Hands free phone using killer driver jailed for 3 years
Discussion
There always seems to be a long thread whenever someone isn’t jailed who accidentally kills / injures a biker, yet this one seems to have passed everyone by.
This was no accident and the woman driver deserves everything she’s got IMO. Apparently she had been on a phone call for 27 minutes when she crashed into the biker, but and this is a big but, she was legal and handsfree.
Cue, lots of “ban her for life”, “send her to jail forever” amd so on, it’d be better if we got realistic opinions though on the sentence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-42...
This was no accident and the woman driver deserves everything she’s got IMO. Apparently she had been on a phone call for 27 minutes when she crashed into the biker, but and this is a big but, she was legal and handsfree.
Cue, lots of “ban her for life”, “send her to jail forever” amd so on, it’d be better if we got realistic opinions though on the sentence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-42...
Possibly a little lenient, but I think a custodial sentence, even a short one, is much more disruptive than really appreciated.
It doesn't mention it in the article, but I wonder if she expressed remorse and that was taken into account?
I know that road, and it's a pretty daft excuse to say you hit a rut/pothole and lost control, it's one of the smoothest roads around the area!
It doesn't mention it in the article, but I wonder if she expressed remorse and that was taken into account?
I know that road, and it's a pretty daft excuse to say you hit a rut/pothole and lost control, it's one of the smoothest roads around the area!
She may have been "hands free", but she certainly wasn't "legal".
A jury of her peers has decided as much, and Judge John Pini QC has handed down a sentence appropriate according to his interpretation of the current sentencing guidelines. The end.
It's about time idiots had a lesson in "just because you believe it to be legal, doesn't make it OK to risk the safety of others". Hopefully this story gets a bit of exposure in mainstream sources, and thereby helps to persuade people to put their phones down for as long as it takes to drive to a destination.
I'll take a call through my car system, but any time I do my first words are "If it's important, make it quick, as I'm driving". If I need to take the call I'll pull over if I can find somewhere safe, or end the call and call them back when it suits me. If I need to make a call, I pull over regardless. It makes no sense at all to split your attention between the call and driving. Before I had a car with Bluetooth as standard my phone went in the boot of the car while I was driving alone, or was given to a passenger (usually my wife) to answer if I had one.
I wonder just how many of the "a deer ran out in front of me" accidents that insurers pay out for are actually caused by people being a
holes while driving distracted? Because I drive a lot of rural roads at peak activity times for deer, and I've never hit one, nor witnessed any near misses with them. I've seen plenty of cars stuffed into farmers' fields though.
At the end of the day, she was free to choose not to make/take a 27 minute call while driving, so she was the one person she could/should have relied upon to keep herself out of prison and to keep the death of a young motorcyclist off her conscience. Any distraction is exactly that - a distraction. Keep them to a minimum and enjoy the drive.
A jury of her peers has decided as much, and Judge John Pini QC has handed down a sentence appropriate according to his interpretation of the current sentencing guidelines. The end.
It's about time idiots had a lesson in "just because you believe it to be legal, doesn't make it OK to risk the safety of others". Hopefully this story gets a bit of exposure in mainstream sources, and thereby helps to persuade people to put their phones down for as long as it takes to drive to a destination.
I'll take a call through my car system, but any time I do my first words are "If it's important, make it quick, as I'm driving". If I need to take the call I'll pull over if I can find somewhere safe, or end the call and call them back when it suits me. If I need to make a call, I pull over regardless. It makes no sense at all to split your attention between the call and driving. Before I had a car with Bluetooth as standard my phone went in the boot of the car while I was driving alone, or was given to a passenger (usually my wife) to answer if I had one.
I wonder just how many of the "a deer ran out in front of me" accidents that insurers pay out for are actually caused by people being a
holes while driving distracted? Because I drive a lot of rural roads at peak activity times for deer, and I've never hit one, nor witnessed any near misses with them. I've seen plenty of cars stuffed into farmers' fields though. At the end of the day, she was free to choose not to make/take a 27 minute call while driving, so she was the one person she could/should have relied upon to keep herself out of prison and to keep the death of a young motorcyclist off her conscience. Any distraction is exactly that - a distraction. Keep them to a minimum and enjoy the drive.
Her right ear is slightly lower than her left ear.
It's a difficult one really. A chap (driver or rider is irrelevant) has lost his life as a result of lob lug using her phone even though technically she was using it in an accepted legal manner.
While the police failed to unearth a pothole or rut, there needs to be a reason why the vehicle was on the other side of the road. I would suggest that a 27 minute phone call is a distraction, but unless the law puts a time limit on a phone call, how is this measured (or even policed?)
It's a difficult one really. A chap (driver or rider is irrelevant) has lost his life as a result of lob lug using her phone even though technically she was using it in an accepted legal manner.
While the police failed to unearth a pothole or rut, there needs to be a reason why the vehicle was on the other side of the road. I would suggest that a 27 minute phone call is a distraction, but unless the law puts a time limit on a phone call, how is this measured (or even policed?)
cmaguire said:
There's no proof that the call itself had any bearing on the incident.
If there is an acceptance that it did, then that just highlights the current idiocy with mobile phone legislation anyway.
I thought it was pretty well known that even a hands free call is liable to distract drivers?If there is an acceptance that it did, then that just highlights the current idiocy with mobile phone legislation anyway.
I know that a hands free call distracts me. I rarely even talk to my passengers, especially if the traffic is heavy yet fast.
I hate seeing 2 people in a car having really animated discussions. Waving arms, looking at each other.
The driver should be 100% concentrating on the road and not treating their car as an extension of their lounge/kitchen/bedroom.
Not helped by the amount of techo b0ll0x built into modern cars.
I no longer have my 2016 car and am back in my 1998 one. Nothing to distract me and it needs a bit of concentration to keep it on the road. ie the steering is heavy, it's a manual, lights are awful, it's noisy and the shocks are a bit feked so more skill needed getting around corners and not turning it over. Passed it's MOT tho.
Proper driving.
I hate seeing 2 people in a car having really animated discussions. Waving arms, looking at each other.
The driver should be 100% concentrating on the road and not treating their car as an extension of their lounge/kitchen/bedroom.
Not helped by the amount of techo b0ll0x built into modern cars.
I no longer have my 2016 car and am back in my 1998 one. Nothing to distract me and it needs a bit of concentration to keep it on the road. ie the steering is heavy, it's a manual, lights are awful, it's noisy and the shocks are a bit feked so more skill needed getting around corners and not turning it over. Passed it's MOT tho.
Proper driving.
How do they know she was on handsfree? CCTV? Or just her car had Bluetooth and she claimed she was? You still see loads of people in nice vehicles that you know have Bluetooth, with their phones up at their earoles.
I fail to understand how you can go onto the wrong side of the road when driving anything if you are looking out of the window, so she really must have bene looking at her phone. Perhaps she was handsfree and fking about on facebook too?
Either way she is a for driving like that, a for lying about a pothole, and a who killed some poor guy minding his own business.
In short, she is a.
I fail to understand how you can go onto the wrong side of the road when driving anything if you are looking out of the window, so she really must have bene looking at her phone. Perhaps she was handsfree and f
king about on facebook too? Either way she is a
for driving like that, a for lying about a pothole, and a who killed some poor guy minding his own business. In short, she is a
. poo at Paul's said:
How do they know she was on handsfree? CCTV? Or just her car had Bluetooth and she claimed she was? You still see loads of people in nice vehicles that you know have Bluetooth, with their phones up at their earoles.
I fail to understand how you can go onto the wrong side of the road when driving anything if you are looking out of the window, so she really must have bene looking at her phone. Perhaps she was handsfree and fking about on facebook too?
Vehicle telematics, at a guess. If she's got factory-fitted bluetooth, then it'll pull the entire contents of the phone down in order to perform quicker. In doing so it provides significant insight in to how and when the phone was being used. The amount of data stored in a modern car is vast, and police forces are becoming more adept at accessing it, despite a reluctance by manufacturers to assist. ECUs are tucked away all over the place and they can provide very detailed information. This, along with mobile phone digital forensics will allow the collision investigators to piece together exactly what was going on with the vehicle in the immediately prior to the crash.I fail to understand how you can go onto the wrong side of the road when driving anything if you are looking out of the window, so she really must have bene looking at her phone. Perhaps she was handsfree and f
king about on facebook too? From the article linked the charge was dangerous driving.
The mobile phone element looks like more of the current hyped hysteria regarding phones.
You don't end up on the wrong side of the road from making a phone call, to suggest so is retarded fantasy.
If the phone played a part in that then it was because she was looking at the phone and not the road, something that isn't relevant to being 'in' a call, whether handheld or not.
The current phone legislation is a dog's dinner, it makes near enough no difference if the phone is held or not.
The real problem is looking AT the phone and therefore, in today's climate, social media.
Ban phones full stop if they are that big an issue, but also ban in-car touchscreens and all the other techno-crap.
The mobile phone element looks like more of the current hyped hysteria regarding phones.
You don't end up on the wrong side of the road from making a phone call, to suggest so is retarded fantasy.
If the phone played a part in that then it was because she was looking at the phone and not the road, something that isn't relevant to being 'in' a call, whether handheld or not.
The current phone legislation is a dog's dinner, it makes near enough no difference if the phone is held or not.
The real problem is looking AT the phone and therefore, in today's climate, social media.
Ban phones full stop if they are that big an issue, but also ban in-car touchscreens and all the other techno-crap.
cmaguire said:
Ban phones full stop if they are that big an issue, but also ban in-car touchscreens and all the other techno-crap.
This. In my car, some of the HVAC adjustments can only be made on a touch screen, low down, and therefore can only be made safely when stopped.Which is illegal on a motorway. Ridiculous. A couple of knobs or sliders would do the trick.yellowjack said:
She may have been "hands free", but she certainly wasn't "legal".
A jury of her peers has decided as much, and Judge John Pini QC has handed down a sentence appropriate according to his interpretation of the current sentencing guidelines. The end.
It's about time idiots had a lesson in "just because you believe it to be legal, doesn't make it OK to risk the safety of others". Hopefully this story gets a bit of exposure in mainstream sources, and thereby helps to persuade people to put their phones down for as long as it takes to drive to a destination.
I'll take a call through my car system, but any time I do my first words are "If it's important, make it quick, as I'm driving". If I need to take the call I'll pull over if I can find somewhere safe, or end the call and call them back when it suits me. If I need to make a call, I pull over regardless. It makes no sense at all to split your attention between the call and driving. Before I had a car with Bluetooth as standard my phone went in the boot of the car while I was driving alone, or was given to a passenger (usually my wife) to answer if I had one.
I wonder just how many of the "a deer ran out in front of me" accidents that insurers pay out for are actually caused by people being aholes while driving distracted? Because I drive a lot of rural roads at peak activity times for deer, and I've never hit one, nor witnessed any near misses with them. I've seen plenty of cars stuffed into farmers' fields though.
At the end of the day, she was free to choose not to make/take a 27 minute call while driving, so she was the one person she could/should have relied upon to keep herself out of prison and to keep the death of a young motorcyclist off her conscience. Any distraction is exactly that - a distraction. Keep them to a minimum and enjoy the drive.
I hit a Red Deer stag 5 weeks ago at 700am on a dark wet morning. A jury of her peers has decided as much, and Judge John Pini QC has handed down a sentence appropriate according to his interpretation of the current sentencing guidelines. The end.
It's about time idiots had a lesson in "just because you believe it to be legal, doesn't make it OK to risk the safety of others". Hopefully this story gets a bit of exposure in mainstream sources, and thereby helps to persuade people to put their phones down for as long as it takes to drive to a destination.
I'll take a call through my car system, but any time I do my first words are "If it's important, make it quick, as I'm driving". If I need to take the call I'll pull over if I can find somewhere safe, or end the call and call them back when it suits me. If I need to make a call, I pull over regardless. It makes no sense at all to split your attention between the call and driving. Before I had a car with Bluetooth as standard my phone went in the boot of the car while I was driving alone, or was given to a passenger (usually my wife) to answer if I had one.
I wonder just how many of the "a deer ran out in front of me" accidents that insurers pay out for are actually caused by people being a
holes while driving distracted? Because I drive a lot of rural roads at peak activity times for deer, and I've never hit one, nor witnessed any near misses with them. I've seen plenty of cars stuffed into farmers' fields though. At the end of the day, she was free to choose not to make/take a 27 minute call while driving, so she was the one person she could/should have relied upon to keep herself out of prison and to keep the death of a young motorcyclist off her conscience. Any distraction is exactly that - a distraction. Keep them to a minimum and enjoy the drive.
It jumped over a wall and landed under the works van from the side.
Nothing I could do in the slightest. So it does happen.
Van wrecked and deer minced as it was dragged along then ran over by following trucks.
Fairly s
t myself as it ran into the van with a thud. mac96 said:
cmaguire said:
Ban phones full stop if they are that big an issue, but also ban in-car touchscreens and all the other techno-crap.
This. In my car, some of the HVAC adjustments can only be made on a touch screen, low down, and therefore can only be made safely when stopped.Which is illegal on a motorway. Ridiculous. A couple of knobs or sliders would do the trick.The rule makers are idiots. I certainly don't respect them.
The corruption just has better camouflage than before.
shambolic said:
I hit a Red Deer stag 5 weeks ago at 700am on a dark wet morning.
It jumped over a wall and landed under the works van from the side.
Nothing I could do in the slightest. So it does happen.
Van wrecked and deer minced as it was dragged along then ran over by following trucks.
Fairly st myself as it ran into the van with a thud.
Similar thing happened to my wife, deer jumped a hedge, hit her car and kicked out the passengers window as it tried to get back up. Fortunately our daughter and niece were in the back of the car and weren't injured.It jumped over a wall and landed under the works van from the side.
Nothing I could do in the slightest. So it does happen.
Van wrecked and deer minced as it was dragged along then ran over by following trucks.
Fairly s
t myself as it ran into the van with a thud. I've also seen one come out of the undergrowth, run across the road and leap over the roof of my wife's car as she was doing 60 mph and was I followed behind in my car. I don't think she realised how close it came to her.
Mr2Mike said:
I thought it was pretty well known that even a hands free call is liable to distract drivers?
‘They’ say that the distraction of the conversation is as dangerous as drunk driving. Merely holding the plastic to your ear doesn’t do much harm.It is strange that you can listen to the radio, tune the radio, have conversations with people in the car, all legally, and not even mentioned as a distraction.
King Herald said:
Mr2Mike said:
I thought it was pretty well known that even a hands free call is liable to distract drivers?
‘They’ say that the distraction of the conversation is as dangerous as drunk driving. Merely holding the plastic to your ear doesn’t do much harm.It is strange that you can listen to the radio, tune the radio, have conversations with people in the car, all legally, and not even mentioned as a distraction.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff