did The Telegraph and Mail. They all changed collision to accident.



'Incident' is also a correct term. Although I take your point about it not being referred to as a 'traffic incident'. Editorial standards are so low amongst our press that I'm sure these deaths will continue to be referred to as 'accidents'.

BTW should it be found that the driver wasn't to blame that doesn't let our town planners/councils off the hook.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

If she was a pedestrian would she have died in a walking incident? It removes agency.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Jul 2016)

I beg the Guardian's pardon, they've amended the article "to reflect what actually happened"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...r-killed-in-cycling-accident?CMP=share_btn_tw



> This article was amended on 18 July 2016 to more accurately reflect the circumstances of Carol Boardman’s death.


----------



## Guyincognito76 (18 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I beg the Guardian's pardon, they've amended the article "to reflect what actually happened"
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...r-killed-in-cycling-accident?CMP=share_btn_tw



The first two paragraphs of that article are the probably the best way of describing this kind of incident.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> If she was a pedestrian would she have died in a walking incident? It removes agency.


Yes, and would they say a pedestrian died when they collided with a lorry?


----------



## Markymark (18 Jul 2016)

User said:


> I wonder what excuse they gave to explain the failure to stop? Only "spoken to" I note...


Doesn't really matter. As long as the jury think they're sorry and it was all just a terrible accident they'll acquit or worst case, get a suspended sentence anyway.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2018)

Driver admits causing Carol Boardman's death by careless driving: 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-driving-chris-mold-crown-court-a8686911.html

Stand by for a pathetic sentence.


----------



## Arjimlad (17 Dec 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Driver admits causing Carol Boardman's death by careless driving:
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-driving-chris-mold-crown-court-a8686911.html
> 
> Stand by for a pathetic sentence.



A cop-out by the prosecution perhaps, but getting a jury to convict of the more serious charge seems to be very difficult indeed.


----------



## Rusty Nails (17 Dec 2018)

Is there a legal/technical reason why use of a phone placed on the passenger seat in a moving car is just classed as careless rather than dangerous. Seems dangerous to me.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (17 Dec 2018)

According to teh Wiki

_A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if
_

_the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;[2] or_
_if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.[3]_
I'm sure most readers here would regard what he did as meeting this definition.

However, the test the Crown Prosecution Service applies is whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Experience shows that juries made up of motorists do not convict motorists of such offences. So it never goes to trial for dangerous driving.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Dec 2018)

This is depressing.

I did a google search and this is a retrial. He was being tried in July along with his wife for perverting the course of justice because they deleted their phone records, and he was being charged dangerous and careless driving. A mistrial was directed, and she was freed. 

No wonder he decided to plead guilty to the lesser charge:

Yesterday the court was shown three videos found on Mr Rosney’s phone which he appeared to have taken while he was driving.

In one, he filmed himself, with his young son next to him sleeping in the passenger seat, as he sang along to All Cried Out by Blonde.

The other two clips appeared to show the steering wheel and dashboard of his Mitsubishi pick-up truck, which he bought 11 days before the fatal collision, and the road ahead as he drove.
-----------
There was a home CCTV camera that recorded the incident. Apparently Mrs Boardman fell off her bike 3 or 4 seconds before the pick up can be seen going up and down, presumably over her body. So it wasn't a collision of any sort, he ran over her.

(all from various articles on https://www.dailypost.co.uk)


----------



## Banjo (17 Dec 2018)

With this guy's attitude to driving it seems inevitable he would kill someone sooner or later.

When will the legal system start handing out sentences that would really act as a warning to other slipshod drivers?


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Dec 2018)

Banjo said:


> With this guy's attitude to driving it seems inevitable he would kill someone sooner or later.
> 
> When will the legal system start handing out sentences that would really act as a warning to other slipshod drivers?


Sentences for causing death by careless or dangerous driving make no difference to the number of such instances. Everyone who drives in such a manner does so in the absolute certainty that they can retain full control of the vehicle in all circumstances and they will never cause an accident.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Dec 2018)

As I understand it, there is no proof that he was actually on the phone at the time of the accident.


----------



## alicat (17 Dec 2018)

I'm surprised there was no charge of failing to stop after a collision. It's true he didn't knock her off but he did collide with her when she was on the ground.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Dec 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> As I understand it, there is no proof that he was actually on the phone at the time of the accident.


According to reports of the first trial, he finished his phone call to his wife 4 seconds before, so if he looked down to hang up his phone, he would have looked away just as Mrs Boardman fell off the bike.


----------



## Levo-Lon (18 Dec 2018)

Glen Forger!!! Soon as i saw that i thought thread revival.

RIP Mrs B whatever happened.


----------



## Banjo (19 Dec 2018)

He also tried to delete his phone records after running her over.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Dec 2018)

Rusty Nails said:


> Is there a legal/technical reason why use of a phone placed on the passenger seat in a moving car is just classed as careless rather than dangerous. Seems dangerous to me.



View: https://youtu.be/oal-vBFmnRk


----------



## Gravity Aided (19 Dec 2018)

I don't know about other states in the U.S., but Illinois takes a very dim view of hit-and-run, as we call it.
Hit and Run of an injured person is a Class 2 Felony which carries a possible sentence of up to 7 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000. If the accident causes the death of a person, Hit and Run becomes a Class 1 Felony which carries a possible sentence of up to 15 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000. And that doesn't even consider the civil judgement that would follow. 

In Illinois, if you are driving in a car and are using your cell phone, that is a grounds for a traffic stop and a citation. If you are under 18, you may not use a cell phone at all whilst driving, excepting emergencies. Over 18, you may only use a hands free device while driving. $75.00, first offense, $100 second offense.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Dec 2018)

Gravity Aided said:


> I don't know about other states in the U.S., but Illinois takes a very dim view of hit-and-run, as we call it.


This wasn't a hit-and-run.

But if it was, you'd have a point. Hit and runs do not attract the sort of sanctions they should https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/n...ng-the-a338-spur-road-when-he-was-hit/?ref=ar


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Jan 2019)

Her killer has been given a whole 30 weeks in jail, with an 18 month disqualification.
For killing someone while avoidably distracted that's pretty pathetic in my view.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47071273


----------



## alicat (31 Jan 2019)

Rosney has been very lucky. I hope he uses his time in prison to reflect on the harm he has done from using his mobile phone while driving.


----------



## C R (31 Jan 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Her killer has been given a whole 30 weeks in jail, with an 18 month disqualification.
> For killing someone while avoidably distracted that's pretty pathetic in my view.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47071273



And found not guilty of perverting the course of justice. Also, no mention of the policeman relative of his that tried to stall evidence gathering. Very lucky indeed.


----------



## fossyant (31 Jan 2019)

The law needs to change, coming from someone who has had life changing injuries.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Jan 2019)

C R said:


> And found not guilty of perverting the course of justice. Also, no mention of the policeman relative of his that tried to stall evidence gathering. Very lucky indeed.



Aye, that was the killer's father. He interfered by trying to tell the investigating officers what to do.
The behaviour of the accused, his wife, and his father after the event was disgusting.


----------



## C R (31 Jan 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Aye, that was the killer's father. He interfered by trying to tell the investigating officers what to do.
> The behaviour of the accused, his wife, and his father after the event was disgusting.


Was there at least any disciplinary action against the father?


----------



## Markymark (31 Jan 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Aye, that was the killer's father. He interfered by trying to tell the investigating officers what to do.
> The behaviour of the accused, his wife, and his father after the event was disgusting.


Should that affect his sentencing though?

Not sure I like the idea of having sentences increased due to the actions of others.

They should be charged if there’s enough evidence as a separate issue.


----------



## C R (31 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Should that affect his sentencing though?
> 
> Not sure I like the idea of having sentences increased due to the actions of others.
> 
> They should be charged if there’s enough evidence as a separate issue.



I meant that he was very lucky to have been cleared of the perverting charge, which I guess would have carried a much stiffer penalty.

Considering the goings on reported, it is surprising that the perverting charge didn't stick, but, of course, we don't necessarily know the whole story.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Jan 2019)

Markymark said:


> Should that affect his sentencing though?



Not at all. I was expressing my distaste at their cynical behaviour when someone had been killed through the driver's carelessness.


----------



## Slick (2 Feb 2019)

fossyant said:


> The law needs to change, coming from someone who has had life changing injuries.


Probably not everyone would agree but i thought his comments about not wanting to see lots of people go to jail but the ability to hurt someone by careless taken away were interesting depending on exactly how he planned to make that happen.


----------



## Gravity Aided (2 Feb 2019)

Stay safe out there, folks.


----------



## Drago (2 Feb 2019)

I know it's the daily mail, but I'm sure its printed on free range fair trade lettuce leaves and delivered by a man who addresses you as comrade if you really wanted it, but...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6660175/Dangerous-careless-drivers-kill-face-LIFE-jail.html

If it should,d ever come to alas that would be brilliant. They can j produce life driving g. ans while they're about it.


----------

