Two motorists who said they “didn’t see” the cyclists they killed, with one of the fatal crashes taking place in Cambridgeshire and the other in Lincolnshire, have escaped jail, with one handed a suspended jail sentences, the other a community order.
George Donaldson, aged 88, died in hospital on 5 October 2017, five days after he was struck by 78-year-old Josephine John in Sawston, Cambridgeshire at around 1.15pm on Saturday 30 September.
The motorist, who lived locally, had been driving around the roundabout at High Street and Link Road when she hit Mr Donaldson, reports the Cambridgeshire Independent.
When she was interviewed by police in June 2018, she said that she heard a “clatter” as she drove around the roundabout, and said she “didn’t see” the cyclist before the collision.
John was voluntarily interviewed in June 2018 and claimed she was negotiating the roundabout when she heard a “clatter”.
She pleaded guilty at Cambridge Crown Court to causing death by careless driving and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and was also banned from driving for a year.
PC Ian Masters of Cambridgeshire Constabulary said: “This is a tragic case that has sadly resulted in an elderly man losing his life.
“Although John did not intend for this collision to happen, it is a stark reminder of the importance of the responsibility motorists have in staying alert.
“I urge people to ensure they pay careful attention when driving, and be particularly aware of vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians,” he added.
The second case related to the death of Flight Lieutenant Barrie John Docherty, 43, who was cycling home from work at RAF Cranwell when BMW driver Michael Bohan crashed into him on the A607 at Leadenham, Lincolnshire, on the evening of January 7, 2019.
Bohan said that he had not seen the cyclist, who was wearing bright clothing and had working lights on his bike at the time of the fatal collision, reports The Lincolnite.
Prosecutor David Lee told Lincoln Crown Court: “The cyclist was thrown onto the windscreen and died shortly afterwards.
“The defendant, in fairness to him, dialled 999 and others who appeared on the scene helped including a nurse who helped as best she could the deceased man.
“The defendant was going to pick up his daughter. There was a text sent to him and he then made voice calls.”
The court heard that Bohan’s mobile phone was fixed to his car and that the motorist was using a Bluetooth earpiece.
“The position is that at the time he was carrying on a conversation and not texting. It does appear, therefore, that was a fact which may have been the reason why he said he simply didn’t see the cyclist,” Mr Lee said.
“There was no fault with the vehicle that he was driving and there was no fault with the cycle. There is no evidence of excessive speed. It is simply a case where he didn’t see the cycle.
“He has been driving without blemish for some time so he obviously normally drives carefully. This ordinarily careful driver has not seen the cyclist.”
Bohan, who admitted causing death by careless driving, was handed a 12 month community order with 300 hours of unpaid work and was made subject to an electronically monitored night-time curfew for four months. He was also banned from driving for 12 months.
Sentencing Bohan, Judge John Pini QC said: “The consequences of what happened could not have been more catastrophic and they have caused utter devastation to the lives of Mr Doherty’s family.
“On the other hand the culpability is the lowest in the criminal calendar, namely carelessness.
“Mr Bohan had a momentary lapse of concentration and failed to see Mr Doherty.
“In passing sentence I am not putting a value on Barrie John’s life. His life was beyond value to his loved ones and they have the deepest sympathy of this court.
“Mr Bohan accepts that he was using a hands-free phone to talk to his daughter.
“The accident investigator’s report says that he simply did not see Mr Doherty and he was there to be seen.
“Hands-free phones are clearly lawful, although it does not follow that because they are lawful they cannot be a distraction.”
The judge added that “The difficulty I have is one of evidence,” explaining that he could not be certain, based on the evidence presented in court, that the driver’s use of the mobile phone was the reason he had not seen the cyclist.
55 thoughts on “Drivers who ‘didn’t see’ cyclists they killed both escape jail”
Quote:
Er, no – that doesn’t follow at all. This might have been a complete aberration on the part of an otherwise perfectly careful driver who was unlucky enough that their one lapse led to a death, but it could equally well be that they drive distracted all the time and had just been lucky enough not to be involved in a serious incident up to that point.
Whatever yo uthink of lawyers
Whatever you think of lawyers, it’s rather astonishing that someone acting as prosecutor in a case like this can be so naive, or so stupid, or so deliberately misleading. That’s the critical thinking of a spoon.
That depends on what you
That depends on what you think the job of a prosecutor actually is. I was taught that their job is to be SCRUPULOUSLY fair – to both sides – in order to see justice done.
American TV shows (with a background of their politicised prosecutorial offices), and their influence on UK prosecutors over the past 30 years, means that my attitude (and the attitude of the generation that informed it) is somewhat out of fashion. Very dangerous, as if winning becomes more important to the prosecutor than seeing justice done, things tend to move towards “winning at all costs” and huge injustices are just around the corner (especially when you realise that the resources of the prosecution dwarf those of the defence).
I thought the prosecutor was
I thought the prosecutor was meant to provide the strongest argument for prosecution, the defence provide the strongest argument against, and the judge/jury were to decided where “justice” lies in between those two viewpoints. But I might be wrong 🙂
I think (from another post)
I think (from another post) the person you’re replying to has worked in criminal justice for 25 years…
It’s not quite as clear cut as you put it; the prosecutor here has a duty to support justice, not necessarily to push for conviction. E.g. the Code for Crown Prosecutors says: “It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible… When making decisions, prosecutors must be fair and objective… Prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction… Prosecutors must be even-handed in their approach to every case, and have a duty to protect the rights of suspects and defendants, while providing the best possible service to victims.“
But I agree there’s a flaw in the prosecutor’s logic here.
Is there a distinction,
Is there a distinction, though, between the prosecutor’s role in deciding when to prosecute, and when to continue or withdraw, a case, and the prosecutor as advocate in the court? The Code you’ve referenced seems to be generally concerned with the former, whereas the Standards of Advocacy seem to lean more towards putting a strong case:
…
Advocates should challenge assertions which are unfair or which run contrary to the Crown’s case.
…
Cross Examination should … Put the prosecution case.
…
A Closing Speech should … Summarise the relevant evidence and why the Prosecution say the defendant is guilty of the offence.
Civil lawyer here, so not
Civil lawyer here, so not qualified to comment in great detail. But the same document makes clear they should put, but not overstate the prosecution case. I guess I’m just saying it’s a more balanced role than TV might lead you to believe. But I (still) agree the leap of logic was more even handed than a prosecutor needs to be.
hughsain wrote:
— hughsainAnd not the sharpest spoon in the cutlery drawer either.
I would have hoped for far
I would have hoped for far longer bans for both of these killer drivers.
Only one year without these killers being able to take more lives on our shared road network seems unreasonable to me.
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and taking innocent lives should mean losing that for a little more than 12 months.
12 months ban wtf.
12 months ban wtf.
Should be banned for life where found guilty of causing the death of another.
Words fail me. 12 month ban(s
Words fail me. 12 month ban(s) for killing someone due to dangerous negligence.
Remind me, what sentences did those in the vehicle that killed PC Andrew Harper get? I mean… they claim they just didn’t see him and that claim was not proved false. Oh, it’s different when it’s a cyclist, their lives are worth far less it seems time and time again.
Why is it that killer drivers largely get away with it but killer cyclists must be hung, drawn and quartered?
Quote:
Not sure why the reason is what matters here. Surely drivers have an absolute duty to look so as to see, and the fact of not seeing is itself culpable. If they can not see they should not go; as to why they can not see, not relevant.
Not so. As the judge said, the legality of fixed mobile phones does not mean they are not a distraction, so if you do use one the legality should be no excuse.
The driver made a decision to use the phone – that is not some careless momentary lapse of concentration, that is a premeditated act with foreseeable consequences.
As to the punishment, perhaps adding a total ban on use of a mobile phone whilst driving would have been appropriate, along with prison time as a deterent to others.
In passing sentence I am not
In passing sentence I am not putting a value on Barrie John’s life.”
Sorry, but that is exactly what you have done.
This is the proecutor: “The
This is the proecutor: “The defendant, in fairness to him, dialled 999 …
“that was a fact which may have been the reason why he said he simply didn’t see the cyclist,” Mr Lee said.
“There was no fault with the vehicle that he was driving and there was no fault with the cycle. There is no evidence of excessive speed. It is simply a case where he didn’t see the cycle.
“He has been driving without blemish for some time so he obviously normally drives carefully. This ordinarily careful driver has not seen the cyclist.”
Sounds less like the prosecutor and more like the defence. No wonder he got away with it.
Victim’s families shoud
Victim’s families shoud appeal the sentence as has the wife of that cop Andrew Harper.
In fact all victim’s families should appeal for more severe punishments for all dangerous killer drivers without excuses by courts, cops or CPS acting wrongly as their free legal defence team – this should be seen as perverting the course of justice !
It looks like in Andrew
It looks like in Andrew Harpers’ case the attorney general has instigated the referral to the Court of Appeal after campaigns by the family….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-53862037
Christ. The apologist
Christ. The apologist pandering to both of these drivers by the sodding police makes me want to puke all over my keyboard.
Quote:
If you aren’t looking for anything smaller than a motor car, then it would appear you just don’t see it.
Reminds me of killer driver Gail Purcell’s story about the Flying Sack of Potatoes…
mdavidford wrote:
Er, no – that doesn’t follow at all. This might have been a complete aberration on the part of an otherwise perfectly careful driver who was unlucky enough that their one lapse led to a death, but it could equally well be that they drive distracted all the time and had just been lucky enough not to be involved in a serious incident up to that point.
Indeed! This is why the workplace Health & Safety culture has shifted in recent times to place almost as much focus on ‘near misses’ as actual incidents. It is well proven that the more near misses you have, the more likely an actual incident resulting in injury or death will occur. It could be just as fairly argued that this particular driver has had multiple near misses but had so far been ‘lucky’ that no incidents arose. In fact every time a near miss goes by without immediate consequence, the likelihood of a future incident increases as the person perceives that the risks around that near miss are diminished. The whole “it’s always been fine before” or “this is how I’ve always done it” mentality creeps in and the bad behaviour is reinforced. Luck then becomes a big factor!
Exactly this, if you’re
Exactly this, if you’re driving and got away fine with not giving much room etc, especially if you don’t notice the cyclist shouting and waving their arms in your mirror, you won’t think twice about doing the same again.
Whilst ubiquitous self
Whilst ubiquitous self driving cars are still some way off, there is an awful lot of the same technology which can be incorporated right now into all new motor vehicles that would go a long way to mitigating the appalling failure rate of the current vehicle guidance system (aka the driver).
Just hope I live long enough to see it!
The downside is that drivers
The downside is that drivers then rely on these extra aides and actually look less. Tesla drivers letting the car self drive even into the backs of lorries. Sat Navers turning into lakes or other impassable routes because the “voice told them to”.
…or that Tesla tester who
…or that Tesla tester who let her car run down a pedestrian because it didn’t recognise the pedestrian walking alongside a bicycle and she was watching American Idol on her phone.
Uber driverless taxi but
Uber driverless taxi but essentially the same point. The Tesla AP has crashed into big trucks twice including this one recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hrKnv0dPQ
Oh, OK, thanks (was trying to
Oh, OK, thanks (was trying to do it from wetware memory instead of using google…).
Don’t get your hopes up for
Don’t get your hopes up for ADAS tech in cars. In the US, the AAA tested pedestrian AEB in four cars (Tesla, Toyota, Honda and a Subaru) and they performed appallingly. Useless if the vehicle is travelling at 30mph or more. Useless when turning right. Useless at night. Hit stationary pedestrians on the side of the road 80 percent of the time. The technology has a long way to go yet before being something you can trust.
In any case, we shouldn’t be using technology as a substitute for personal responsibility.
Quote:
No evidence whatsoever needed to accept driver’s version.
Can’t possibly disregard with driver’s version without evidence.
I might just stop filling in
I might just stop filling in my tax return because I can’t see the letter. If a driver can fail to see a cyclist wearing hi-viz and using lights due to inattention, I can fail to see a letter as I step over it while leaving the house.
Momentarily lapse in
Momentarily lapse in concentration, no it bloody well wasn’t, he was having a conversation on his phone. We’re all been lucky that he hasn’t killed some of us already. Absolutely scandalous sentencing, justified by a load of nonsense.
As for the woman on the roundabout, she plainly wasn’t looking ahead and again driving well below the standard required. Most likely played the sweet old lady routine for the police.
Momentarily lapse in
Momentarily lapse in concentration, no it bloody well wasn’t, he was having a conversation on his phone
I’m familiar with this ‘momentary loss of concentration’ dodge, as it was used on me by the police to excuse someone driving down the wrong side of the road and hitting the stationary cyclist, me
Dave the Driving Instructor
When you are in charge of something that will kill if you lose concentration, you aren’t entitled to momentary lapses of concentration, you should bloody well be concentrating because you might kill someone.
How did we get to this situation, where a lethal machine can be operated in public without an absolute guarantee that the operater is giving it full, total 100% concentration? We should all be equipped with meat cleavers and swing them around until it becomes second nature so we start thinking of what we’re having for tea and accidentally slice someone in half; but it won’t be our fault, just a momentary loss of concentration.
Unfortunately motorists often
Unfortunately motorists often do miss targets smaller than themselves. Remember the SMIDSY signs? These came about because often the first thing motorists would say to a motorcyclist after knocking them over was “Sorry mate, didn’t see you.” There is some research somewhere that shows why the brain does this. Of course it could have been a screen pillar problem when the best solution is look twice look bike. So sad that deaths occurred.
Drivers really should be
Drivers really should be taught and expected to look properly. This is an interesting read.
https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
Thanks for that,
Thanks for that, unfortunately in my car moving the head doesn’t give a really better view round the screen pillar but I always look twice.
Move your torso too. Changing
Move your torso too. Changing the angle and pausing slightly as you move also helps.
Two tragic cases which could
Two tragic cases which could have been prevented by better laws.
In the first case, it may have been that the elderly driver had age-related impaired eyesight, but our system does not check for that problem, and allows drivers to self-report. The massive A pillar blind spot could also have been a factor, but that is going to take global action by legislators, who think that car occupants are more important than other people.
The second case is more worrying;
“The position is that at the time he was carrying on a conversation and not texting. It does appear, therefore, that was a fact which may have been the reason why he said he simply didn’t see the cyclist,” Mr Lee said.”
There is a lot of research which shows that it is the distraction caused by holding a conversation with someone outside of the car that is the problem with mobile phones, not the fact that the driver is holding a phone. Our government, I forget which particular bungling, bumbling set of dimwits it actually was, only made handheld phones illegal, not hands-free; we see the result. I’m sure the review of road laws will pick up on this, the politicians will admit they are wrong and instantly correct their mistake. Must go and fuel up the pigs ready for take off.
My heart goes out to the
My heart goes out to the families of the victims
It really is not acceptable for motorists to say that they “did not see” a clearly visible cyclist
Unless they have defective vision ( and should cease driving ) then what they actually mean is:
“failed to look”
“too distracted”
“didn’t ensure to move head to see past vehicle superstructure”
Etc
“didn’t see” implies falsely some liability on the part of the cyclist for not being noticeable – and is a way of subtlety victim-blaming, and trying to deflect from the motorist being culpable.
I’ve had two motorists pull directly out in front of me at the same roundabout recently. Luckily I was looking at their faces and saw that in both cases they were looking straight ahead. Not even an attempt to look to the right as they entered the roundabout
So it wasn’t that they didn’t see me, it was that they didn’t even look
So whilst I don’t know anything more than is reported here about these two deaths, I would be very angry to think it might be because to the motorist: the cyclist’s life wasn’t even worth looking properly for
Yes, the “simply” really
Yes, the “simply” really grates, as in “simply didn’t see”. Implies some kind of innocence is at large, no culpability.
In aviation, “didn’t see” is
In aviation, “didn’t see” is not a good defence. Observation is drilled into trainee pilots, I guess because a lot of the time there’s not anything to see except cloud, so you need to remind yourself to keep looking. And there are regular sight checks as a condition of keeping a licence.
Drivers who do not see when it is agreed that what they drove into (pedestrian, cyclist, back of lorry, house etc) was clearly visible must either not have looked, have defective vision or not reacted to the image on the retina. All of these things should be appropriately punished.
I understand that cataracts or similar are pretty common in older eyes – my father had them and was too badly affected to drive safely. It’s about time that all medical professionals were given the right and the duty to inform DVLA if they are concerned about fitness to drive.
To my mind, if a driver
To my mind, if a driver admits to “not seeing” a cyclist/house etc. then they are clearly admitting that they are unfit to drive. I think if they are going to use that excuse, then they should hand in their driving license permanently.
So the next time there is a
So the next time there is a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian resulting in the death of the latter, the former has a cast iron defence; they didn’t see them.
There’s a suggestion here
There’s a suggestion here that the second driver’s use of a hands free phone was contributory.
My car has a built in hands free system and I can dial and answer calls by just speaking. Am I allowed to use it when driving? If not why is it fitted? The govt needs to be clearer about the use of these systems.
I think that is the core of
I think that is the core of the complaints upthread.
Using a phone and making/receiving calls can be distracting regardless of whether you are holding the phone or using handsfree, but the legislation has never been updated to keep in line with the research (and so it is perfectly legal to use handsfree even though later research has shown it is probably just as distracting).
In all fairness, holding a conversation with someone else in the car or listening to thrash metal on the stereo at volume=11 can also be distracting…
When driving a car, I think that the original idea was that you would focus on the act of driving the car and leave everything else until you parked up and/or reached your destination.
there is a massive difference
But, there is a massive difference between holding a conversation with a passenger and over the phone. The passenger is not, as a rule, going to ask mentally taxing questions just as you negotiate a busy junction. And it is far easier to just tune them out and focus on the driving when it gets tricky, whereas we feel compelled to give our attention over a phone call without undue silent pauses.
Handsfree is a sham and should be banned.
Make an old lady happy – take
Make an old lady happy – take my mother in law out for a drive …
Sriracha wrote:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. The passenger is a party to the driving exercise. An adult passenger can see when its tricky and will naturally not engage when there is lots going on and will understand if you are just quite and ignore them as your focus moves fully to the road – a telephone participant will not. An a passenger will also potential show warnings and assist if you do get distracted.
I don’t have children so have no experience driving with them in the background but can imagine how warring kids would be a massive distraction but presenting that as a problem is somewhere between whataboutery and reductio ad absurdum. Because we can’t solve all problems it definitely doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make improvements where we can – its a bit like saying, well because we can’t cure cancer we shouldn’t bother treating any many medical conditions.
Driving with kids in the car
Driving with kids in the car can be awful . Not only can they not see what’s coming whilst in the back, they have no concept of what it all means anyway – how can they?
Conversations, “I feel sick”, “are we there yet”, “want to play a game”, and worst of all tantrums can be massively/dangerously distracting, and also help to induce anger in the driver – this is also the drivers’ responsibility clearly.
Ipads/ipods have been a brilliant – the only time the cubs get unlimited screen time.
Apparently the phone calls
Apparently the phone calls stimulate/make use of part of the brain that uses images/conceptualises images. Therefore there is less capacity to focus on the external surroundings and chanign environment.
Don’t think ‘thrash metal’ (whatever that is) is as distracting.
hirsute wrote:
This is so true. I can’t suppose that my brain is wired so differently to everybody else’s – whenever I have any non-trivial conversation I find myself conjuring images into my mind, it’s just how I think, how I process ideas. Then a whole lot can happen in my field of vision that does not get attended to.
People must know this of themselves, even if the law allows them to make excuses.
Found the clip now 3m 15s
Found the clip now 3m 15s long.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/can-you-really-multitask-finally-an-answer/p07jstyl
brooksby wrote:
— brooksbyThe research existed well before the government* passed its laws; they knew that hands-free phoning was distracting and are culpable in the deaths of their own citizens. People wonder why I’m so bloody cynical.
*A collection of people who struggle to make simple decisions, most of whom have been promoted well above their capabilities, who do not understand the most basic evidence.
bikeman01 wrote:
You will already know the answers to your questions.
Is it legal, yes. Will you feel culpable if – due to the distraction of a handsfree phone call – you kill somebody’s child, yes. Will telling yourself the law allows it help bring closure and peace of mind thereafter, no. Are you already aware through experience how conducting a handsfree call can be very distracting – I’m betting that you certainly are. Do you have to use it, just because you can?
The deceit is in the term “hands free”, because the hands are not first in line responsible for attending to the road. That would be your eyes and crucially you mental faculties. “Hands free” does nothing for the mental distraction.
The Highway code is clear.
The Highway code is clear. Use of mobile phones or anything that may distract you is unsafe (emphasis is mine)
Rule 149
You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding – find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.
It is hard to imagine any
It is hard to imagine any other dangerous piece of machinery that you’d be given a second chance to operate if you killed someone through careless use of it. How many nuclear power station operators who caused a leak, ship captains who sunk their vessels, or train drivers who caused a derailment would be told to take a year off then come back. Even if they said, [i]”I didn’t see the gauge/rocks/signal because I was talking-the-phone/showing-off-to-my-girlfriend/too-old-to-give-a-shit-anymore, and there’s no law against that.”[/i]
Phone calls whilst moving
Phone calls whilst moving need to be banned. Bluetooth or not. Too much attention is diverted.