Police in North Wales have urged motorists to drive their vehicles according to the prevailing conditions and to take extra care around cyclists after two drivers were sentenced in connection with the death of a bike rider on Anglesey.
Robert Idris Llewellyn, known as Bob, lost his life following a collision involving two vehicles on the B5109 in Trefor near Bodedern on the morning of 5 April this year.
A keen cyclist, he had celebrated his 70th birthday – the last before his death – by riding up the Sa Calobra climb on Mallorca with his son, Owain.
The two drivers who pleaded guilty to causing his death through careless driving both claimed to have been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the fatal crash.
Both motorists, Tomos Rhys Wheldon Williams, aged 33 and from Holyhead and 63-year-old Kevin Graham Woods of Amlwch, were handed 12-month prison sentences, suspended for one year, 250 hours of community service and 16-month driving bans.
Each had previously pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
Investigating officer, PC Arwyn Phillips of the North Wales Police Roads Policing Unit said: “The manner of driving of Williams and Woods has left a family without a beloved husband, father, grandfather and a friend to many, and our thoughts and sympathies very much remain with Mr Llewellyn’s family at this time.
“In this case both motorists were blinded by the sun for a significant amount of time so we would also like to emphasise that the sun can impact on visibility and motorists need to take appropriate action in either slowing down or if necessary, be able to stop within the distance that they can see to be clear.
“As cyclists become more prevalent on our roads, drivers need to be more aware of their responsibilities and take extra care,” he continued.
“Drivers need to look out for cyclists and ensure they give plenty of space when overtaking them, leaving as much room as you would give a car.
“If there isn’t sufficient space to pass drivers need to hold back until it is safe to move,” he added.
47 thoughts on “Police urge motorists to drive according to the conditions as two convicted of causing cyclist’s death”
Well, I suppose the police
Well, I suppose the police have no option but to “urge” drivers not to drive like cunts and kill other road users. After all, if all the courts can impose is a short driving ban and a bit of community sercice, what other option is open to them?
I would normally say that the
I would normally say that the sun shouldn’t exactly be unexpected but this was Wales.
Previously I’ve seen reports of people getting let off because of this bullshit excuse. OK, you can argue about the severity of the sentence but at least it’s saying that driving too fast for the conditions is not an excuse.
SteppenHerring wrote:
Was about to post the same. Far too lenient a sentence still but at least they were prosecuted and had the decency to plead guilty. Sadly part of me does think if they had pleaded not guilty a jury would’ve let them off with the sun in eyes excuse.
SteppenHerring wrote:
Childish
Whilst we might agree that this is not enough of a punishment, I think a lot of credit is due to North Wales Police here. They investigated, collected the evidence and presented it in such a way as to ensure there was a result of sorts, which might give some small comfort to the family. There are other forces who might not have been so keen.
No, I have no connection with that or any other force, before you ask.
SteppenHerring wrote:
I should have pushed it further but a driver who clipped me got let off with the same excuse. Fortunately it only sent me into a soft verge :-/
SteppenHerring wrote:
There is a massive difference in cloud cover and precipitation between Anglesey and the hilly areas like Snowdonia or Plynlimon.
Surprisingly heavy sentences
Surprisingly heavy sentences given that many other courts would have accepted their excuse as a valid reason for killing another road user. Also interesting that they pleaded guilty to the charge, so I wonder what their legal advisers told them, and why they just didn’t plead not guilty.
burtthebike wrote:
“Plead not guilty and the CPS will go for Dangerous Driving and I can’t guarantee you will avoid prison” probably.
So what there saying is, it
So what there saying is, it would not have mattered if they had wearing hi viz jackets, trousers or a stupid vest they would still would not have been seen.
Hope the MPs are taking note.
Nope to busy counting there monies in the Caymen Islands
Both men are locals so would
Both men are locals so would know that winding B-road road well. Low sun is no excuse anyway and the crash happened at 7:40, a whole hour after sunrise.
Bob Llewelyn’s widow asked that the drivers were not sent to prison – Daily Post. I agree that prison is unlikely to help anyone in such cases; but a little more than a year without a driving licence looks like a very light slap on the wrist to me.
Simon E wrote:
Every condolence to her, but if this is true, and it was taken into account, then it is yet another example of those charged with administering the criminal law failing to understand it. Criminal law is not there for the victim, or the victim’s family. It is there for all of us, for the good of society as a whole. We all have an interest. The victim’s widow may not have wanted them to be imprisoned. Other members of society might wish otherwise.
Simon E wrote:
Agree completely. Prisons are already overcrowded. I’d rather see longer – much, much, much longer – bans
Simon E wrote:
Prison WILL help, not Mr Llewelyn, but the next potential victims of drivers ploughing head on into blind bends or a low sun or across junctions without looking properly. Prison would be the detereent to change driver behaviour. Prison could save the lives of the next 120 cyclists who will be killed in 2018, or the 1200 cyclists killed over the nect 10 years. Or the 4,000 seriously injured every year. Or the 40,000 seriously injured over ther next decade. A serious sentence is a deterrent. Deterrents change behaviour and that is the solution to the thousands of deaths on our roads.
stevemaiden wrote:
Sorry, but it doesn’t work.
If prison worked the reoffending rates would be tiny.
If the death penalty worked the murder rate in the USA would be a fraction of what it is.
As has already been said, drivers don’t think it will happen to them. It’s called the optimism bias. You could read about the accident pyramid and how near misses, rather than prompt a driver to be more cautious, allow them to think that risky behaviour is ‘safe’ because it didn’t result in a negative outcome (crash).
A case like this will not be on BBC News At Ten, hourly news bulletins and the front page of every single newspaper so the vast majority of the population will not know that a driver could go to prison for accidentally crashing into another person.
So how is prison a deterrent? A complete change of mindset is required regarding how to behave on the road. Millionaire F1 tax evaders are not lauded as heroes. Car adverts, reviews and overpaid TV pundits do not put all their energy into discussing speed, looks, exhaust sound etc. Admittedly we can’t go back to the days of Reginald Molehusband but something has to change in society’s perception of how to behave in cars, vans and lorries so that speed and risk-taking is socially unacceptable.
Simon E wrote:
Not using the word “accidentally” to describe a foreseeable consequence of a a deliberate decision to drive badly might be a start.
My memory is that drink driving became (mostly) unacceptable bevause of a mixture of publicity, severe punishment and effective enforcement. Given that our cretinous Transport Minister can’t even face punishing killer drivers properly i don’t suppose it will happen.
No custodial; just suspended.
No custodial; just suspended.
Cunts.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
How would putting them in prison help anyone?
Simon E wrote:
Are you serious? what about a deterant to other selfish careless drivers all this sentance says it’s ok to kill and get a slap on the wrist.
Krd51 wrote:
A proper driving ban – 5 years, 10 years, life – would equally act as a deterrant.
There should, IMHO, be a mandatory prison sentence for driving while disqualified though.
Krd51 wrote:
Thing is it is no deterrent as people think it won’t happen to them.
A longer driving ban would actually hurt them more due to their location.
If you gave them both 7 years I suspect the older driver would never drive again as retaking your driving rest at 70 wouldn’t be easy to pass.
Bluebug wrote:
Are you serious? what about a deterant to other selfish careless drivers all this sentance says it’s ok to kill and get a slap on the wrist.
— Simon E Thing is it is no deterrent as people think it won’t happen to them. A longer driving ban would actually hurt them more due to their location. If you gave them both 7 years I suspect the older driver would never drive again as retaking your driving rest at 70 wouldn’t be easy to pass.— Plasterer's Radio
Neither of them should ever want to drive again. It ought to be an obvious given that neither would ever be allowed the privilege of doing so again.
Simon E wrote:
No less helpful than putting Alliston in prison. Maybe, just maybe, it might persuade one or two others to slow down or stop when they can’t see. It would also say that we take seriously the fact that driving a car is inherently dangerous, and the privilege of doing so comes with heavy responsibility.
oldstrath wrote:
If you show remorse you get a lighter sentence.
Alliston refused to show remorse so the book was thrown at him.
Bluebug wrote:
No less helpful than putting Alliston in prison. Maybe, just maybe, it might persuade one or two others to slow down or stop when they can’t see. It would also say that we take seriously the fact that driving a car is inherently dangerous, and the privilege of doing so comes with heavy responsibility.
— Simon E If you show remorse you get a lighter sentence. Alliston refused to show remorse so the book was thrown at him.— Plasterer's Radio
So killing someone is fine, provided you mouth the right clichés and turn on the waterworks to order? And Alliston was too honest, so gets punished for it.
Simon E wrote:
Because if your actions cost someone’s life, you deserve it.
The reason they did not go down is because prisons are overcrowded and they cost a lot of money.
If someone you love is killed in this fashion, I am quite sure you will understand if they do not go to prison. I’m sure you will agree with that decision.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
How would putting them in prison help anyone?
— Plasterer's Radio Because if your actions cost someone’s life, you deserve it.— Simon ELet’s bring back hanging while we’re at it, that’ll stop ’em.
Oh wait, it doesn’t.
Never mind, let’s hang the bastards anyway.
The increase in penalties for mobile phone use while driving were widely publicised yet 9 million drivers still ignore the rules. Also, the latest DfT stats shows that many drivers habitually break the speed limit, even though it may result in points on their driving licence and higher insurance premiums: https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/933636636717584384
I’d start with automatic (and longer) bans for the 10,000 drivers who have racked up 12 points or more, and heavier fines for speeding, mobile phones etc. The revenue can help pay for more detection vans to catch more of the speeders and the 3/4 million VED tax evaders. I’d also provide resources for every police force in the country to emulate West Midlands’ brilliant Traffic team.
Simon E wrote:
you dont think it might deter a few? it’d certainly prevent re-offending, ever and cost society less in the long run.
deduct fines via PAYE/benefits, none of this avoiding paying £1/week bs, £500 for speeding/distracted and then rising based on income.
confiscating/immobilising vehicles would be an idea
Simon E wrote:
I agree with your most recent opinion.
It’s a pity these punishments are mostly real already but are either not enforced or are easily avoided (12 points plus but they keep their licence etc).
Ergo, drivers are willing to risk it.
Thus, the next driver in winter sun will take the risk with a rider’s life.
A deterrent does have value IMO. Else I would murder certain drivers and workmates!
Simon E wrote:
Because if your actions cost someone’s life, you deserve it. [/quote]Let’s bring back hanging while we’re at it, that’ll stop ’em.
Oh wait, it doesn’t.
[/quote]
Alan Partridge will help you out here, it’ll stop one.
alansmurphy wrote:
Let’s bring back hanging while we’re at it, that’ll stop ’em.
Oh wait, it doesn’t.
[/quote]
Alan Partridge will help you out here, it’ll stop one.[/quote]
Monkey Tennis?
FUCK,FUCK,FUCK i am fucking
FUCK,FUCK,FUCK i am fucking speechless.
not sure the sentance is
not sure the sentance is appropriate for the crime. One of the key points when taking lessons is to drive to the conditions of the road. If you need a police officer to tell you maybe you should stop driving.
Sun can be a problem for any
Sun can be a problem for any driver but there is no excuse for hitting anyone because the sun is in your eyes. I keep a a cheap pair of really dark sunglasses in my car that I can grab and put on in an instant when the sun is trying to burn my retinas out. With them I can look into the sun and see the road ahead clearly without issue. It’s a shame a lot of drivers don’t take such precautions, especially in winter sun
Critchio wrote:
So do I, that and using the sun visor mean that I’ve never been ‘blinded by the sun’ in over 30 years of driving. Frankly I think it is a pathetic excuse and both drivers should be banned for life
Critchio wrote:
I don’t.
I keep quite an expensive pair of polarized Oakleys in each of our cars. Far superior optics to any cheap pair and the polarizing reduces much of the glare. I didn’t buy them specifically to keep in the car, but then I’ve always got them rather than wishing I hadn’t left them in a drawer at home.
I’ve not seen details of this
I’ve not seen details of this story, were they both carelessly driving in the same direction?
Until we have incidents like
Until we have incidents like this taken as dangerous driving at the very least (again Charlie Alliston manslaughter charge!) and the decisions taken out of the hands of motorbias jurists we will never see justice nor indeed will the ‘justice system offer any protection to the vulnerable.
If an act which kills or maims is not deemed to be criminally dangerous then if I ‘accidentally’ smash your skull in with a sledgehammer I happen to be waving about whilst walking on the pavement or in a shopping centre then it cannot by definition be deemed anything but ‘careless’ at the very most and a slap on the wrist fitting as a sentence.
Yet more proof that the system is broken, the CPS are a load of bottleless cretins and those high up simply don’t give a fuck and continue to ignore the problem!
yhere’s a massive difference
yhere’s a massive difference between low sun through a clean windscreen, and a dirty one.
And I don’t mean the front – its the back/interior side which many drivers ignore, which is the problem. Do the police ever check this ? – anyone know ?
Automobile industry has made
Automobile industry has made wonders in technology, but it is a huge shame that all the technology related to visibility (window defogging, wipers, sun blocking) must has stopped somewhere before WW2
cyclisto wrote:
Some situations are difficult to avoid. Low sun and damp roads can be terrible to drive in. You turn the sun visor down but that doesn’t block the reflected light off the road. You then have the sunlight illuminating the dashboard, which bounces off the inside of the windscreen and reduces contrast even further. Then you have bushes and hedges to the side of the road creating a shaded area that’s impossible to see into (which is why cyclists should always ride where the sun hits them). The only solution to that is to drive extremely slowly, but as we’ve seen, people won’t do it.
Self-driving cars won’t suffer these problems anywhere near as badly.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Some situations are difficult to avoid. Low sun and damp roads can be terrible to drive in. You turn the sun visor down but that doesn’t block the reflected light off the road. You then have the sunlight illuminating the dashboard, which bounces off the inside of the windscreen and reduces contrast even further. Then you have bushes and hedges to the side of the road creating a shaded area that’s impossible to see into (which is why cyclists should always ride where the sun hits them). The only solution to that is to drive extremely slowly, but as we’ve seen, people won’t do it.
Self-driving cars won’t suffer these problems anywhere near as badly.— cyclisto
Actually it’s terribly easy to avoid any of these problems. The method is simply to stop and wait. But of course this delays the vital journey, and so won’t be done.
Whether autonomous cars avoid these issues depends, I suppose, on the technology used. But whatever it us, they surely won’t try too hard to avoid problems unless strong regulation requires it of them. So that’s us fucked.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
I find that putting on a pair of sunglasses helps a lot. I’ve driven low slung sports cars, motorbikes, cars, vans, etc all over the UK and Europe and I’ve never been ‘blinded’ by the sun.
If these people can’t drive safely then they should not be allowed back on the roads…………..
Natrix wrote:
But then you have the issue of driving in conditions with rapidly changing contrast – e.g. going from light to dark under trees where you get a strobing effect. Suddenly you’re in deep shade with sunglasses on and you can see half of bugger all. Made worse by the huge dashes and shallow sloping windscreens in modern cars (and climate control which tends to dump all sorts of crap on the inside of the windscreen – much more so than when you had to sponge the screen every morning in better ventilated cars).
All this contributes to the issue, and the solution is for drivers to slow down
Killer of a colleague of mine was acquitted using the low winter sun defence (6 years ago this coming week if memory serves) so seeing it actually failing for once is progress. Driving bans should be 5 years minimum with a long custodial if they’re caught driving whilst banned.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
So true … was driving up a steep twisty hill with patches of tree cover and was shaken to see at the last minute a cyclist riding slowly on a black bike wearing black clothes and no lights.
Any or all of hi-viz, fluo and flashy rear lights would have really helped. Fortunately the road was steep, so I was going slowly. My screen was proper clean inside and out too.
I always ride with a bright top and helmet and use front and rear lights for this reason.
(He was also black, so even his arms and legs weren’t visible in the deep shade.)
I had to pull over and stop
I had to pull over and stop driving the other day because of the sun. Had left my sunglasses at home. Waited for a cloud to cover the sun before I drove on.
Spent the time cleaning my windscreen.
Now have spare sunglasses stashed in the car.
CGT wrote:
pah, you and your simplistic solution, it’ll never catch on!
So PC Arywn from the NW Roads
So PC Arywn from the NW Roads Unit says ‘drivers need to be more aware of their responsibilities and take extra care’ – YES as vulnerable road users we are well aware of that but why would they?? When they are running late and come across a blind bend or sun shining in their eyes why would they bother to take more care?? If they kill a cyclists it’s no big deal, a few months without a licence is hardly a deterrent so they will keep their foot on the accelerator and press on knowing all they need to say is ‘it was an accident/didn’t see them’. A lot of these most dangerous drivers hate cyclists as they get in their way so their conscience won’t make them drive safer. So until the courts start seriously punishing these killers the deaths will continue. I now realise that if I’m killed by a driver who comes across a low sun (happens twice a day) I’ll be dead, my families lives will be ruined and he/she be inconvienienced by having to get the train for a few months. But that needen’t be the case because a serious deterent changes behaviour – that is proven. A low sun will always be an issue, but driver behaviour can be changed.