Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Ban drivers who text behind the wheel say parents of killed triathlete

Van driver admitted sending texts but was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving

The parents of killed triathlete Daniel Squire have called for those who text behind the wheel to be banned from driving. 18-year-old Squire was riding on the A258 at Ringwould in Kent when he was hit and killed by a van driven by Philip Sinden. Although Sinden admitted exchanging texts with his girlfriend immediately before the incident, he was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving and of causing death by careless driving.

Speaking to the BBC, Daniel’s mother, Tracy, said: "If you are caught drink-driving you lose your licence. No questions asked. For me, if you are either on your phone or texting on your phone you have lost your liberty to drive."

During the trial, the court heard that Sinden had sent 19 texts and received 22 from his girlfriend between 6.07am and 8.32am. He and his girlfriend continued texting until she sent a message at 8.39.49 and he was alleged to have composed a message at around 8.40am which was never sent. Squire was hit at around 8:40am.

Sinden, however, claimed that he had not been distracted by his phone. He said that he had been texting using his left hand, typing without looking at the phone so as to keep his attention on the road. He claimed that Squire had unexpectedly joined the carriageway from the pavement and that this was what had brought about the incident.

Daniel's father, Symon, said that people needed to take responsibility for their actions with regards to mobile phone use in cars. "People need to make a moral stand and say, 'It is dangerous, there are consequences and I don't want to take the risk'."

Tracy Squire said she had been unable to visit Daniel’s grave since the court case. "I don't know how to explain this to him, because he is lying in there and I can't do anything to help him any more. We are right back to where we were on the day he lost his life – nothing has changed."

Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) denied press reports claiming that officers had been instructed to seize mobile phones at all road traffic collisions, but insisted it was taking the issue seriously. It is currently standard practice to seize mobile phones from drivers at the scenes of very serious collisions as part of the information and evidence gathering process.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

48 comments

Avatar
Gary613 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Bez has updated his blog bit.ly/1FXiYLS yesterday 15 April

Thank you to him for all his unpaid work on this awful subject

Avatar
Tregouet | 8 years ago
0 likes

Here in Deal:
The whole town is confused about why there was no justice for Daniel. Please support our campaign to get the answers we need and justice for Daniel. There will be a meeting at The Admiral Keppel on Thursday 2 April at 6 p.m. to form a campaign team and to take this forward.

If you feel you can help in anyway , please attend.
If you are confused by what happened, please attend.
If you have questions, please attend.
If you want justice for Daniel, please attend.
Together we can get the answers we need.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Daniel-Squire/359997557530384...

Avatar
Gary613 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Please help the Squire family take this forward by showing your support:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Daniel-Squire/359997557530384

Avatar
atgni | 8 years ago
0 likes

Samsung's S-drive would be a help. (Only in Australia though).

https://www.samsung.com.au/sdrive/

Avatar
Metaphor | 8 years ago
0 likes

Retrial? Financed by Cyclists' Defence Fund?

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Any penalty for being caught for texting or using a mobile phone should be severe enough to be a deterrent but not that severe that it can't be dealt with in a Magistrates court (or Sheriffs court in Scotland). This way the law can be applied without the use of a jury, which have a habit of letting motorists off the hook. Magistrates must apply the law according to the common meaning of the wording. They have very little discretion on the verdict.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to ron611087 | 8 years ago
0 likes
ron611087 wrote:

Any penalty for being caught for texting or using a mobile phone should be severe enough to be a deterrent but not that severe that it can't be dealt with in a Magistrates court (or Sheriffs court in Scotland). This way the law can be applied without the use of a jury, which have a habit of letting motorists off the hook. Magistrates must apply the law according to the common meaning of the wording. They have very little discretion on the verdict.

severe penalties are not a deterrent because people think 'it won't happen to me'

Avatar
midgetdutts | 8 years ago
0 likes

I commute every day and I can see from drivers behaviour who's texting as opposed to just speaking on the mobile. I have not seen anyone pulled over for using their mobiles whilst driving or stopped at lights, MET Police far more likely to pull a cyclist for jumping a red light, or being ahead of the ASL. More hassle and paperwork for the police stoping a vehicle, the penalties for using mobiles and the incentive for Police to uphold the law has to be changed, then maybe drivers will think twice, or even just the once.

If I receive 22 texts from my partner in an hour and a half and I wasn't driving I'd be pissed off I would probably stop answering after 2 or 3. Did she know he was driving? Presumably she knew he drove for a living? Would that make her an Accessory? Should the law be changed to make her an Accessory?

Avatar
Simmo72 | 8 years ago
0 likes

I fully support more enforcement and stiff punishments for those that persist with texting. An instant ban It is distracting when standing still so I find it impossible to believe this driver was in full control of his vehicle. The law is an ass to let this man off.

How about the government provide some budget for some hard hitting adverts. EDUCATION IS THE KEY

There will be a lot of grey areas, ie what about if you change your music on your mp3, adjust your sat nav, light a fag....it can all take your eye of the road.

Avatar
pants | 8 years ago
0 likes

Cases like this makes me wish the Punisher was a real person and he rides a bike. It's a travesty.

Avatar
Bez | 8 years ago
0 likes

It cannot and should not be assumed that simply because he was texting while driving at some point on his journey, he was doing so at the point of collision. This is key to the case.

If someone texts while driving, but does not have a collision, then puts their phone down and returns their attention to the road for sufficient time as to recover their normal level of awareness of their surroundings, and then has a collision, that collision (and thus any death resulting from it) was not caused by texting while driving.

It would appear that the CPS was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sinden was using his phone at or immediately before the point of impact. This may be because insufficient evidence exists to support that version of events (which includes the possibility that Sinden was indeed not using his phone at such a time); it may be because the CPS failed in the task of identifying and presenting that evidence; or it may be because the jury failed to convict in spite of a compelling case.

Any one of these may be the key reason as to why the use of the mobile phone did not give rise to a guilty verdict. I'm trying to identify which of these things is the case, and the first step of that is to establish what forensic evidence exists.

There remains the fact that, if mobile phone use could not be proven to be the cause, a guilty verdict would also be possible if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sinden's standard of driving was of a sufficiently low standard in any other way to have cause the collision.

Naturally, most people reading about the case here would consider it beyond reasonable doubt that Squire was never on the pavement, and that driving at speed into the rear of someone with no apparent attempt to avoid them should quite patently constitute careless driving at the very least. Res ipsa loquitur. It's not quite that simple in court, though.

Avatar
stefv replied to Bez | 8 years ago
0 likes
Bez wrote:

It cannot and should not be assumed that simply because he was texting while driving at some point on his journey, he was doing so at the point of collision. This is key to the case.

If someone texts while driving, but does not have a collision, then puts their phone down and returns their attention to the road for sufficient time as to recover their normal level of awareness of their surroundings, and then has a collision, that collision (and thus any death resulting from it) was not caused by texting while driving.

It would appear that the CPS was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sinden was using his phone at or immediately before the point of impact. This may be because insufficient evidence exists to support that version of events (which includes the possibility that Sinden was indeed not using his phone at such a time); it may be because the CPS failed in the task of identifying and presenting that evidence; or it may be because the jury failed to convict in spite of a compelling case.

Any one of these may be the key reason as to why the use of the mobile phone did not give rise to a guilty verdict. I'm trying to identify which of these things is the case, and the first step of that is to establish what forensic evidence exists.

There remains the fact that, if mobile phone use could not be proven to be the cause, a guilty verdict would also be possible if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sinden's standard of driving was of a sufficiently low standard in any other way to have cause the collision.

Naturally, most people reading about the case here would consider it beyond reasonable doubt that Squire was never on the pavement, and that driving at speed into the rear of someone with no apparent attempt to avoid them should quite patently constitute careless driving at the very least. Res ipsa loquitur. It's not quite that simple in court, though.

There are only two ways you can drive into the back of someone:
- intentionally
- un-intentionally

If it is the latter, it can only be through careless or dangerous driving, mobile phone use or not.

Even if the cyclist swerved to avoid, e.g., a pot-hole, a driver should be allowing enough room for such events.

Avatar
Bez replied to stefv | 8 years ago
0 likes
mckechan wrote:

If [unintentionally], it can only be through careless or dangerous driving, mobile phone use or not. Even if the cyclist swerved to avoid, e.g., a pot-hole, a driver should be allowing enough room for such events.

Personally I agree, but the legal situation is what matters if we're discussing why this trial didn't deliver a guilty verdict.

Avatar
stefv replied to Bez | 8 years ago
0 likes
Bez wrote:
mckechan wrote:

If [unintentionally], it can only be through careless or dangerous driving, mobile phone use or not. Even if the cyclist swerved to avoid, e.g., a pot-hole, a driver should be allowing enough room for such events.

Personally I agree, but the legal situation is what matters if we're discussing why this trial didn't deliver a guilty verdict.

I do understand that my statement is a logical argument and may not be a valid legal argument, but if not, why not? ... or rather what can be done to improve the legal situation?

Do you know if there is any course for legal review of this case?

Regards

Avatar
brooksby replied to Bez | 8 years ago
0 likes
Bez wrote:

Naturally, most people reading about the case here would consider ... that driving at speed into the rear of someone with no apparent attempt to avoid them should quite patently constitute careless driving at the very least. Res ipsa loquitur. It's not quite that simple in court, though.

As has been demonstrated in the Michael Mason case.

Avatar
kraut replied to Bez | 8 years ago
0 likes

He provably sent over ten texts while driving. That alone should be sufficient for him to lose his license.

He ran over a cyclist IN PLAIN VIEW ON A STRAIGHT ROAD. That alone should be sufficient to convict him of dangerous driving. There is no way you can hit someone in front of you on a straight road unless you are driving dangerously.

Avatar
md6 | 8 years ago
0 likes

There is something so wrong with the justice system if killing someone while breaking the law - provably breaking the law - doesn't result in a punishment or even a conviction. He was texting repeatedly while driving, he admits he was texting while driving, then he killed someone while doing it. But no, nothing done about it. I despair.

Avatar
The Rake | 8 years ago
0 likes

This case bothers me. Did the prosecution hand him a phone in court and ask him to compose a text whilst looking away?

Avatar
brooksby replied to The Rake | 8 years ago
0 likes
The Rake wrote:

This case bothers me. Did the prosecution hand him a phone in court and ask him to compose a text whilst looking away?

Maybe he could have composed and sent a text while not looking at his phone (although I'd still question if his entire attention was on his driving). But how does he read a received message without looking at it? Does his phone vibrate in morse code?

Avatar
runskiprun replied to The Rake | 8 years ago
0 likes

in fact compile a response to an unseen text... blindfolded.

Avatar
stefv | 8 years ago
0 likes

We all read regularly about DBDD and DBCD cases not resulting in convictions and many seem like injustice, but this one is simply breathtaking when you look at the publically available facts.

The guy was using his mobile and he killed a cyclist.

Is there any course for legal review?

Avatar
Cycleholic | 8 years ago
0 likes

Absolutely scandalous verdict given by the jurors. It's beyond belief that given all the evidence they would come to the conclusion that the driver was blameless. It's like saying, 'well it wasn't his fault he was texting while driving.' 'It was the fault of the cyclist for being in his way while he wasn't concentrating on his driving.' Were these jurors paid off???
I really feel for the family who have not only lost a cherished family member, but who are also never going to trust the British justice system ever again.

Avatar
Airzound | 8 years ago
0 likes

The issue in this case was the jury. WTF were they thinking? Did the judge incorrectly direct them on the law? In any case it is a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to make the case. How could they fail to do that with facts like this? Beggars belief. I bet Philip Sinden and his defence counsel were grinning ear to ear with delight. It's an absolutely shameful result.

Can't the verdict be appealed on a matter of law as something clearly went very wrong?

Mr Sinden should be careful the roads are a dangerous place with c**ts like him driving and using their mobile phone at the same time. Let's hope he is flattened by a huge tipper truck with it's driver doing the same as he was.

Avatar
kil0ran | 8 years ago
0 likes

Any research done into texting vs drink driving? It would seem to me that texting whilst driving is actually more dangerous than driving when over the drink-drive limit. Whilst your actions and judgement are impaired when drunk at least you've got your (limited) attention on the road ahead. Not the case when texting with your phone on your lap. Of all the in-car distractions its the most serious because your primary sensor (eyes) aren't devoted to the task in hand. Texting is never "momentary inattention" - it requires SECONDS of inattention - during which time a considerable distance has been covered and the hazards have been moved. Was recently sat behind a driver who was clearly texting in queued traffic - eyes down, phone in lap, only occasional glances forward. Made her jump when I used my horn (missus) to encourage her to drive into the 6 car gap which had opened up in front of her so clearly attention no longer on the road.

Avatar
pwake replied to kil0ran | 8 years ago
0 likes
kil0ran wrote:

Any research done into texting vs drink driving? It would seem to me that texting whilst driving is actually more dangerous than driving when over the drink-drive limit. Whilst your actions and judgement are impaired when drunk at least you've got your (limited) attention on the road ahead. Not the case when texting with your phone on your lap. Of all the in-car distractions its the most serious because your primary sensor (eyes) aren't devoted to the task in hand. Texting is never "momentary inattention" - it requires SECONDS of inattention - during which time a considerable distance has been covered and the hazards have been moved. Was recently sat behind a driver who was clearly texting in queued traffic - eyes down, phone in lap, only occasional glances forward. Made her jump when I used my horn (missus) to encourage her to drive into the 6 car gap which had opened up in front of her so clearly attention no longer on the road.

Only seems to be about six times as dangerous as drink driving:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/Driving-while-Texting-Six-Times-Mo...

Avatar
djcritchley | 8 years ago
0 likes

... and email and check facebook ...

Avatar
kitsunegari | 8 years ago
0 likes

Unbelievable, and very sad that the life of a vulnerable road user seems to be worth so little.

Avatar
cw42 | 8 years ago
0 likes

How about the Police working with phone companies to instantly disable a phone number if caught? Usual stuff around points and a fine for the driving side, but phone companies showing they care by disabling the account. You'd then have to get a new account, and your name would be on a black list, similar to car insurance, that would show to the phone companies you'd been caught, therefore your next contract would be dearer or your pay as you go charges dearer. You've got to hit these people where it matters, directly in the pocket and the hassle of changing numbers. Maybe even have a "special prefix" number that everone knew was given out to convicted driving phone users?

Avatar
noether replied to cw42 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Disabling phone whilst the motor is running is a brilliant idea. Cars/ Trucks nowadays are chock-full of electronics and such safety measure should be simple to implement, incl differentiating between GPS for road mapping and all other forms of digital communication. As it falls under safety regulations, it would also not fall foul of EU legislation. Lawmakers should implement it at once (which will only happen under pressure of vigorous and relentless campaigning).

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to noether | 8 years ago
0 likes
noether wrote:

Disabling phone whilst the motor is running is a brilliant idea. Cars/ Trucks nowadays are chock-full of electronics and such safety measure should be simple to implement, incl differentiating between GPS for road mapping and all other forms of digital communication. As it falls under safety regulations, it would also not fall foul of EU legislation. Lawmakers should implement it at once (which will only happen under pressure of vigorous and relentless campaigning).

It'll never happen, because passengers have every right to use their phones. You can't disable all phones in all cars.

Pages

Latest Comments