A 71-year-old driver from Suffolk has been handed an 18-month community order and a 12-month driving ban after being convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving. Joan Martino said she did not see 58-year-old Christopher Holt cycling in hi-vis before she hit him.
The BBC reports that Martino’s Toyota Rav 4 was seen to “drift” towards the kerb before hitting Holt on Rainham Road, Rainham, on May 11, 2016.
Holt had been just 150 metres from work when he was hit. He suffered a fracture to his spine and as a result of that injury suffered a pulmonary embolism. He died in hospital four days after the collision.
Prosecutor Ben Temple said: “Put simply in everyday language, this defendant knocked the deceased off his bicycle causing Mr Holt to travel through the air, landing first on the pavement. He then rolled into the road.”
Martino said it had been dry, clear and light and she had been driving in flowing traffic at between 20mph and 25mph.
She stopped at the scene and witnesses said she appeared to be “shaky and in shock”.
Martino denied causing the death of Holt, saying she did not know how the collision occurred.
“It was just a split second and that man was on my bonnet,” she said.
She said she had tried to call Holt over the following days before police arrived to tell her he had died.
“I was just distraught. I didn’t know what was going on because I didn’t know how the accident happened,” she said.
Indicating that she would not jail Munro, Judge Sarah Munro QC told jurors the offence resulted from “a second or two moments’ inattention from a lady with an impeccable driving record” and said there was no dispute it fell into the lowest category.
37 thoughts on “12-month ban for pensioner who didn’t see cyclist she killed until he was on her bonnet”
This drivers abilities are
This drivers abilities are not going to improve, why only a years ban?
Where is the remorse?
My sympathies to the family and friends of Christopher Holt.
I’ve said this before, but if
I’ve said this before, but if you kill someone whilst driving and it’s your fault, then it should be a lifetime driving ban. It’s not like the streets are empty and we need more drivers – let’s at least try to remove the most dangerous ones.
This just a week or so after
This just a week or so after a motorcyclist was killed on the same road, no doubt due to a similar impeccable driver.
I’ve had a few near misses lately due to these impeccable drivers on this very road. It’s been shut a few times lately due to these impeccable drivers too.
This impeccable driver was distraught enough to escape with a minor ban but not to admit it was 100% her fault.
Cunt.
A cyclist in hi-viz suddenly
A cyclist in hi-viz suddenly appeared on her bonnet and she tried to deny it was her fault. Thank goodness the jury saw through that and convicted, even if the judge did not reciprocate with a suitable punishment.
Please Ms Martino, surrender your licence. You know its the right thing to do.
A lifetime ban does seem more
A lifetime ban does seem more appropriate.
Furthermore, it seems that the judge has inattentively* omitted a requirement for a retest at the end of the 12 month ban.
* carelessly? dangerously?
He was in hi Viz (not that
He was in hi Viz (not that should make much difference) the speed was 20-25 mph, so how many seconds was he visible for? A bit more than the second or two suggested.
How come the other drivers managed to navigate around him or was it a succession of alarming close passes?
Was she faffing around with the controls in an unfamiliar vehicle and too tired from an early start?
witnesses said she appeared
witnesses said she appeared to be “shaky and in shock”. Really! poor dear.
I increasingly struggle to
I increasingly struggle to recocile prosecutions for careless driving with prosecutions under Health and Safety legislation. Driving is supposed to be ‘standardised’ by the application of an examination and a test. The vehicles themselves must be inspected annually and comply with a huge array of specifications (including a nice unobstructed area for the driver to look through , which seems to have been surplus to requirements prior to this incident).
Compare and contrast, say, the approach taken by the HSE to prosecuting a crane operator who struck someone with the load they were lifting because they were not paying attention. Or who placed the load on top of the banksman because the operator felt that that was where it should go.
nniff wrote:
The massive fines you see in HSE prosecutions are usually against employers for failing to keep employees safe. There is also the possibility of a sentence up to max 2 years, less than the 5 years available (though seldom used) for death by careless driving. For a true comparison with careless driving, you probably need to look at HSE prosecutions under s.7 (essentially one employee failing to take care of another) which is more analagous to the relationship between two road users. These prosecutions are rarer. E.g. where an HGV driver hit and killed a roadworker on a closed section of motorway during nightime roadworks, he got a 240hrs community order, which is easier to reconcile with what you see for careless driving – https://press.hse.gov.uk/2018/05/10/employee-sentenced-after-worker-fatally-crushed/
If you can kill someone in
If you can kill someone in otherwise ideal driving conditions and not know how that happened, then is it really worth the risk to get behind the wheel again?
“Only a split second”?!? Pull
“Only a split second”?!? Pull the other one. It may have only taken a split second for the poor sod to bounce off her car’s bonnet, but he would have been visible for a f- of a lot longer than that as she’d approached him. If she’d been properly paying attention.
Lifetime ban: its the only way to be sure.
Aren’t we at risk of sounding
Aren’t we at risk of sounding a little ageist here – chances were she was a shit driver in her 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s too!
Alarmingly similar to
Alarmingly similar to circumstances I experienced.
I was hit at about twice the closing speed while in a mandatory cycle lane. I survived with life-changing injuries, it’s really not that bad but just shows I could easily have died.
Driver got off scot-free because the police wanted the easy option of saying “cyclist error”.
Really don’t understand how a driver who can’t see isn’t banned for life and/or sent to jail for killing someone.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
How the hell did they manage to blame you?!
KINGHORN wrote:
Christmas Eve, end of shift. Least amount of actual work / paperwork. They literally just complete the collision form with Cyclist error and that’s the end of it. The form also said it was dark and raining (it really wasn’t!!).
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Surely that is a criminal offence ?
hirsute wrote:
Crap weather and lighting might be endemic in the UK, but it’s hardly a criminal offence…
madcarew wrote:
But it should be.
madcarew wrote:
Can’t decipher the emoticon, but the post I quoted was about filling in an official form. Surely filling in a form knowing the data to be false with the aim of suppressing a complaint merits some sort of offence? Or at least failing in your duty.
The sentences are far too
The sentences are far too leanient for taking someone’s life through carelessness. It’s apalling.
I get why folk aren’t jailed
I get why folk aren’t jailed for something that could be classed as an accident, if it were car on car. The fact the collision is with a cyclist just makes it more severe of an outcome like in this unfortunate case. To dish out a lengthy prison sentence for a genuine accident is probably a little OTT but to kill someone through careless or dangerous driving should incur a 10-20yr ban for careless and lifetime for dangerous at the very least!! A car could be argued to be a “deadly weapon”, and you’re allowed to get behind the wheel again beggars belief. You telling me if someone with a gun licence accidentally shot and killed someone that they wouldn’t have their licence revoked for like. The justice system in the UK is badly failing to protect us vulnerable road users. Something needs to change, but no-one has the balls to implement the necessary legislation to make it happen. Makes me sad. And Angry.
dee4life2005 wrote:
Only a very small percentage of road traffic collisions are actually “accidents”, most are down to not paying enough attention when in control of a potentially fatal machine.
Htc wrote:
Take the point, but “accident” doesn’t necessarily mean something entirely unavoidable with no blame attributable; it can just mean an event that was unintentional. Hence “preventable accident”, “accident waiting to happen” etc. Death by careless driving is by definition a preventable accident (with tragic consequences). If the collision isn’t accidental but intentional, then it should be a dangerous driving charge. Of course, we all know those are more difficult to prosecute and so the CPS will often just go for careless.
dee4life2005 wrote:
Fear not! The government (if I might dignify such a shower of s**t with that epithet) will be doing the thorough review of road law any day now; it’s only been five years since it was promised.
burtthebike wrote:
Not sure about replying to your own reply, but it’s just struck me that perhaps a certain lord might like to do something remotely useful rather than attack cyclists, and get the government to implement that review. If he’s not too busy appearing on tv reviling cyclists that is.
You can arrest people for
You can arrest people for having a knife, but you can’t reason that taking someone’s life by car should have any real punishment. You’ll let this person drive again after a year of not driving and this person’s ability to drive will not only have deminished from lack of use, but also age. Real smart. Glad live in the UK.
A depressingly familiar tale.
A depressingly familiar tale.
Of course, “a moment’s inattention” actually means “has been driving around for years without being able to see clearly or react quickly, and the odds have caught up with her”.
How can the judge say that
How can the judge say that the driver had an “impeccable driving record”? Has she been at her side throughout her driving life? No. The truth is the driver has not yet been convicted of any driving offence. That is very different from having an impeccable record!
I hope the judge gets mowed
I hope the judge gets mowed down themselves, his peers can then tell his family that it was only a moments inattention that killed their family member and that the culprit will get a slap on the wrist. This ‘reasoning’ that lets off so many criminals and weak CPS are all part and parcel as to why motorists can still kill and maim with virtual impunity.
Didn’t a ‘moments inattention’ kill a family of 4 including two kids when the HGV driver smashed into them on the motorway, oh but johnny foreignor and kids involved so he got 10 years!
This shit is not just wrecking lives, it’s damaging the very fabric of our society because no-one in power will act to change things and the justice system itslef including the judges/CPS et al are all part of the disgraceful problem that needs a massive revamp as to how motorists are viewed with their weapon of choice.
Little wonder there are so few people cycling when you have good reason to believe it could be you getting mowed down and the system will do fuck all to protect you and anyone else, why risk it!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Worse than that, the system will try everything possible to make it your fault, especially if you’re dead and can’t argue back.
Those lights you had on but were smashed to pieces by the force of the impact – it “won’t be possible” to tell if they were on at the time of the accident, the driver will probably say they weren’t.
If you were wearing hi-vis, it’ll have blended in with the dappled greenery behind you or the bright yellow van you were passing or the sunlight will have been at such an angle that it was rendered ineffective. If you weren’t wearing hi-vis, that’ll be almost carte-blanche to run you down.
If your bike was in any way even slightly defective (no pedal reflectors…?) it’ll be contributory negligence on your part. Meanwhile, if the driver had a misted up windscreen or bald tyres or faulty brakes, it’ll probably be overlooked, not tested for etc.
Your behaviour on the bike will be scrutinised for at least the previous 24hrs leading up to the incident. If you were seen on a pavement or RLJing or if you’ve had one drink in that time, you’ll be at fault because you were clearly a total scofflaw just asking to be killed.
The hypocrisy and double standards literally never ends, the system will do everything possible to let off the poor driver (who remember has an impeccable driving record or does lots of charity work or is a caring mother of 3) vs the “unfortunate” cyclist who after all was “just” a cyclist… 🙁
There seemed to be sarcasm
There seemed to be sarcasm involved.
Definitely a criminal offence. Police blame victim, therefore don’t need to do any police work.
There seemed to be sarcasm
There seemed to be sarcasm involved.
Definitely a criminal offence. Police blame victim, therefore don’t need to do any police work.
There seemed to be sarcasm
There seemed to be sarcasm involved.
Definitely a criminal offence. Police blame victim, therefore don’t need to do any police work.
“Martino denied causing the
“Martino denied causing the death of Holt, saying she did not know how the collision occurred.”
Denies responsibility and in 12 months time she can do it again. Absolutely terrible and awful for Mr Holt’s family. There is no justice.
The death of another cyclist
The death of another cyclist with seemingly magical abilities. Teleportation and invisibility. We are like the X-men.
It’s a dangerous world when you knew know when you can suddenly appear on someone’s bonnet.
If only this bloke had waited
If only this bloke had waited until the yoofs were on their bikes, then he would have got a slapped wrist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47905991
There is something seriously wrong with the system when cyclists get killed or injured by drivers who deliberately drive at them and get little penalty and the 10 year, yes 10 years above.
Just so’s everyone can see
Just so’s everyone can see what this lady was apparently driving, that allowed a cyclist to ‘magically’ appear on her bonnet. The Toyota RAV 4 (according to google):