Texting van driver cleared of responsibility for death of 18-year-old cyclist

Guessing the jury have not been on a bike for a few years. Twats.

Wouldn't it be karma if Philip Sinden was killed in an RTA by a mobile toting moton …………… and it wouldn't even be murder, nor causing death by dangerous or even careless driving ………… he would be erased from this earth without so much as a wibble, as if he never existed, except to his family and those that knew him and us. A bit like Daniel Squire and his family.

The jury must have all been retards.

Now, how can I fit an AK47 on my bike?

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=Az_6xdfxtwxVYXgAlN9NB...

Something's Not Quite Right Here
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right...

Sorry to say, this isn't an issue they'll take seriously while it's only cyclists getting killed.

Another one for the Cyclists' Defence Fund?

If it is as reported this is warped. Texting while driving should be an immediate fine and 3 points on license and that's for a 30mph. At any higher speeds it should be a ban. And the police need to enforce it.

Thought's with Daniel Squire's family

I've done jury service and the CPS solicitors - no offense meant - were hopelessly out of their depth and unimaginative.

Why not ask him to demonstrate to the jury whether he could drive a simulator and text at the same time?

Why not see if the chap could have cycled on to and off that narrow path as the defendent says?

They just don't have what it takes. Or they don't have enough time, more likely. Or any real axe to grind, since they have no stake in the case

By contrast the defence lawyer will have been some sleek City fellow full of the arts of pleading, and doing the 'jury stuff' that's their stock in trade.

The judge will have directed the jury that they must acquit if there is any 'reasonable doubt' about the case. It's the defence lawyer's job to sow the seeds of that 'reasonable doubt' and that's what they do. Circumstantial evidence (texting, etc) will not be good enough... so you can see why these people get off all the time.

Essentially the problem here is that the public - and therefore the jury - completely approve of texting while driving, as they are all drivers who do this. The loss of the life of a bike rider is not something that most drivers care about, and they carry this attitude into court with them.

The public must be educated to despise this, in the same way that the socially acceptable drunk driving of the 1960s became generally accepted as "a bad thing" by many people by the mid 1990s and by the majority by about 2005.

I predict that texting and driving will be accepted as intolerable by the public by about the year 2040 to 2050 if a consistent campaign begins now, and continues non-stop.

It is probably a generational thing. Also, a lazy selfish thing.

His biggest regret was getting caught?

Dear road. Cc this article is shameful in that has happened but you have fallen in to the same trap as all other media reporting these types of incidents. The van didn't kill the poor bloke on his bike it was the driver. Until we get all media to realise it's the actions of the individual behind the wheel and not the object that's responsible for the death and injuries caused how can we expect Juries to convict. We need to get the actions attached to the driver not the vehicle.

To the family of the man who lost his life my condolences to you and I hope that despite the lack of a sense of justice, you can take some heart from the obvious outpouring of disgust at the way your loss had been dealt with in our legal system.

It really is time that we ended the cult of the sacred driving licence, people are at the controls of a piece of heavy machinery in a public place have to take full responsibility for its safe operation. Using a mobile while driving is illegal for a reason and should not be socially acceptable.

firstly what a disgrace the "justice" system is to the family of the rider - i echo everything above.

what we need is a voice...
where are you Sir Chris Hoy, Boardman, Pendleton and all the rest of the "cycling stars" - these people with their publicity and voice can cut deep into this Political tar that covers incidents like this so the general public doesnt see them....

i am not critical of them, by any means, i just think if they loved cycling like we do and they understood what weight them speaking out might carry, if it was me, i'd be marching on Downing Street with a banner held high until the "justice" system was changed for good!

Remember this is Kent, the UKIP heartland, daliy Mail readers as far as the eye can see. Next to immigrants, cyclists are they public enemy number 2.

this is where we need a system where relatives can challenge an obvious unjust verdict.

If you are on the phone texting that is dangerous driving and killing someone is for me manslaughter.

The DPP should call this in for review if he can, especialy if the 'pavement' claim is untrue.

Like me, write a letter to the Attorney General requesting that the sentence is reviewed. At the contact details below:

Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP
Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF

Email: correspondence [at] attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

According to Dan's mum he only stopped after being flagged down by another motorist 125meters down the road. His lack of remorse is most shocking.

BigglesMeister,
Thank you for clearing up the incident location for me. From the report and the timings (text and emergency call) I had assumed that the incident had occurred almost immediately after Sinden had turned onto the A258.

If his last text received was at 08.39.49 before he joined the A258 and the emergency call (from another driver) was at 08.40.44 then that only gives him 55seconds to go from a near standing start to go about 1.2miles. Now take off the time for the other driver to stop and call the emergency services (say 5seconds at best) and your down to 50seconds.

If you take into account the 0-60mph time of a Vauxhall Vivaro which is about 10seconds (depending on engine) then Sinden's testimony is clearly not credible.

I know it is wrong to sink into conjecture in these situations, but, I can't help feeling that Sinden has ploughed into Daniel Squire whilst being distracted by what he was doing inside the vehicle.

How this is not an 'open and shut case' of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is beyond me. This is as gross a miscarriage of justice as you will ever find and it must be appealed.

Appalled, no other words necessary.

Utterly tragic for Daniel and his family. Just tragic for all cyclists. And a complete tragedy of the legal system.

More:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wrong...

this is sickening. the idiot was texting. end of. how they could accept he was left hand texting and driving speaks volumes of the jury's intelligence. no one could defend the victim who is now DEAD and GONE forever, all they had was the murderer's version and of course he would concoct some nonsense. he couldnt deny the texting but to say it was left handed and separate from his attention is despicable. i detest seeing people texting at the wheel it's the most idiotic thing to do in a car, right up there with smoking while your kids are in the back. thoughts to the victim's family who have lost their son while someone's else's son lives on. lives on as a murderer with no shame or remorse. pathetic justice system. also, the council could do more and clear the shrubbery blocking that damn pavement, i see it a lot, total lack of maintenance meaning riders are FORCED onto the road because of overgrown hedges. has happened to me countless times and thankfully i've not been killed. but they're probably too busy swigging ale with that throatless guffawing plonker Farage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0iwz3NEC0

Bez has updated his Beyond the Kerb blog on 15 April with further evidence of the wrong verdict.

bit.ly/1FXiYLS

Many thanks for his sterling efforts.