- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Driver who killed charity cyclist while retrieving sat-nav convicted by jury
A motorist who killed a cyclist as he checked that his satellite navigation device was still working after it had fallen off the windscreen has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
The victim, 37-year-old Arthur Platt from Lyndhurst, Hampshire, had been taking part in a charity ride from John O’Groats to Land’s End to raise money for Help for Heroes when he was killed in July last year on the dual carriageway A442 in Telford, Shropshire.
The driver, 47-year-old Stuart Cook from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, had pleaded guilty to a charge of causing death by careless driving. He returned a not guilty plea to the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving, but was convicted by a unanimous decision of the jury at Shrewsbury Crown Court, reports the Shropshire Star.
Mr Platt was airlifted to hospital but died of the injuries he sustained in the incident, which happened when Cook, who was returning home in his BMW from a business meeting, took his eyes off the road to retrieve the device and check the screen was still lit, the court heard.
Speaking after the jury had returned its verdict, the victim’s widow Madeleine said that her husband, who had himself been unable to join the services on physical grounds, was a “special man” who was determined to raise money for the armed forces charity.
“He was a very special man,” she said. “We are not vindictive people, but if one positive can come of this it is that if people can read what happened and make sure it never happens to anyone else.
“He would want to prevent something like this happening again,” she continued.
“Help for Heroes was a charity that is very close to his heart and he raised more than £10,000 for them.”
Mr Platt’s sisters, Marie Molloy and Kim McKye, said: “A wonderful and much loved young man lost his life owing to the dangerous actions of Stuart Alan Cook. We respect the jury’s verdict and we are grateful for justice.
“Whatever the outcome there can be no winners today because, as much as we wish with all our hearts to wind back time and bring Arthur back, that simply cannot be done.
They added: “Finally, we realise that this has been a difficult time for the family of Mr Cook and we wish to extend our sympathy to them.”
Sentencing will take place at a later date.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 43 min 27 sec ago
The manifesto only outlined a £350 million cycling infrastructure fund, it was covid lockdown that led to gear change.
- Rich_cb 51 min 11 sec ago
I think the 20mph limit was covered by both of those outlets, it definitely was in the Telegraph. Huge numbers of people don't follow the news at all.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 8 min ago
The average times not changing much has got a huge amount to do with the parcours though, looking at 1985 there were five mountain stages and three...
- Brauchsel 1 hour 43 min ago
Well, if your stem's the right length you shouldn't be able to see either axle...
- Backladder 2 hours 37 min ago
Most people wouldn't even be able to see my net worth from a distance of 5 feet!
- Browsie 3 hours 7 min ago
My condolences to the gentleman's family, but reading through the article I couldn't help thinking , how long before helmets were mentioned, and lo...
- Goldfish 3 hours 13 min ago
easy obvious solution is to keep parking where it is, and put painted cycle lane on other side of road. Any poor parking by cars only...
- Cugel 3 hours 25 min ago
I vill make a report as soon as the varnish manufacturer provides me with a bung and a year's free supply in their most exotic colours, as well as...
- David9694 5 hours 15 min ago
So don't drIve a Fiat 500 where the blackbacks are?
- nopants 8 hours 15 min ago
They are if you can swap every one for a new crankset.
Add new comment
10 comments
"I'd be quite happy if they were banned entirely."
It's not the sat-nav that is to blame, it's the twat driving.
"Anything that distracts a driver from concentrating on the road should be banned.... It would save me a lot of time cutting these people from out out of cars/vans/lorry's etc. It would also make me feel safer sharing the roads as a driver and cyclist with these idiots."
That's easy to say but where do you draw the line? Perhaps we should ban mpg and trip computers or even ban speedometers as they can be a distraction. What about ban passengers because they are definitely a distraction. Then there's oncoming headlights, and as for foglights, don't get me started on that one.
Anything that distracts a driver from concentrating on the road should be banned.... It would save me a lot of time cutting these people from out out of cars/vans/lorry's etc. It would also make me feel safer sharing the roads as a driver and cyclist with these idiots.
I think a far more serious subject for concern is with vehicles that have retro-fitted TV screens on the dash - visible by the driver. These should be banned.
Re: TV screens...
They are banned - long ago. Unless the legislation against them has been repealed, they are definitely illegal. No TV screen can be in a position to be visible from the driving seat.
It's just another one of those laws that's not enforced much - although it is occasionally.
The windscreen obscuration problem is occasionally jumped on too - it is illegal to plaster the windscreen with too much clutter and people have been done for it. It was usually loads of those stupid triangular caravan/holiday resort stickers, as I recall. Once again, it's hardly enforced now and that's more down to the lack of traffic police who were clued up on such things.
Or in a position where it could distract other drivers, too.
I think this situation is more to do with protecting the occupants of these vehicles, yes thick A post pillars are common on many makes and models of car but the manafacturer will argue that they increase safety and as such will never be legislated against.
However the placement of aftermarket Sat Nav screens is in most cases I have witnessed appalling, many drivers place them in totally inapropriate areas of the windscreen causing a serious safety issue. If you cant eat/drink behined the wheel why is it that you can obscure a huge area of your windscreen???
There are numerous reasons why Sat-nav tools will never be banned from cars. For a start, there is a major commercial sector to consider. And perhaps more importantly, sat-nav equipment in general reduces congestion and journey times by routing drivers through areas that avoid jams, making better use of existing infrastructure. There should be better awareness of how to use them properly. If you were to say that field of view should be a topic for legislation, then many common models such as Vauxhall's Meriva would be amongst those banned from our roads. This is because its thick windscreen pillars obscure a significant portion of the driver's field of view.
Piffle. In other words: send some of them along inappropriate roads, thereby spreading the congestion around. Anyone who thinks that congestion, pollution or collisions could be reduced by having the same number of vehicles use backstreets, tiny rural lanes or parallel routes which then also get congested needs their bumps felt. And we've all known people with tales of the satnav instructing them to turn into a field or various other stupid scenarios.
I expect satnav units won't be banned from vehicle windscreens because commercial users, manufacturers, retailers and self-interested pressure groups (e.g. AA, ABD) will be up in arms prediciting it as the end of civilisation as we know it and it infringes drivers' civil liberties, blah blah blah.
However, this doesn't get round the fact that putting a sizeable electronic gadget in front of the driver is obscuring their view, which in my opinion is increasing the risk of a collision. That this box is illuminated, visually animated and supposedly offering a route to your destination only serves to further distract the driver.
Our company regularly get telephone calls from delivery drivers and visitors because our office is not located exactly where the postcode tells the satnav to go, sometimes even after we've told them this is the case, so it's not helping them or us.
It's like smartphones. They have their uses, but I wonder how the vast majority of people managed to live and breathe without one constantly at their side/in their hand? Bunch of numpties.
(yes, the last bit is more rant than reasoned argument)
Sad story but perhaps it will be a reminder for some of the idiots on the road.
Have noticed more satnavs attached to windscreens recently. One obscured the driver's face from the angle I was at, which in turn surely means he/she can't see me. Why is this not illegal? After all, a crack in the wrong part of your windscreen is not allowed. I'd be quite happy if they were banned entirely.
It'll be a heavy sentence as that's a serious charge. The defendant will be looking at several years in prison I reckon and can forget about ever driving again as no insurance company would want his business without asking for a premium so scandalously huge no-one would envisage paying it.