A distracted driver who was browsing social media apps moments before he hit and killed a cyclist then claimed that it had been his infant son using the phone has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
Off-duty police officer Lynwen Thomas was killed when Simon Draper, aged 42, crashed into on the A40 between Carmarthen and St Clears at just after 6.40pm on the evening of 25 February, 2021, reports Wales Online.
It took a jury a little over three hours to reach the guilty verdict at the end of the five-day trial at the Nightingale Court at Swansea Civic Centre today.
The court heard that Draper, from St Clears, had been switching between apps including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp as he drove his Ford Transit van prior to the fatal crash.
One witness describing how he looked distracted and veered across the solid white line on the left of the carriageway “several times” before hitting Ms Thomas, who was pronounced dead at the scene.
Draper claimed that his 13-month-old son, who was travelling in the van with him, was holding his iPhone in the minutes before the fatal crash.
He said he had given the phone to the child to calm him down, and that he had failed to see Ms Thomas because he looked back at his son momentarily to check he was okay.
But paediatrician Dr Mohammed Rahman, appearing as an expert witness for the prosecution, told the court that it would be impossible for a child of that age to have either the manual dexterity or mental ability to undertake actions that had been performed on the phone in the minutes before the collision.
Those included double-tapping the phone’s home button and swiping between apps, and Dr Rahman also said that an infant would not be able to hold the phone in portrait orientation with one hand while carrying out those commands with the other.
Carina Hughes, prosecuting, told the court that Draper had been “distracted” by his phone, noting that the Instagram app was closed and Facebook opened at 6.42pm – one minute before he crashed into Ms Thomas.
The cyclist was wearing reflective clothing and had what was described as a bright light on her Trek road bike, but Draper’s lawyers had argued that she should have been wearing bright clothing, even though that is not required by law.
In a statement, lead investigator PS Sara John of Dyfed Powys Police said: “Yet again, we see the utter senseless and unnecessary devastation caused by using a mobile phone whilst driving.
“Lynwen was less than 10 minutes away from home when Draper, who was persistently using his iPhone at the wheel, collided with her whilst she was cycling along the A40.
“Lynwen was a respected colleague and a loving mother, daughter, sister and partner who was taken far too soon due to the arrogant and selfish actions of the defendant which have left a young child without their mother.”
She added: “Lynwen’s family have welcomed today’s verdict but now wish to have their privacy respected.”
55 thoughts on “Distracted driver who crashed into and killed cyclist then claimed infant son was using his phone found guilty”
I’ll just copy my comment
I’ll just copy my comment over from the live blog:
I live right next to where this happened – though I only moved here recently, after this incident – and used this stretch of the A40 quite a bit during the course of moving here. The first thing I though when I read the story here a couple of days ago was that you’d have to have your eyes off the road for f*cking ages to be surprised by a cyclist on that particular stretch, and that his “I only looked away for a split-second” defence was bullshit.
Seems I was right, as the Police calculated that she would have been perfectly visible to him for nearly ten seconds.
E: This also bears a worrying similarity to the most recent NMOTD 828, which could have very easliy ended the same way.
The law needs to get serious
The law needs to get serious with these deadly mobile distractions.
Sentencing needs to get tougher if idiots are going to pay attention.
The mobile phone is only one
The mobile phone is only one element. The fundamental issue is that drivers do not take driving seriously – it is a nuisance to be tolerated while getting from A to B.
Our club ride nearly got wiped out in a serious incident. It was clear to me that the driver simply was not driving, they must have been in another world. Then I get the incident discussed where a driver is so fixated on a MGIF they’ve totally ignored more than half a dozen warning indications that say an overtake is wrong.
These are not rare occurrences. The country’s drivers and the law needs a reset on what is an acceptable standard of driving.
The starting point should be zero tolerance for mistakes. The whole concept that there are understandable mistakes needs to go, if driving is dangerous, it doesn’t need assessing against what some adequate driver might do, it can be an absolute assessment – was that a dangerous thing to do? The momentary lapse should be an aggravating factor not a mitigation – it is an admission that they were not giving their full attention.
The law needs to get comfortable that a licence is a privilege and start accepting that breaking driving laws consistently means no driving is the result. Feet, bike, taxi, bus, lift of a mate are all solutions, some that people have no choice about – I often wonder what those victims of car accidents who are now banned from driving due to physical or brain injury feel when they hear miscreants bemoaning their lives are ruined if they can’t keep their licence… let alone the families who have lost loved ones.
Totally agree with this. In
Totally agree with this. In my opinion, the rot started 20 years ago in 2002-3, when road policing units were reduced by over 30% in favour of self-funding pyramid schemes aka “safety camera partnerships” – after that there was much less chance of being pulled over by a highly visible and skilled police officer, and the only time someone may have realised that their driving was not right was a S172 NIP in the post 2 weeks later. Driving adequacy just became about a number on a speedometer
A generation later, hardly anyone seems to give a fig about safe & considerate driving, or in fact, paying VED, and other things like ensuring their vehicle is safe, roadworthy and legal.
The answer has to be along the lines of making the DVSA standard driving test a bit harder, followed by 2 years of something like P plates with restrictions, followed by a further test similar to IAM/Roadcraft training & test, otherwise you go back to L plates and start again.
When I did IAM 16 years ago, the parting shot from the (class 1 police driving instructor) examiner was along the lines of “less than 1% of other drivers have done this, use what you’ve learned.” In fact much of it applies to cycling, in terms of observation, anticipation, road position, hazard awareness, etc.
So in summary, we need to get the traffic police we used to have back doing what they did, and driving education needs to be more about observation and anticipation, rather than just learning to pass an easy test.
Just my £0.02 (and indeed $0.02 by Monday morning).
I haven’t refreshed my IAM
I haven’t refreshed my IAM training so I feel slightly fraudulent claiming it these days, but the depressing thing about the advanced driving test is that it simply tests that you can drive properly. What are these “advanced” skills? Sticking to the speed limit, keeping a proper distance, use of mirrors and signals, observation, being in the correct gear, estimating the correct speed to go round a corner. There is absolutely nothing in the test that is not a compulsory skill for being a safe and careful driver.
The IAM test should really be
The IAM test should really be the standard one in the UK. Current one is not really fit for purpose. Germany has a far higher standard of driving and when we were in the EU there was a move to standardise on that level for EU countries.
Absolutely. It seems now the
Absolutely. It seems now the case* that “momentary lapse of attention” is less “once a lifetime” but more “once every 20 minutes”. And there are clearly lots of people whose basic attitude to task – never mind skills – makes them unfit to drive.
* Maybe always was though? Maybe it’s just that there are more drivers now, or we’re more aware of it?
I object to the plethora of
I object to the plethora of TV and YouTube presenters who use the driven car as a suitable place to do presentations. Week 1 Strictly had some couple finding out “Their Song” hands off wheel, screams attention.not on the road. The BBC should know better. It’s like smoking or no seatbelt, it just sends the wrong message that such behaviour is acceptable. We always scream at American films where drivers are incapable of looking at the road! I’m sure it rubs off, I hate sociable drivers who have to look at you when they are talking, scary.
Good point. And we’re back to
Good point. And we’re back to driving as a party in a car, cyclists “single up” and watch out for crap drivers (including behind you). Remind me of a reason why most people aren’t cycling again?
Checked on this a little with
Checked on this a little with Wales online as it progressed. Thought he might get off when he found a couple who said that the cyclist was hard to see. And added why was someone on a bike at that time.
Yeah because no one needs to go out at night.
Thought the jury would be swayed that if it were them , they would not have seen her either, and decided it was not beyond reasonable doubt.
Still leaves the question of what the outcome would have been for a non officer.
Passed a cyclist Monday night on a 60. Checked in the mirror to see how visible they were. Even with a single light, they were easy to see.
As it is, I use 3 or 4 rear lights as I don’t trust drivers much.
It was the female passenger
It was the female passenger giving evidence and the prosecution asked if she was paying as close attention as if she was driving and she answered no.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live-updates-lynwen-thomas-police-25281218
After reading the reports in the link it occurred to me that a better defence lawyer and a worse prosecutor may well have led to a different verdict. It’s a shame the article doesn’t mention the judges summary.
Draper’s lawyers had argued
Draper’s lawyers had argued that she should have been wearing bright clothing
Why? to make her body easier to find after their client had murdered her whilst looking at his mobile?
I know the lawyers job was to defend their client but how do they sleep at night?
He pleaded guilty to death by
He pleaded guilty to death by careless driving. I am pleased the CPS pushed for the dangerous charge. It is more than merely careless to allow yourself to be distracted by a mobile phone to such an extent.
There was also some evidence he was travelling faster than the 60mph limit for his vehicle type on this road.
The lies told to deflect from the truth and the attempt to shamelessly blame the victim for not being visible enough, are serious aggravating factors that I hope will be reflected in the sentencing.
When will the justice system
When will the justice system make proper examples with these sort of cases so that they are seen as a deterrent. Set sentences that scare the shit out of people and maybe things will improve
I used to think that but
I used to think that but after reading many articles on here it really comes down to the likelihood of being caught. Heavier sentences won’t affect the attitudes to driving whilst the chance of being caught is so very low.
hirsute wrote:
This has been shown in many studies. Sentencing doesn’t deter. Likelihood of prosecution does.
Exactly. People will tend to
Exactly. People will tend to do stuff that they “think they can get away with”.
(I’m also pretty sure that the man driving the Clapham Omnibus (see what I did there?) is not even aware of the pro-motoring bias which seems to be inherent in most trials before a judge and jury…)
brooksby wrote:
I think there’s another element with motor crime. 99.9% of the time people get away with dangerous driving. They convince themselves it’s not really that dangerous. That’s how perfectly normal people who are not psychopaths end up driving like they couldn’t care less about anyone else on the road.
The only solution is prosecuting these offences _before_ they result in a KSI.
Not just dangerous driving. I
Not just dangerous driving. I’m still sulking about this morning. Local drive through the village centre, joining main road on a roundabout and then immediately there is a well known difficult junction so I am exiting the roundabout about 20mph. As I am exiting I am checking my mirrors and note an Audi up my chuff. I assume they’ve just been a bit careless and will ease back as I accelerate. There’s a cycle lane with a cyclist, there are badly parked cars and driveways and a car exiting the local Legion slowly on a tight turn so I am not running on the speed limiter but a couple of mph below, probably a real 27-28mph. I can’t help but notice the Audi has got closer and as I instinctively lift to allow for the exiting car pulling out in front I notice we are now down to a couple of feet. I then lift for the 20mph before the sign and the Audi starts flashing the lights and I can see them getting agitated by me complying with the speed limit. I consider stopping, gather my emotions and chug on with speed limiter set to 20. They turned off about a 100 metres further on still flashing headlights.
It is driving we expect to see on a regular basis. I’m glad I was in my car not a bike.
An Audi you say. Being driven
An Audi you say. Being driven aggressively you say…
White or grey???
Slime green/bronze,
Slime green/bronze, particularly unpleasant close up!
ktache wrote:
Gold
https://road.cc/content/news/bmw-drivers-most-likely-show-psychopathic-traits-288039
The driver was actually white
The driver was actually white and grey, about 70 years old.
I agree with Hirsute n the
I agree with Hirsute n the likelyhood of getting caught.
Those of us old enough to remember the roads before automatic speed cameras I reckon about 90% of drivers were speeding (my younger self included), and long mtorway drives were often done at around 90 and invariably saw someone passing at 100+. These days I rarely see anyone much over 80 on a Mway andthe general speed has definetly been reduced.
Now if only the increased income had been used to fund additional traffic cops rather than an excuse to reduce the number
I hardly ever get over 70 now
I hardly ever get over 70 now on Mways or trunk A roads. There was a period of at least 2 years where the A12 of M25 or M1 all had average speed cameras due to some form of roadworks. I got so into the habit of putting on the cruise control that I stick with it now regardless of cameras.
I am surprised the defence
I am surprised the defence went along with such an absurd lie. Did they not model a cross examination? The insurer was prepared to do anything to avoid restitution.
This cUNtry
Shameful. Despicable.
RIP Ms Thomas
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
You’ve mixed a few things up there. This is a criminal case, the insurer is not involved. The defence is the defendant. But, I assume, by defence, you mean lawyer (he will have had a solicitor (running the case) and a barrister (doing the trial).
Modelling a cross examination is not permitted. Witness coaching is not permitted.
So, turning to the incredulity, those are the D’s instructions. How do we know this? Because, if the Defendant had told his lawyers that he was doing the things he claimed not to be doing (when he gave evidence) then the only possible outcomes would be a) they would have to withdraw if he said he was going to lie b) he would have been entitled to ‘test’ the prosecutions version but NOT give his own evidence or c) he would have to plead guilty.
There are loads of rules to what you can and can’t do as a lawyer. You can advise them that a jury is unlikley to believe them AND that the evidence is overwhelming but they are entitled to run a defence, however implausible it may seem. And I am glad that they are still able to do so.
Thanks for the informative
Thanks for the informative post. I learned some new things today. While modelling isn’t permitted, surely the defendant’s legal team are allowed to consider whether the defendant’s excuse/story is vaguely likely to hold water under examination? I would have thought the defendant’s legal time would advise the defendant to keep their mouth shut on that one. Although perhaps that was the most plausible story they could come up with, despite not being plausible.
The barrister’s job is not to
The barrister’s job is not to invent arguments, but to present the defendant’s arguments in the best possible light. This requires a highly intelligent person to suspend disbelief to some extent or else they cannot do their job. If they discover in trial that the argument they put forward is a lie, as opposed to highly implausible they are potentially professionally embarrassed.
A barrister must not devise facts or make allegations unsupported by instructions and the evidence. So we can see that from that the story about the child must have come from the defendant, but the clothing argument could have been the work of the barrister based on testimony of the witness.
I do hope you are being
I do hope you are being cynical.
Have you forwarded this viewpoint to Nick Freeman?
Cycloid wrote:
I can guarantee you, whatever your views of Freeman, he doesn’t do this either. If a defendant takes the stand and gives evidence, that’s the evidence he’s told his legal representative. It may sound like a fiction, a lawyer will tell them that, but that’s their case.
Now, you get into slightly different territory where a defendant doesn’t give evidence (as is their right). In those cases it’s possible that the aren’t giving evidence because, in effect, they’ve ‘confessed’ to their lawyer. So, the only options are no evidence OR the lawyer withdraws. Of course, there may be other reasons for silence.
What lawyers like Freeman do do, (and this was also done here) is push the boundaries to what people might think morally objectionable, such as ‘loopholes,’ poor witness recall or, things like wearing high vis. This is their job, no matter how repugnant society thinks it is.
bendertherobot wrote:
I think you more or less voiced my thoughts.
Our adversarial system means that when defending someone who is as guilty as hell, a not guilty verdict becomes a measure of success.
Council telling overt lies in court may not be the done thing, but leading the defendant beforehand certainly is. “Do you think the cyclist may have swerved?”
This is an appalling case. It
This is an appalling case. It sounds as if the driver hasn’t faced up to what he did. My condolences to the family of his victim.
I think they should get bonus
I think they should get bonus fines covering the cost of the prosecution needing to bring an expert witness to prove that his story was made up.
However, most likely he is weeping to his mates down the pub that it is so unfair that they didn’t believe his made up story – where’s the justice if the jury don’t believe your lies?
Of course, the problem with his defence is that if you are being distracted, you should= not be driving. It seems to be built on the principle that if you have a child in your car, the child is more important than the driving. Perhaps the jury grasped the underlying implications of that argument.
Except in his case his child
Except in his case his child came second in importance, and his driving third, after his obsession with social media. I expect he’s one of those parents who hold their phone in front of their face, pushing the buggy, all the time ignoring their wailing child. I really hope he doesn’t continue to drive while on bail. Apart from the risk to other road users, there’s also a child protection issue. It was fortunate for his child that he didn’t swerve into the path of an HGV.
what a low life!
what a low life!
Looking at other reports on
Looking at other reports on this, Draper is out on bail until sentencing. Presumably that means he has yet to be banned from driving, so Lynwen’s family might have the pleasure of seeing their daughter’s killer driving around in the machine he used to kill her.
…and then the pleasure of
…and then the pleasure of his alibi being used again as an excuse not to jail him. Perhaps he might even use the Slatterthwaite manoeuvre – using the passenger being traumatised by the experience of the appalling driving as mitigation.
I will reserve final
I will reserve final judgement until after the sentencing hearing, but this verdict does at least give me some hope. Far too many juries have sided with the driver by believing their lies in cases like this. It seems like these days you have to appear to be an absolute psychopath in order to get a dangerous driving conviction. In such a car centric society many jurors will be drivers themselves, and will understandably imagine themselves in the driver’s situation, wondering if they would do anything different. The old ‘benefit of the doubt’ factor will then cloud their judgement. At least in this case the prosecution have managed to dispel those doubts.
On a related note, I have
On a related note, I have driven and cycled this particular stretch of road many times, and there are really very few circumstances where you would ‘justifiably’ struggle to see the cyclist ahead if you were driving properly. This sadly is very much like the case of Lucy John who died in a crash on the A48 near Bridgend on the morning of last Sunday 16th October. I drove past the site of the crash yesterday, and again the road is a dual carriageway with no sightline issues. I do not know the facts of this latest incident, but again I struggle to visualise any scenario where an attentive driver would NOT be aware of a cyclist directly in front of them.
Dicklexic wrote:
I think the problem is that the driver is only really looking for the big metal boxes and their peripheral vision isn’t good enough to pick up anything smaller than that.
I’m not sure it’s even that.
I’m not sure it’s even that. I think there is a “but the roads are for cars!” bias coming in here. It’s not hating the cyclist so much as “but they’ve put themselves there. That’s an unusual thing (unlike driving) so is more of a deliberate choice than driving. They are choosing to be where they are – in some way – not supposed or expected to be.” This is where the “victim blaming” starts – “It is at least partly their responsibility. They didn’t have to be there. They were cycling around cars – they took a risk!”
(And yes – I know we’re blind to the fact that people in motor vehicles kill themselves and each other not infrequently. We also are shocked to hear of motorists killing pedestrians on pavements although this happens not infrequently.)
This crops up here in our collective consciousness on road.cc too – no shortage of “better safe than dead” or “better alive than right”. Well, yes. But this obviously means we all accept the status quo and/or that convenience for drivers is a given – even at the cost of the safety of everyone else using the roads.
The unanswered thing for me
The unanswered thing for me is that the victim was a police officer. Did the jury think ‘she was a police officer, so would have made sure she was visible, so claims to the contrary are wrong’. Or did they decide that police officers need protection and this was a chance to punish someone?
hirsute wrote:
I’ve heard it suggested (by lawyers of my acquaintance) that irrelevant personal details of a crime victim should be kept right out of court as they tend to sway juries, apparently (and anecdotally) if the victim is a nurse, charity worker, in the armed forces or in any other generally admired section of society it’s easier to secure a conviction.
hirsute wrote:
I must admit that same thought did cross my mind too.
That poor family, this should
That poor family, this should not have happened.
It also scares me, due to the general attitude of many drivers on the roads, how many things could have gone in the drivers favour.. 1) If the child had been a bit older and it wasn’t more easily proved that they didn’t have the dexterity to switch between apps 2) if the road wasn’t so straight and clear 3) if they’d taken the defences argument that the cyclist should have been wearing bright clothing 4) if the cyclist wasn’t a police officer (speculative, but does makes you wonder) 5) I’m wondering what piece of evidence tipped the CPS over into pushing for dangerous driving.. if it was the phone use, you would like to think that any proven phone use ‘should’ be prosecuted as dangerous and not careless (does that mean a precedent is now set?)
The point being that regardless of the sentance Simon Draper recieves for this tragedy, it is now proven that he should not be allowed in control of a four wheeled vehicle on British roads.
I generally agree in
I generally agree in rehabilitation rather than punishment, but I do think that there is a bright line that causing death by dangerous driving should have the option of a lifetime ban for driving. If nothing else, the idea that it is impossible to live a modern life without a driving licence is patently untrue and perceived inconvenience should not be a determining factor.
IanMSpencer wrote:
But it’s an essential basic adult skill!
Which is why arguing for more
Which is why arguing for more support for cycling – or for restrictions on driving – is literally childish!
Rendel Harris wrote:
…one which so many adults have failed to reach even a basic mastery of.
More details of the trial in
More details of the trial in the link below. Includes the judges summing up and inks to more detail of each day of the trial.
https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/23067142.live-simon-draper-trial-dyfed-powys-police-officer-death/
I found the summary by the defence interesting :
“Defence counsel Tim Evans argued that prosecution had not done enough to prove Draper’s driving on that fateful evening was dangerous.
“They are nowhere near it (the prosecution to proving it was dangerous driving).
“The prosecution have gone too high (with their charge of dangerous driving by Draper).
“There is a height you have to reach to get to dangerous driving and they have not reached that. Not remotely.””
It’s an intriguing concept
It’s an intriguing concept that not looking where you are going, playing with your phone and generally not driving at all which results in someone being killed is not even remotely dangerous.
I wonder if the judge and jury had trouble digesting that over-egged pudding.
That’s just consistent with
That’s just consistent with the defence case that the 13 month sin was using the phone.
Draper was simply momentarily distracted by his son hence not dangerous.
Thankfully, the jury did not swallow this bullshit.
Not really, that quote seems
Not really, that quote seems to be saying “even if you accept the prosecution case, which I don’t, they still haven’t got enough for dangerous driving.”
Obviously we haven’t got the while story there but that seems to be what he is arguing – not guilty but also no case to answer anyway.
I wonder what height they
I wonder what height they considered would reach it, whilst acknowledging they were simply defending the indefensible.