A driver who was distracted by his phone before hitting and killing a cyclist on a dual carriageway in Norfolk has avoided prison, instead being handed a 12-month sentence suspended for 18 months and a 12-month driving ban after admitting causing death by careless driving.
The Eastern Daily Press and the Thetford & Brandon Times were in court for the sentencing of Shayne Hill, now aged 32, who hit 54-year-old Cheryl Tye in a 60mph collision while she was taking part in the East District 50-mile time trial championship between Croxton and Eccles on 26 June 2022.
After more than four hours of deliberation by a jury, Hill was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving earlier this year. He was in court for sentencing on Thursday 2 October after pleading guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving.
During trial, the court heard that Hill was “engaged with his phone” for 10 seconds while driving his blue Citroën Dispatch van before the collision at 9.35am on the A11 dual carriageway. In the immediate aftermath, a woman who stopped at the scene reported that Hill said he “was looking for my drink. I didn’t even see her. What will I get?”
Hill told police that his phone was in a holder and was being used for mapping purposes. His sister sent around 25 WhatsApp messages of photos from a family barbecue the previous day, and Hill claimed that the “flurry” of phone activity before the collision was him touching the screen to wipe away the notifications.
The prosecutor, Nicholas Bleaney, argued during the trial that Hill’s driving fell “far below the standards of a careful motorist”, adding: “The Crown’s case is that if you are not paying attention for 10 seconds covering 300 yards and hit someone in the back, it’s not careless driving, it’s dangerous because it falls far below the standards of a careful motorist.”
In mitigation, Hill’s barrister Michael Clare accepted that his client had “more than a momentary distraction”, claiming it was a “brief but avoidable distraction”.
He also added that Hill had “no memory of what happened”, but was deserving of credit for pleading guilty to causing death by careless driving. It was also noted that Hill had no previous convictions, had co-operated with police after the collision, and was “remorseful” about what happened.
Judge Anthony Bate handed Hill a 12-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months, a 12-month driving ban, an order to carry out up to 15 days of rehabilitation, and an order to carry out 300 hours of unpaid work.
Calling the case “very sad”, the judge said events took a “tragic turn” on the morning of the collision, because Hill had “failed to see” Mrs Tye due to his “inattention on the road ahead”. The judge took Hill’s guilty plea into account when handing down his sentence.
The Eastern Daily Press reported that Hill himself made a ‘miracle recovery’ from a serious incident in 2013, when his car smashed into a tree.
In his trial for causing the death of Mrs Tye, Hill’s barrister submitted this in mitigation, claiming that Hill was still affected by “his own road traffic accident some years ago”.
After the fatal 2022 incident, the East District branch of Cycling Time Trials, the national governing body for time trials in England and Wales, suspended races on dual carriageways for the rest of the year, after a number of incidents involving time trial participants on the A11, and a warning from National Highways of the “significant dangers” of holding time trials on major roads.
Its secretary, Mike Johnson, pointed out the group complied with all of the legal requirements associated with running time trials, saying that “everything is very rigidly controlled.”
“All cyclists also now have to use front and rear lights, which you see from half a mile away, so there is really no excuse for any accidents [collisions] at all”, added Mr Johnson.
It was noted during Hill’s trial that Mrs Tye was wearing a white and yellow top and had flashing lights on the front and rear of her bike at the time of the collision. The court also heard that the collision happened on a straight section of road with good visibility, and the weather conditions were ‘fine’.
“Cheryl Tye’s death was entirely preventable”

In a social media post, Norwich Cycling Campaign deplored the sentence handed down to Hill, claiming the punishment was evidence that “…killing a cyclist through distraction does not carry meaningful consequences.”
“Looking at a phone while driving is not a ‘brief distraction’ – it is lethal”, said Norwich Cycling Campaign.
“[A] 12-month driving ban does not reflect the gravity of taking a life.
“Suspended sentences show cycling deaths can happen with almost no accountability.
“Cheryl Tye’s death was entirely preventable. Distracted driving is deadly, and sentencing must reflect that reality.”
At the time of her death, the mayor of Hadleigh Town Council, Frank Minns, paid tribute to his “dynamic and determined” former colleague.
“She was at the council for about 15 months and she was quite a dynamic and determined person and unmistakably from Yorkshire,” he said.
“She was a fine and honest person and I had quite a close working relationship with her and whatever I achieved I would not have managed without her support.”
Before Hill was sentenced, the prosecutor read extracts of statements from Cheryl’s family, with her husband Chris saying that he is “no longer able to take part in such races” after taking part in the time trial where his wife lost her life. He also said that he had “come to the numbing realisation that having set off together in this race he’s now on his own.”

38 thoughts on ““Distracted driving is deadly, and sentencing must reflect that reality”: Driver who killed cyclist on dual carriageway after “flurry” of phone activity avoids jail”
The life of a cyclist costs
The life of a cyclist costs less than a phone call.
1) Judge Anthony Bate needs
1) Judge Anthony Bate needs to be removed from his role.
2) The sentence needs to be referred for being unduly lenient and is no deterrent whatsoever to this driver and others.
3) Another example of the discrepancy in driving standards that would fail a driving test but once “qualified” a driver will only get a slap on the wrist.
There should be a ban for
There should be a ban for just touching your phone while driving.
I saw a young lad driving a cement mixer the other day with his phone in his hand continuously for at least ten minutes through the middle of Southampton. I could see he was distracted by it the entire time. Of course even if he had been seen by the police it’s very unlikely anything would have happened.
was following a van the other
was following a van the other day, that seemed a likely candidate, was driving slower than youd expect on the road, then kept speeding up again and also kept veering towards the left side of the road, then correcting back.
unfortunately couldnt get any dash cam footage of them on the phone, so just have to assume they were crap at driving.
The law is not fit for
The law is not fit for purpose. There needs to be a thorough review of death by careless/dangerous driving legislation, not just tagging ‘dangerous cycling’ onto a broken system.
HoarseMann wrote:
No need to worry! The government’s thorough review of road laws and sentencing will be published soon!
Although I am getting tired of saying that, after how ever many years it’s been.
eburtthebike wrote:
How ever many years… and governments.
How about National Highways
How about National Highways remind drivers of the dangers of mobile phone distraction on dual carriageways?
It seems like courts, National Highways etc assume that distracted driving is to be expected and allowed for.
I am fed up with reading “mitigating” factors which crop up in court cases :
“…had worked a 12 hour shift….”,
“…had young children in the car…”,
“…was on his way to get a haircut…”.
“….was taking her tortoise to the vet…”
And you have to ask, what the sentence would have been had Hill collided with a broken down car, killing a passenger?
Not sure National Highways
Not sure National Highways are the correct target here. They use their matrix warning signs to do exactly as you ask. Drivers still ignore them, just as they ignore everyone else telling them to keep their eyes on the road and off of their phones. The only likely deterrent is the knowledge that should you be caught touching your phone the. you will lose your licence for a significant period and should you cause an accident due to phone use then you will lose your liberty.
Unfortunately, although the law already allows this, so called professionals like the judge in this case are so ineffectual and crap that this poor lady’s family are left thinking her life is worthless and their suffering doesn’t count.
They are to me. A motorist
They are to me. A motorist commits a clear dangerous driving offence and their main priority is to use the incident to support their anti DC cycling hobbyhorse.
Nothing to worry about with
Nothing to worry about with these new fangled dangerous cycling laws then, if this is the standard of sentencing for killing someone on the roads whilst using your phone at the wheel.
Yes, but cyclists will think
Yes, but cyclists will think the jurors.
road.cc wrote:
If it had happened in Scotland they wouldn’t have needed to save that for pleas in mitigation – it’s a legitimate defence here…
Hill was still affected by
Hill was still affected by “his own road traffic accident some years ago”.
Not affected in any positive sense. How is having a history of accidents an excuse for having more? A year in jail would help him drive better in the future. It would certainly make roads safer for a year.
Terry Hutt wrote:
While it would possibly make a marginal difference to the latter, I fear it won’t help him drive better.
Unfortunately, with previous, it is probably only his peers taking a dim view of his actions or a moderate chance of being detected when he offends again which would change things.
Neither of which seem imminent, alas.
If your driving is so bad
If your driving is so bad that you killed someone, but that doesn’t fall far below the standards of a careful motorist, what does?
Anyone who spends that long looking at their phone rather than the road ahead, is falling far below the standards of a careful motorist, but the jury refuses to convict. The law is urgently in need of the thorough review promised all those years ago, but all we get is the dangerous cycling law.
Im still lost as to how the
Im still lost as to how the mobile phone use part, which Hill admitted to, could remotely be considered “careless”, when theres nothing in the sentencing guidelines for mobile phone use in careless charges, because its all under dangerous !!!
So how did they end up in this situation ? how did the prosecution not make that point crystal clear to the jury so they understood it.
and then you come to the sentencing part, it looks like its the bare minimum driving ban, and a sentence which is a joke.
Why would anyone need to
Why would anyone need to swipe away notifications unless of course you were reading each message…
As ever just murder someone with a car and you get off.
They had to be reading
They had to be reading something, playing devils advocate he could have been trying to read his map and a flurry of WhatsApp messages came in and he had to dismiss tem to see the map. But none-the-less he was dangerously distracted. I deliberately keep my phone in a phone wallet, so a) I wouldn’t be reading it the first place to b) be distracted by a flurry of WhatsApp messages. The only time I have had a similar distraction I’ve been sitting at home!
I dont know how others phones
I dont know how others phones are setup but my WhatsApp notifications sit in the notifications bar, they dont & cant jump into other apps. I’m surprised the prosecution didn’t prove that part in court, or is that too Hollywood.
And I know the road, though not sure of the exact location of the collision, but its the A11 youre going to Thetford or Norwich or youre just lost, the guys local he doesn’t need a map to drive around there let alone on a dead straight dual carriageway.
But i remember when it happened thinking there’s a DPD depot at Snetterton, just East of Roudham off the A11, I know there have been crashes and near misses there before involving the van drivers from there.
The way my phone works is
The way my phone works is they pop up over things, not in things and it is annoying but it can be simply avoided by not reading something in the first place which IMO is dagerous not careless. Even if he wasn’t reading a map he had to be rreading something and dangerously distracted. I used to TT on the road and I dont think its complicated either but its a bit overengineered for inducig dangerous speeds. Maybe its unfounded but it seems to me that in general the flat straight roads in the east of England induce muppets, I only really encounter abuse or stupid driving when I’m in the area :-/
in general the flat straight
in general the flat straight roads in the east of England induce muppets, I only really encounter abuse or stupid driving when I’m in the area
I resent that! We in the NW have some of the best worst drivers in the country, encouraged by the firmly Nelsonian police
Lol, I maybe should
Lol, I maybe should deliminate that to the areas I’ve cycled sufficiently (East & central Scotland and East mid and south of England). Ive never cycled enough in the NW to come to an opinion of drivers there. I think I had was forced into the support car for my LEJOG when it went through the NW 6 years ago, as unknowingly I had a catastophic iron deficiency caused by cancer. That was the closest ever I got to the NW. But in the areas Ive been in, whilst some areas are maybe more aggressive, the flatlands accomdate a ‘special’ kind of driver 😉
PS My sincere condolences if you’ve got drivers worse than that!
When using my phone to
When using my phone to navigate, I use voice navigation. I rarely, if ever, need to even glance at the screen. Certainly no need to glance at it while on a straight section of dual carriageway. Of course, WhatsApp notifications and family pictures are another matter. I know what I believe he was doing but maybe I don’t play fast and loose with the mobile phone laws while driving, unlike a high proportion of drivers out there.
HLaB wrote:
Nah. If he was using it to navigate, it would have been in car mode, and that mutes notifications unless he’d deliberately over-ridden the bit of the phone that turns distractions off. Total excuse. I get nothing from my phone when it’s in car mode other than voice notifications for text (SMS) messages.
We have just over three weeks
We have just over three weeks to lodge an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/unduly-lenient-sentences
… unless I am missing something.
Does anyone want to take the lead?
Willie B wrote:
Subject to correction from those better-versed in the law than I, unfortunately I don’t think that applies. As far as I understand it appeals can only be made against sentences “triable only on indictment” (i.e. must go to Crown Court). The original offence for which the driver was charged, causing death by dangerous driving, falls into this category but he was cleared on that charge. He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving but that is a “triable either way” offence (i.e. can be heard in Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court) and so, as I understand it, the sentence can’t be appealed. Which is an outrage, obviously, but not sure anything can be done under the law as it stands.
From https://www.gov.uk/ask
From https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review :
Only certain types of case can be reviewed, such as:
murder
manslaughter
rape
robbery
some child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
some terror-related offences
some crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion
stalking that caused the victim severe distress or to fear violence
harassment that caused the victim to fear violence
controlling and coercive behaviour
Why were they only claiming
Why were they only claiming 10 seconds of inattention? If the cyclist is visible from half a mile away that is 30 seconds travel time at 60 mph and if the cyclist herself is doing 20mph it would actually be 40 seconds from when she was first visible to when he hit her.
Seems obvious that juries
Seems obvious that juries will not convict dangerous driving because they know full well, that they do exactly the same behaviours so don;t see them as “wrong”. It needs to be far more proscribed and binary. Almost like a tick list, with no reference to subtlety. Phone was touched driver unaware for 10seconds, drove into someone and killed them. That should absolutely be dangerous, with the phone use added on as additional sentence. When will the legal system start to identify vehicles as dangerous? If I was waving a gun around carelessly and accidentally shot someone I’d be in jail for a long time. A car is no less dangerous (and arguably, based on statistics, a lot MORE damgerous).
I will say it again, driving
I will say it again, driving carelessly is exactly the same as driving dangerously. Driving is inherently dangerous therefore doing it carelessly is very dangerous. Its really really simple.
I can guarantee you that if using your phone at the wheel and getting caught was an instant 12 months ban, no ifs or buts, it would largely disappear overnight.
mctrials23 wrote:
Not legally – they’re clearly very distinct! One is “below the standard…” while the other is “far below…”. Simples!
What the standard is is for the court / jury to judge *.
* The theoretical ” careful competent driver” – as judged by people who may not drive, and whose definition of “competent and careful …” is almost certainly based on the general practice they see on the roads. That has a complicated relationship to what is in law and is even further from the Highway Code).
mctrials23 wrote:
I can guarantee it wouldn’t! Not without adding a further condition that the rate of detection would have to be massively increased – to a degree which would probably overwhelm police resources. Followed by the court system collapsing under the workload. Because society has essentially decided this is allowed to a certain degree (prompted by those selling phones and depending on their use).
So all in all I agree with your aim but (even if you could make the changes, politically) I doubt this would change much – at least top-down. Somehow this also needs societal condemnation.
Absolutely true. As a though
Absolutely true. As a thought experiment, imagine if the penalty for phone use whilst driving was a mere £20 fine – but all phones had some fiendish tech on board which would automatically detect and report such use, the fine was debited automatically, and the appeals process was mired in bureaucracy and delay, with a very low success rate. That, I believe, would prevent almost all phone use at the wheel.
Indeed – or imagine just for
Indeed – or imagine just for a moment the opposite: that the penalty was nominally up to “life” … but that you saw others doing this regularly and were aware (albeit perhaps without really thinking about it) that people you knew were sending and receiving messages on the move. And you *didn’t* know anyone who had been nicked for this.
Oh hang on – that’s not the thought experiment I thought it was!
Oh hang on – that’s not the
Oh hang on – that’s not the thought experiment I thought it was!
Yes, imagine that you knew the police would simply ignore even the most blatant mobile phone offences, and the PCC just wrote that off as ‘an operational decision of the police with which I can’t interfere’…
It doesn’t require much imagination.
I’m now using a helmet cam
I’m now using a helmet cam when I’m on two wheels (both with and without an engine). I will upload footage of bad driving, including people on the phone, to the cops. Hopefully the cops will take some action.
There’s no excuse for phone use at the wheel. You can usually tell if someone is on the phone. Their lane discipline will be terrible.
Sentencing for serious incidents like this is too light.
I’m now using a helmet cam
I’m now using a helmet cam when I’m on two wheels (both with and without an engine). I will upload footage of bad driving, including people on the phone, to the cops. Hopefully the cops will take some action
They won’t – it’s difficult filming phone-using drivers up here, because there aren’t any stationary traffic queues, only one set of traffic lights (where I don’t like ‘blowing my cover’, because I’m generally filming RLJ drivers- another offence condoned by LancsFilth because ’everybody does it’) and there’s usually not the weather to induce drivers to wind their windows down so I can film them. I have caught a few indisputable offenders with accurate GPS timing and shown the videos too often on here. Out-of-control police just ignore the offences