Text and Drive

[TheAnimus]

BBC NEWS | England | Hampshire | Text driver jailed for bike death

So jail for texting whilst driving. This one is a bit more contentious than normal because the cyclist she killed had gone through a red light.

I've always been in favour of very strong punishments for anyone found driving whilst drunk espesually if they are considerably over the limit. The question is, how simple is it to say you weren't paying attention? The line is harder to draw, even blood alchol levels are contentious (for instance some are leglass after a glass of wine.

[ajones]

Well... not only was she texting, but also speeding. And that combination when approaching a junction is criminally stoopid.

[dave87]

I agree whole heartedly with the decision the Judge made. She decided to take her eyes off the road and in doing so killed a cyclist.

As has been said the only mitigating circumstance is that the cyclist had jumped a light, but had she been paying attention it is likely she could have taken action to avoid the collision, or at least reduce the speed at which she collided with the cyclist, and thereby reducing his injuries.

[malfunction]

Personally I think 4 years is a bit over the top - but only because the cyclist ran the red light. Without knowing the road / crossing in question it's hard to say how dangerous (as opposed to how legal) 45mph was. I can't argue with it being idiotic to text and drive though - you can at least look at the road while talking but writing a text is a lot more distracting than talking.

[nichomach]

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

QFT. Your mind should be on what your car is doing and what other road users are doing, not on texting your mates.

[Mossy]

Typical

Would she have got this if she was doing her make up and hair whilst driving?

Seen many of them doing that......

[Hunain]

I text while riding my motor bike But I keep my eyes on the road, i can text without looking does that count?

[dangel]

I text while riding my motor bike But I keep my eyes on the road, i can text without looking does that count?

Oh.

My.

God.

[Saracen]

Personally I think 4 years is a bit over the top - but only because the cyclist ran the red light. Without knowing the road / crossing in question it's hard to say how dangerous (as opposed to how legal) 45mph was. I can't argue with it being idiotic to text and drive though - you can at least look at the road while talking but writing a text is a lot more distracting than talking.

I'm not convinced it was severe enough, from what I've read of the case.

My attitude is simple. When you're driving a car, you are in control of a lethal weapon, and you have a duty of care to do everything in your power to control it sensibly. While there may be occasions when things happen that you could have done nothing at all to prevent, you have an absolute duty to be fully in control of yourself, and concentrating on the task at hand ... because if you don't, the odds of a catastrophic incident increase substantially.

If this cyclist had just ridden out in front of her car giving her no chance to respond, even if she had been fully concentrating, then that would be very different. But if you kill someone because you're drunk or, as in this case, because you're grossly negligent in your handling of that lethal weapon, then you are committing manslaughter (that's my opinion of what is done, not what I'm suggesting the legal charge would be).

From what I can gather, this cyclist died because this silly, seflish bint was texting .... and speeding. And she either knew that doing so was illegal, or she damn-well should have known, since it's not only been widely publicised but is the responsibility of the driver to know motoring laws.

She owed a duty of care. She failed miserably in that and the result was that someone died, and a family was devastated. Given that four years probably actually means two and a half (or under the governments early release scheme, quite a bit less than that), I am not convinced that this sentence is adequate for killing someone.

[SilentDeath]

I dont agree. Cyclist went through a red light. Red lights are to be broken, but only when its safe and assuming the road is well known to you, which was obviously not the case.

Cyclists, or at least me as a cyclist will be happy to break important rules, as they are only risking themselves. For example I used to turn off a busy road at a mini roundabout buy going round the wrong way, becuase it was easyer and quicker just to check and wait for it to be safe to do such a thing.

To be speeding, one assumes the road is well known to the driver, probably part of her commute...

you can at least look at the road while talking but writing a text is a lot more distracting than talking.

Dont agree. Depends what you are using it for... but texts are usually a LOT shorter, and therefore win.
Anyone that types more than say.. 50-100 texts a year will be albe to do it at resonable speed with their eyes shut, and then the only demand is thinking what to type, same as talking.. but with no demand to do it quickly.


Then its quite likely that she wasnt even using (or thinking about using) the phone when the accident happened, as one would usually stop doing stuff before junctions so as to make better predictions for other traffic.. ofcourse not much good if a cyclist goes through a light, as they move so slow you wouldnt know they are going ot continue untill the LAST second. Cars are far more predictable... yet even if this was the case, I am sure our justice system would still try to make a good example of anyone caught.


Unless she didnt see the junction in the first place (which I point out that there is far more evidence that the cyclist was at fault for this)


Whilst Ive never tryed to text while driving I have done things far more demanding.. like changing the battery in my mp3 player. Removing a phone from pocket is more demanding than both put together, at the same time

[IBM]

Oh.

My.

God.

Twice now

[Saracen]

I dont agree. Cyclist went through a red light. Red lights are to be broken, but only when its safe and assuming the road is well known to you, which was obviously not the case.

Cyclists, or at least me as a cyclist will be happy to break important rules, as they are only risking themselves. For example I used to turn off a busy road at a mini roundabout buy going round the wrong way, becuase it was easyer and quicker just to check and wait for it to be safe to do such a thing.

To be speeding, one assumes the road is well known to the driver, probably part of her commute...

As a driver, you owe a duty of care to be concentrating on what you're doing, and that includes watching for unexpected events .... like people running out in the road, or cyclists jumping red lights.

If the car was travelling at a legal speed, and if the driver had not been texting, would she have spotted the cyclist and braked in time? If it was the case that nothing she could have done would have made any difference to hitting the cyclist, I don't believe the charge would have been what it was. There has to have been evidence that her actions were dangerous, and that it wasn't just that the cyclist jumped the lights.

What if, for instance, it had been a child running out into the junction? That is WHY drivers owe a duty of care. Unexpected things happen. Kids run out into the road after their ball. Brakes fail on bikes. Someone skids on a patch of oil or ice, You're supposed to read the road, read the potential for such things and drive accordingly. And that doesn't include speeding and playing with your phone .... especially when you end up killing someone as a result.

Did the cyclist contribute to his fate? It sure seems so. But regardless of that, the driver was not doing what she was morally and legally obliged to do, and caused a death as a result.


Incidentally, on the subject of duty of care, my old law lecturer used to illustrate the principles of negligence in this way. To prove negligence, you need to establish three things :-

- duty of care
- breach of that duty
- resulting damage.

The duty of care of a driver is statutory. You own one because statute says you do. So you don't need to prove it exists to establish point 1.

If you hit someone, you've breached it. That's self-evident from the mere fact of hitting them.

If they suffer damage as a result, be it medical issues or just torn clothing, then you're established resulting damage and a negligence claim WILL work.

You're then down to assessing how much those damages are, and at that point (and this is AFTER negligence has been proven, remember) the actions of the injured party come into play. If the injured party contributed to their own injuries, then the damages would be reduced accordingly.

So the example my law lecturer used to use was :-

- if a pedestrian waits until the driver gets really, REALLY close, then deliberately leaps out on front of you, you have been negligent if you hit them and they suffer and loss at all as a result.

That illustrates the inference of duty of care on the driver. You're driving a big, solid, heavy chunk of metal at speeds easily capable of causing serious injury or death. You therefore owe a duty to everybody, including kids that run out, to be doing EVERYTHING in your power to avoid accidents.

The negligence example I used is a civil law matter, and in that example, if it was ever taken to court and the facts could be proven, a likely outcome would be an award of 1p of damages and no costs. Which is why you don't see it happen. The standards in criminal issues are a bit different, as is the burden of proof, but nonetheless, drivers do owe a duty to be exercising certain standards in their actions when driving. Driving is one area where the usual requirement of the law to prove intent (mens rea) often doesn't apply. If you're caught speeding, or drinking under the influence of drink or drugs, it doesn't much matter whether you knew you were speeding or under he influence - in all but very special and unusual circumstances, the mere fact that you were doing it makes you guilty, regardless of whether you intended to or not.

[ajones]

I text while riding my motor bike But I keep my eyes on the road, i can text without looking does that count?

We'll answer that question WHEN you cause an accident, because that's probably the same stupid bloody thing that the women in the OP thought.

I apologise if I'm causing offense here, but what a dumb thing to say!

You may keep your eyes on the road, but what about your concentration? Maybe we should ask the DVLA to make one of those road safety adverts, and instead of concentrating on drivers watching out for bikes, it should be the other way around.

And yes... I used to be a biker but gave it up.

[TheAnimus]

I dont agree. Cyclist went through a red light. Red lights are to be broken, but only when its safe and assuming the road is well known to you, which was obviously not the case.

Are cyclists actually compelled to stop at red lights?

If someone is making a risk assesment on jumping the red lights on their bike, they might well assume that no one is going to be both speeding and not looking where they're driving.

[pauldarkside]

QFT. Your mind should be on what your car is doing and what other road users are doing, not on texting your mates.

I completely agree - I don't even smoke whilst driving and wait until I've reached my destination or simply pull over and take a break.

Somewhat related ... I don't think the current rules/laws go far enough with regards to driving distractions. What about those being interviewed or recording to camera whilst driving? You clearly see the person staring into the camera for several seconds at a time and there's no way they can be classed as being fully in control of their vehicle.

I text while riding my motor bike But I keep my eyes on the road, i can text without looking does that count?

stupid, and irresponsible not only to yourself but to those around you.

[TheAnimus]

I don't even smoke whilst driving and wait until I've reached my destination or simply pull over and take a break.

Woo!

one of my friends, ok, aquentances at uni who had a care used to do this. Chain smoke whilst driving.

He dropped it one day, still burning, onto his leg. luckily this was as he'd just entered the motorway, thankfully at rush hour so was doing barely 20mph, and thankfully steared to the left.

Lightweight summer trousers + ciggies don't go.