A driver who claimed she did not see a cyclist when she crashed into him and was later discovered to have been making a hands-free mobile phone call at the time has been jailed for causing death by careless driving.
Michael Roff, aged 57 and from Cambridge, died at the city’s Addenbrooke’s Hospital five hours after 27 year old Lauren Hughes of Braintree, Essex, crashed into him as she entered the A602 Barton Road roundabout in Grantchester, close to Junction 12 of the M11.
Mr Roff sustained fatal head injuries as a result of the crash, which happened on Friday 31 July 2020.
Lauren Hughes, 27, said she did not see Michael Roff on his bicycle as she drove her Vauxhall Astra along the A603 Barton Road and entered the roundabout with the M11, near Grantchester, at about 7.30pm on Friday 31 July 2020.
Cambridgeshire Constabulary say that Hughes was in the outside lane as she approached the roundabout, then slowed down and braked suddenly, leaving skidmarks on the road and crashing into the cyclist.
A police digital media investigator discovered that at the time of the fatal collision, Hughes was using it hands-free through an in-car system.
But when she was interviewed by police, the driver insisted she simply had not seen the cyclist.
Yesterday, Hughes was sentenced at Peterborough Crown Court to 15 months’ imprisonment after she was convicted of causing death through careless driving.
She was also handed a driving ban of three years and seven and a half months.
Detective Sergeant Mark Dollard of Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s Serious Collision Investigation Unit said: “Michael Roff was a much-loved family man and keen cyclist.
“Lauren Hughes, through her inattention and lack of care for the task of driving, has caused Mr Roff’s family untold pain and suffering.
“This sentence and tragic loss should be a reminder to all about the importance of careful and attentive driving, and that particular attention for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians is paramount.
“I hope that Mr Roff’s family can now look to the future and attempt to rebuild their lives and I would like to thank them for the patience and dignity shown during the investigation and the trial,” he added.
While tougher laws governing the use of handheld mobile phones while driving were brought in earlier this year, the use of hands-free phones is permitted – although a charge of offences such as driving without due care and attention can be brought if the driver is believed to have been distracted through their use of the device.
51 thoughts on “Driver who killed cyclist was using hands-free phone at time”
My thoughts are with the
My thoughts are with the family and friends of Michael.
The local halfwits are on
The local halfwits are on this like flies to shit. FB really is a moron infested crap hole.
https://www.facebook.com/61340303030/posts/pfbid0abruXt7DjNrhgbwXbKWYUVttMBUXGKRYtJkEPDBtfKdATn2dv2aH7iT7LRRs6fel/
First comment that comes up –
First comment that comes up – “but cyclists…”
They don’t fucking kill people daily. How hard is this?
The incredible incompetence
The incredible incompetence and lack of judgment of our current government cannot better be illustrated by their approach to mobile phone use whilst driving. It isn’t serious, just a bit of a misdemeanor, nothing to worry about, and it’s perfectly ok to take a call when you’re driving. They have had multiple opportunities to deal with this via legislation, but chose to take the line that it doesn’t matter much, and anyway it would upset their voters.
God, but I hate this bunch of self-serving, entitled, arrogant bunch of pig-ignorant ministers and their sycophantic supporters.
eburtthebike wrote:
I’m not a UK resident so not au fait with the nuances of the political system so please take that into consideration. Will Labour be all that different when it comes to cyclists rights and protection when they come into power?
ErnieC wrote:
Cyclist protection in terms of cycle lanes etc generally falls under the remit of local or city councils, and yes, Labour councils definitely have a better overall record in that respect, in this year’s London elections the Tories almost exclusively made removing cycle lanes and other active travel measures a key part of their campaign whilst Labour generally promised to keep them – a move that seemingly proved pretty popular.
Road deaths fell by 50% under
Road deaths fell by 50% under the last Labour Government. That decline flat-lined when the 2010 Tory Government declared an end to “the war on the motorist”, or as people who aren’t fuckwits call it “expecting drivers not to kill people”.
https://citymonitor.ai/transport/why-it-acceptable-kill-someone-mysterious-history-britain-s-road-death-toll-4852
Labour have always been entirely rubbish when it comes to cycling as we’ve seen numerous times in the last few years with Labour MPs and local councillors opposing active travel schemes and low-traffic neighbourhoods. But in terms of overall road fatalities, something was clearly going right through to 2010.
John Stevenson wrote:
Not half as much as Tory councillors have though? Just my general impression and possibly London biased, I admit, but…
You could be right and I
You could be right and I could be suffering from a sort of confirmation bias in which being generally left-leaning I notice it more and am more disappointed when Labour politicians oppose progressive traffic schemes.
John Stevenson wrote:
I may steal that line.
Great article, too, thanks.
ErnieC wrote:
Labour government has typically been as car-fixated as the Tories, so I wouldn’t bet money on them being better for cyclists. However, the current Tory government seem to be trying to do everything as wrong as possible so hopefully Labour wouldn’t be as willfully incompetent plus it’s tricky to pick out someone that’s as malevolent as Pritti Patel.
The problem is more to do with late-stage capitalism than political parties as the big parties do seem to just follow whoever’s writing them the biggest cheques.
As I’m fond of saying –
As I’m fond of saying – frankly they’re all as bad as each other. Labour government in Wales, SNP in Scotland – anything significantly better in either of those places?
Current Labout Mayor of
Current Labout Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said “I’m delivering on my manifesto promise to be the most pro-cycling mayor London has ever had.” Of course he is a politician, so keep a pinch of salt handy.
Well the bar is pretty low.
Well the bar is pretty low. Apparently Ken started it, Boris took credit but fumbled about with it (superhypeways). What do Londoners think of Sadiq? I heard that very little happened to start with it. Although he has acted genuinely frustrated by (some of) the boroughs (Ken and Chelsey!). I understand that the boroughs impose a fairly hard limit on what could be done centrally. On the other hand some seem to be getting on with it.
I’m all for this. But I’d be hugely surprised by any mainstream politician of any stripe creating a major “active travel” change for transport *. However I believe mass cycling is several open goals – so what’s the issue? Two: lots of resistance to a “push” e.g. “our streets are too narrow!” Worse – can you think of a simple commercial “pull”? Unlike e.g. cars 2.0 there are currently a lack of ways that someone can get very rich doing “cycling” (pull). Well, eBikes and scooters are newer and more profitable – but much less than cars. Also it seems unlikely to be a draw for existing big companies. So there is negligable lobbying / incentivising decision makers (e.g. obvious large number of new jobs in their constituencies). In the simple “cost / benefit figures” most people are going to look at cycling looks like a handout. To a (currently) tiny percentage of people.
* Manchester seems to have stalled despite a very promising prospectus. Here in Edinburgh the rate we’re going seems a combination of complacency and being slowed to a crawl by the obstacles.
Wasn’t it a Labour MP who
Wasn’t it a Labour MP who recently asked a question in Parliament regarding mandatory use of bells? There are 32+ million cars in the UK. They are owned mostly by voters. It is not just the Tories who are acutely aware of this fact.
Rupa Huq is a Labour MP too
Rupa Huq is a Labour MP too isnt she ? https://road.cc/content/news/labour-mp-steps-campaign-vs-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-282001
and I know Labour councillors in Labour Ipswich, refer to cyclists/cycling as a “green blob” whilst demanding free parking & more roads for cars be built, whilst trying to stymie the Tory led county councils cycling infra improvements.
that said, same Tory led county council then just approved the removal of some protected cycle lanes in Bury St Edmunds they put in during the pandemic (add to the list of active travel funded stuff taken out), just over a week after the town hosted the stage finish to the Women’s tour. https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/bury-st-edmunds/news/controversial-cycle-lane-wands-will-be-removed-next-week-9259291/
so its not a party political thing at all, theyre all as bad as each other when it comes down to it
What in your view is the
What in your view is the difference between someone taking a handsfree call vs having a conversation with the person next to them or trying to discipline their children in the back of the car? Personally I don’t think that handsfree calls are a big issue in of themselves, its people who don’t pay attention to the road. Most of the people that I see driving like utter twats are not talking or doing anything else, they are just on autopilot or not really looking for anything but other cars if that.
This is a genuine question btw, i’m not defending bad driving, I just can’t see much difference between someone talking handsfree vs talking to people in the car.
I’m always absolutely astounded at the number of times a car clearly just hasn’t noticed me even though it appears they are looking at the road. A 6’2″ guy in a bright orange top with pasty skin and black bib shorts. There is something in that outfit that should catch anyones eye and yet people are oblivious.
mctrials23 wrote:
There’s a study here though it doesn’t directly compare hands-free with passenger conversations: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/talking-while-driving-is-incredibly-dangerous-even-when-using-handsfree-new-study-finds-a7070486.html
Also one here: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/03/10/Talking-while-driving-on-cell-or-to-passenger-threatens-road-safety-review/5411520710885/
Basically, passengers are likely to moderate their conversation if the situation looks more demanding for the driver, but talking whilst driving does seem to have a distracting effect.
And just as importantly, the
And just as importantly, the driver will find it much easier to let the conversation drop as the road demands it when the other party is sat next to them. Just try going silent at random moments whilst having a phone conversation – it takes an iron will, and the other party will find it quite disconcerting too.
Sriracha wrote:
This is why I only ever do video calls when driving and flip the camera so the person on the other end can see the road ahead too.
(only joking!) I do think a short hands free call made at the right moment is generally ok. But picking up an inbound call during difficult road conditions, or having a lengthy chat, can be very dangerous. I really hope the nature of the call was investigated and the driver asked to explain exactly why they were on the phone when navigating a complex junction just off a high speed road.
I wonder if this aspect of car control is covered in the driving test? “When I say the words ring-ring, I’d like you to call your Mum with the in-car handsfree system and tell her you’ll be late for tea.”? It sounds flippant, but it seems so accepted by the courts that the driver will be able to perform this task, yet they’ve probably never had to demonstrate any sort of competency.
Quote:
Amen. But – well it would be too subjective. The conversation would likely be banal but if (realistically) it was as emotionally distracting as a comment thread here people would say “not fair”. Also – maybe they couldn’t get a risk assessment past for that?
HoarseMann wrote:
Good idea – maybe the driving test should include a stage in a driving simulator where the candidate is required to engage in a cognitively demanding phone conversation whilst simultaneously negotiating difficult traffic, with an unexpected random event thrown in for good measure.
You might be joking but since
You might be joking but since we have switched to Teams for workstuff, I have hung up on two meetings when it was apparent someone was driving whilst having a video call.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
When I worked for the local council, I had reason to call the head of a small local bus company, and when I asked him why there was so much noise in the background, he said it was because he was driving a school bus. I rang off immediately.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Does the company have a policy on this? If not, they should.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no relenting in the rush to equip new vehicles with large screens filled with data vying for the driver’s attention.
I am very mixed about the next generation of Car Play. I can see the benefit in having a consistent user interface experience across different vehicle brands (and let’s face it, car manufacturers are rubbish at software). But it looks way too complex… https://youtu.be/q5D55G7Ejs8?t=2327
hawkinspeter wrote:
100% this. I dont drive, but as a passenger if a situation requires a bit of concentration I shut up, become an extra pair of eyes on awkward junctions if needed.
Someone on the other end of a phone isn’t aware of what’s going on and may become more of a distraction.
mctrials23 wrote:
There is only one thing to give your full attention to while behind the wheel and that is driving. I try not to talk at all to drivers when I’m a passenger and I certainly NEVER look at them as human nature is to look back. It doesn’t matter what the distraction is, a split second of inattention is all it takes to kill another human being, why take the risk?
Finding yourself distracted
Finding yourself distracted by conversation while driving? Try switching to a cattle truck or hearse – or maybe one of the UK’s replacement armoured vehicles!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yes, that’s sometimes how it happens.
eburtthebike wrote:
Blimey, that was a sudden rush to judgement of people of whom you know only a single fact. I wouldn’t want you on my jury.
mike the bike wrote:
Blimey, that was a sudden rush to judgement of people of whom you know only a single fact. I wouldn’t want you on my jury.
— eburtthebikeThanks. We know literally thousands of facts about this PM and his cabinet, and I try to make reasoned judgments on the facts; I’m pretty sure that what I said nailed it.
This is a tragedy that is the
This is a tragedy that is the result of not paying proper attention when driving and I’m pleased that that was highlighted by the judge. I do however question whether a custodial sentence is best course of action. I appreciate that it sends a clear message to the driving public at large (although I’m not sure that it makes much difference) but I think I would prefer to see Ms Hughes lose her licence either permenantly (my preference) or for a much longer period that a few years, and to have to do some proper community service. Locking her up will only cost the tax payer a lot of money and mean that even more dangerous criminals get suspended sentences because prisons are overcrowded. I see custodial sentences as a tool for protecting the public from those who present a danger. If Hughes has her licence removed and doesn’t drive then that danger has been removed. Obviously should she continue to drive having had her licence removed then she should be jailed for the above stated reason. However I would rather see her repay something to society and hopefully learn from the experience. Maybe even get her to talk to drivers on awareness courses of the impact of killing someone.
I don’t disagree with what
I don’t disagree with what you say, but…
… as we know, the deterent is in the probability of being caught, and drivers without licences have little fear of being caught. The law would never know whether she flouted her ban or not, and others in her position would assume she did, so the deterrent effect of a ban is minimal.
If driving bans are to be meaningful, both as a punishment to the offender and as a deterrent to others, then there must be robust mechanisms to monitor and enforce, with equally robust consequences for defiance. At the moment it seems there is no monitoring, no enforcement, and if you are caught the consequence is more of the same.
Sriracha wrote:
I have no idea how realistic they are or if this is standard procedure but watching Police Interceptors and similar shows on TV the police often wait near an offenders car to catch them driving away from court after getting a ban. Maybe this is just for TV or particular officers are more proactive?
Happened where I live. Driver
Happened where I live. Driver claimed he could not get home without driving, yet the court is next to a railway station and the station the other end was less than a mile to his house. When stopped, Police found two bottles of beer, one of which was open, on the passenger seat !
hirsute wrote:
Good to know the Police get it right sometimes.
From (the more informative)
From (the more informative) comments on the local FB story, it is claimed that the driver involved had worked a 12 – 14 hour shift and was then expected to make deliveries. I don’t know if she was on work business at the time of the incident or if the call was a work call, but if it was then surely there has to be an element of corporate responsibility that needs proper investigation. Even then I don’t buy into the narrative that the “driver is also a victim in this tragedy” narrative that is being pushed.
Like you I am conflicted over prison time for people who went out with no intention to harm others and who are unlikely to repeat the offence, but there has to be a recognition that if your actions by neglect of basic safety rules result in death or serious injury then you can lose your liberty. Personally I think that for most drivers, the real possibility of losing your licence, effectively permanently would be both more of a deterrent, and a punishment easier for Judges to justify.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Employers do have corporate responsibility for their employees’ business phone use.
From the RoSPA “Mobile Phones and Driving” factsheet:
The “Driving at Work” 13Guide from the Health and Safety Executive makes it clear that employers have a duty under health and safety law to manage the risks faced by their employees on the road. One of the biggest risks they face is when using mobile phones while at the wheel. Research clearly shows that using a hands-free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a hand-held phone – there is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel, if the brain is not connected to the hands.
https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/mobile-phones-and-driving-factsheet.pdf
iandusud wrote:
It’s difficult to judge individual cases, unless you were in court to observe the trial.
I think drivers should go to jail for causing careless driving if the driving was just short of dangerous, or there’s a lack of remorse / refusal to take responsibility, or a history of previous offences. If none of the above apply then they shouldn’t be jailed, but I think we need much longer driving bans and extensive retraining before letting them back on the roads.
Tom_77 wrote:
I agree about not giving prison sentences for careless driving. What should happen is a variety of driving bans, so a simple close pass may be banned for a month and more dangerous behaviour banned for a year or more.
However, that needs to be coupled with a very strict attitude towards driving whilst banned. Anyone caught driving without a licence should get immediate prison time (unless it’s exceptional circumstances such as driving for a medical emergency) and a lifetime ban as well.
There’s way too many cars on the road, so it just makes sense to remove the worst drivers from them.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It does make sense, which is why it will sadly never happen.
NOtotheEU wrote:
We just need to get some adults in charge
hawkinspeter wrote:
Agreed, If those adults aren’t politicians, don’t use Twitter and cycle to work every day we might just have an outside chance of some positive change.
Is this a classic A pillar
Is this a classic A pillar “where did the cyclist come from” blind spot. As the driver approaches in the outside Lane the A pillar blocks the view (of someone not taking care to look clearly), as they near the white line the car is turning left slightly and and the cyclist is hidden until the collision? Drivers need to be aware of this – but so do we
That plus some cognitive
That plus some cognitive overload.
A combination of inattention,
A combination of inattention, large A posts and the CBDR (Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range) phenomenon maybe.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/
Thanks to all who responded
Thanks to all who responded to my request/question. Seems that neither party is particularly cycle friendly despite what their policy documents might say. I find it quite interesting how many contributors on this forum blame the current ruling party for cycling issues but it seems that will not change should labour win the next election – probably just bias creeping in.
Well, let’s look at the
Well, let’s look at the hopeful things. Paris seems to be heading in the right direction even starting from a bad place.
On the pull side Chris Boardman’s creeping closer to the centres of influence. I mean he’s got a national role now, not that he’s a pal of Carrie J or a party donor.
I’d guess a few more people have seen / heard stories about cycling. Could go either way.
I’m not sure whether the moaning about “I can’t get to my job through the jam”, “I can’t afford to fill my tank / buy an EV”, “but climate change”, “where are we going to put all the people” makes for a useful push for people? My feeling is on balance it’s more likely to increase irritation with cyclists / resistance to spending on active travel.
ErnieC wrote:
Well, I for one, am baffled. What question, what responses?
There has been a lot of
There has been a lot of research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) into the use of phones at the wheel, with and without hands free kits, as well as into drivers speaking with passengers in their vehicles.
The upshot is that hands free kits are useless. the distraction is mental not physical. The human brain cannot process having a phone conversation and a complex driving function at the same time.
If you have a hands free kit for your vehicle, throw it away and also tell your friends/family to do the same. they are dangerous.
Having a conversation with someone in your vehicle is not the same as having a conversation on the phone. TRL research shows if you are talking on the phone, you wil prioritise talking over driving. If you are talking to a passenger, you will prioritise driving over talking.
Check the TRL website as there various papers on these topics, all written by experts and all peer reviewed.
Hands free kits should be banned.
I totally agree with you.
I totally agree with you.
There is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel, if the brain is not connected to the hands.
Unfortunately banning it would involve legislation banning manufacturers from installing it, as most modern cars have this as a built in function which connects to the phone via Bluetooth.
Given the current government’s lack of enthusiasm for vehicle safety legislation, I don’t think it’s going to be high on their list of priorities!
The technology does have some advantages, with the car calling the emergency services automatically if the airbag is deployed and providing GPS coordinates.
My car reminds me a couple of times every time I start the engine if the phone is not connected.
I do not use it to make or receive calls, except in stationary traffic on the motorway.
What concerns me even more is the ability of newer cars to receive and send social messages via the car’s dashboard. “Android Auto” is quite proud to promote how it can all be done via voice activation, but I would say the distraction is even worse than a hands free phone call.