A lorry driver who says he was “blinded by the sun” when he fatally struck a cyclist two years ago has been cleared of causing her death by driving carelessly.
52-year-old cyclist Nicolette Lewis, from Llandybie, Carmarthenshire was cycling on the A476 between Temple Bar and Ffairfach on Monday 9 October 2023, at around 5pm, when she was struck by lorry driver John Evans. She died at the scene.
Evans was later charged with causing Mrs Lewis’ death by driving without due care and attention. Speaking at Swansea Crown Court this week, prosecutor Helen Randall told the jury that the 63-year-old lorry driver was “blinded” by the sun as he rounded a corner, before hearing a “bang” when he hit the cyclist.
Randall argued that Evans was driving without due care and attention as he should have been travelling at a speed which would have enabled him to slow down or come to a stop if he could not see properly.
However, the lorry driver, represented by John Hipkin KC, claimed that the crash occurred “within a couple of seconds” of his vision being impaired and that he “couldn’t have done anything differently”.
Following the conclusion of the three-day trial on Thursday, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, clearing Evans of the charges, the South Wales Guardian reports.
“These are very difficult cases,” Judge Huw Rees told the court following the verdict. “Nobody intentionally does anything to cause harm in a case like this.”
The judge then paid tribute to Mrs Lewis, extending his condolences to her family and friends and noting that her son had “behaved with the utmost dignity” throughout the trial.
“No words can be said during this very difficult and devastating time,” Mrs Lewis’ family said in a victim impact statement.
“She was our absolute world and rock, a wonderful soul who did not deserve to leave this life so early.
“We know that all she wants for us is to come together and make the most of our lives with a smile as she was always smiling, with a large glass of wine in one hand.
“We shall all raise a glass of wine to Nicolette very soon. Sleep tight you beautiful soul.”
63 thoughts on “Lorry driver “blinded by sun” when he killed cyclist cleared of careless driving”
The good old “Sun in My Eyes”
The good old “Sun in My Eyes” defence – Works every time.
If you can’t see the road
If you can’t see the road ahead clearly, then slow the fuck down. Honestly, it’s not fucking complicated.
Another cyclist killed by a useless driver.
Once again, no driver is
Once again, no driver is expected to know whether it’s dark, raining, sunny, the position of the sun in the sky, or whether someone could be on the road just round that corner. He is not expected to anticipate anything at all, and if he’s in a massive vehicle he knows he can kill anyone, especially a cyclist, with impunity.
Ah, the sun was in his eyes
Ah, the sun was in his eyes because he’d gone around a corner? Presumably that was the first time he’d been travelling in that direction so couldn’t possibly have anticipated that.
This is the crux if it… A
This is the crux if it… A local farmer not knowing that turning a corner would result in the sun in his eyes? I don’t believe it. Slow down, stop. Adjust visor and put on sun glasses. Simple things to save a life. Don’t know the area but tractors can usually see over hedgerows so know where the sun is at all times.
We’re forever hearing
We’re forever hearing motorists complaining that speed limits are too low because they are supposedly capable of “driving to the conditions” and yet here we are again with a non-motorist killed by someone who plainly *wasn’t* driving to the conditions. smh
Tragic accident / could have
Tragic accident / could have happened to anyone. Alternatively “just one bad apple” and “the vast majority are competent and careful”.
I think the latter is at least missing “motornormativity”. And overestimating both people’s resistance to fitting in with the prevailing social conventions and people’s levels of mental arousal when doing routine tasks.
your life as a cyclist is
your life as a cyclist is worthless
A judge has again validated
A judge has again validated ‘he didn’t mean to do it’ as an almost universally accepted excuse for killing cyclists. This, along with ‘I didn’t see him’, expressing remorse and ‘I will have to live with this for the rest of my life’ will get most people off after killing a cyclist.
I’m disappointed by the
I’m disappointed by the outcome but it’s just not true to say that the judge accepted or validated some sort of excuse for the driver killing the cyclist. The decision in this case was entirely the decision of the jury.
We’re aware of the simple
We’re aware of the simple fact that it’s the jury who finds the killer innocent of the offence, but the judge sets the scene and softens up the next jury for the next killed cyclist case and renders ‘he didn’t mean to do it’ a means to the end of Not Guilty for people who obviously are guilty
The judge literally said
The judge literally said driving is “inherently dangerous”. Just not for the twats doing it.
At some point someone’s going
At some point someone’s going to start taking the law into their own hands, and frankly I’d be cheering them on.
These appear to be the facts
These appear to be the facts as far as I can ascertain:
The cyclist would have been heading towards home.
From Llandeilo to Ffairfach it is downhill.
The A476 in the area of Ffairfach is heading South.
On 9th October the sun sets at 18:29 just South of West, the collision occurred at 17:00.
The driver was driving a tractor and presumably looking down at the road.
I do hope the investigators did a thorough job and corraborated the claim the Sun was directly ahead of the driver?!
This reminds me of an incident shown on TV’s Helicopter ER.
The narrator said the HEMS crew were attending a seriously injured cyclist, where the driver claimed he had been blinded by the Sun. I thought this insertion was rather unusual.
Then we could see from the video, the road was dead straight, and the Sun was at 90deg to the road to the left, casting shadows across the road. So if the driver was blinded by the Sun, he would have been looking out the passenger door window!! Or perhaps it was the reflection of the Sun off his phone??!!
I do hope the investigators
I do hope the investigators did a thorough job and corroborated the claim the sun was directly ahead of the driver?!
We don’t have a full report of the prosecution case, but I wouldn’t assume that as a matter of course. I have the uninformed impression that prosecutors don’t try too hard when the victims are cyclists. We have seen many cases lately of the generously forgiving attitude of the UK legal system towards those who kill cyclists.
The incident seems to have
The incident seems to have occurred rather further south: the report says “between Ffairfach and Temple Bar”. There is no place called Temple Bar, it’s a pub in the village of Carmel, south of Ffairfach; the A476 there runs southwest and there are a couple of bends that take the road almost directly west. None of which excuses the driver in any way, of course.
In other reports Evans admitted in court that he “could have slowed down more” and that he didn’t have his sun visor down which could have helped him to see Ms.Lewis. This would seem to be an open admission that his driving fell below the standard expected of a careful driver, i.e. careless driving. What goes on in jury rooms is often inexplicable.
In a desperately sad touch, Ms.Lewis’ husband Andrew saw her on her regular training ride as he was driving home from work about fifteen minutes before the crash; it was the last time he saw her alive. Andrew also died last month. RIP.
Another report I read put the
Another report I read put the location on the outskirts of Llandeilo, and the driver was driving a tractor and not a lorry.
Also, travelling from Temple Bar to FFairfach is heading in the opposite direction to the setting Sun.
Mr Anderson wrote:
I didn’t say he was travelling in that direction, he was going the opposite way (south west) from Ffairfach to his haulage yard in Carmel, the town where the TB pub is. He was definitely driving a lorry, I think the confusion has arisen in reports because it was an articulated lorry, i.e. separate cab and trailer; the cab is technically known as a tractor unit.
This report is the one I found with the most details: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lorry-driver-found-not-guilty-173655974.html
Facts or speculation?
Facts or speculation?
Given the article says the cyclist was travelling between Temple Bar and Ffairfach it’s placing her on a different stretch of road to your Llandeilo-Ffairfach descent. The A476 is heading NE/SW between TB and FF, although I don’t see any info regarding the driver’s direction of travel?
However, it seems obvious to me that anyone driving safely shouldn’t be hitting a cyclist. Whether the driver has been blinded by the sun or not, it’s no excuse. It seems a jury think differently…
I wonder perhaps with more satisfactory legal outcomes would occur in these kind of cases if Starmer and Lammy get their way?
Cyclosarus rex wrote:
In the other reports I read it said he was heading back from Ffairfach to Temple Bar/Carmel so he was heading south.
They could hardly be any less satisfactory, could they? Amongst all the outrage and “it’s our right under Magna Carta” (actually it isn’t) nobody seems to have mentioned that the French system doesn’t have juries except for the most serious cases and even then they sit alongside qualified judges. The French system is also inquisitorial rather than adversarial, with the judges actively questioning witnesses and defendants rather than just having two sets of lawyers going at each other and then deciding who won. Seems to work at least as well as our system and I don’t really understand the worship of jury trials in this country; a barrister friend once said to me think of the stupidest person you know and then imagine that if you were unlucky twelve of them would be making a decision that decided whether you spent ten years in prison or not. A bit exaggerated but a fair point, it really is luck of the draw as to whether you get a jury that is capable and conscientious or slapdash and biased. Also of course, as frequently mentioned on here, when it comes to offences against cyclists there is an inbuilt bias in the system as the jury is far more likely to be composed of car drivers, and sympathetic towards them, than it is to be composed of cyclists.
Another vote here in favour
Another vote here in favour of the absence of juries in trials of those charged with killing while driving
I was saying to someone the
I was saying to someone the other day, if you were mugged would you be happy with the miscreant being tried with a jury comprised 85% of muggers? No? But 85% of drivers admit that they will sometimes break the speed limit but they are seen as perfectly suitable candidates to judge other drivers who have killed or seriously injured somebody by breaking the speed limit.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Careful what you wish for.
In cycling cases I suspect the bigger issue is simply motornormativity. All the biases that contribute to the system being as it is are also in the law! Or within legal flexibility – why we see the likes of “below the speed limit, no evidence of drinking or phone use – no case to answer”). See the likes of “far below the standard of a careful, competent driver”.
What is the probability a judge is less likely to have such a bias? Now – they ought to be more aware of any biases and simply be “following the law”. But others like collision investigators providing them info are also subject to these biases.
Then there is the lack of knowledge / biases in expectation eg. why and how cyclists behave as they do and why some driver behaviour is a danger.
Edit: … but perhaps that
Edit: … but perhaps that would still be an improvement?
And of course this is all leaving aside all the driver behaviour which never troubles the court, because no police, or ignored by police.
And of course this is all
And of course this is all leaving aside all the driver behaviour which… ignored by police…
It certainly is! This is the festive gift from Lancashire Constabulary to these drivers: seasonal goodwill and forgiveness which extends the whole year round
https://upride.cc/incident/sc21zsx_niro_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/j33bmd_transittrailer_redlightpass/
And the Spirit of Goodwill to All Drivers also emanates from the DVLA
chrisonabike wrote:
In the French system becoming a judge is a career path that candidates choose as soon as they complete their law degree (unlike in the UK where judges are selected from practising lawyers and often they are not the best of the profession); they have to do 31 months intensive postgraduate training and then go on to specialise in specific areas of law. Why not have judges who specialise in traffic law who have undergone practical training in forensics and crash investigation and who have had cycle training as part of their qualification?
Specialist traffic judges –
Specialist traffic judges – hmm, could be. (Currently it’s more like the Rules of the Road under Judge Dredd).
But … even allowing for such a radical change as you propose, and assuming that the module on vulnerable road users wasn’t optional as part of the course, I would expect a degree of discontent about the results.
I doubt the populace (and hence the politicians) can easily be shifted from the “accidents happen” view. Which risks increasing resistance – not by the majority but a big enough active monitory to catch the eye of politicians and change things.
And I suspect a rate of road death unacceptable to folks cycling will continue to result. Because “mass motoring” and there are enough who might make an “unfathomable error” every fraction of a lifetime. (no stats to back this though as opposed to “it’s mostly a tiny fraction of awful drivers causing carnage and if we just remove them it’s basically fixed”).
That’s why I suspect the best prospect is to change the overall view of transport. So “sustainable safety” in addition to the law. And all the other changes those going in the direction of the Dutch have converged on.
Think that moves the plot on by increasing the numbers that see walking and cycling as transport, while decreasing those who are essentially completely dependent on driving
Dunno if *that* is any more realistic than your suggestion that the legal system be changed. But it has happened in a few places…
I mean, changing the legal
I mean, changing the legal system is a massive, fraught step. I think a solution might instead be some separation from criminal law. Yes, you keep the criminal offences on the books. But, in situations of a collision causing serious injury, have a Road Accident Investigation Branch, working in tandem with the DVLA.
They can identify contributory factors – not just actions of road users, but also elements of road design, too – for instance, consider the case of Ipley Cross.
And, if a driver has flouted the rules and caused death? Just as a train driver would lose their licence, so should a car driver. This is where the DVLA could come in – revoking licences and not reissuing them.
The privilege of driving a car is not a right. Having experts determine this is far less fraught than doing something similar with custodial sentences.
Solocle wrote:
Hmm, that won’t fill eg. wtjs with hope – there is plenty of evidence that they are already happy to “see no evil” even when it comes v to matters which should already concern them!
I do think making this partly an administrative matter * *ought* to help drain the drama. But … it was for similar reasons we already got the existing “causing death by careless / dangerous driving” offences (people wouldn’t convict for this as murder or manslaughter). And now juries are reluctant to convict on those either. And the average sentences (from judge) seem low (just following the guidelines).
We give driving a special place in the category of “nominally regulated activities”. And it’s normalised to a great extent so it’s hard to imagine society accepting the regular withdrawal of licences for “just an accident”. Would the best strategy be and “us and them” approach? eg. you’re a good driver, right? And you don’t want the bad drivers to pull you down… But we already have this (insurance) and this clearly isn’t enough.
* Such as there being a separate part about “have you broken the condition of your licence” – which then could be administratively revoked. More likely to happen: some kind of “default liability” for civil cases, as this already exists in reality (in NL at least).
have a Road Accident
have a Road Accident Investigation Branch, working in tandem with the DVLA
Infinitely confidence inspiring! Look up BF64 TGE – over 4 years without VED, and coming up to 4 years since that was reported to DVLA along with the address in Garstang it’s parked overnight. 46 Quail Holme Road, Knott End-On-Sea, Poulton-Le-Fylde, England, FY6 0BT is the address at Companies House of Lux Developments and Electrical which runs the vehicle. My MP has written to minister Lilian Greenwood at DfT, and still nothing is done about the industrial scale tax evasion- the excuse now seems to be that they can’t do anything because I would then know that action had been taken and I know the offender’s address! A Road Incident Investigation Branch would be set up to be crap from the outset!
This is where the DVLA could
This is where the DVLA could come in – revoking licences and not reissuing them
This is a DVSA job, and they’re generally much more competent than the hopelessly inept DVLA (moan, whinge, wail: there are so many offenders who have been offending for many years, what can we do? cry, raise eyes to the heavens, etc.). However, it appears the government doesn’t even permit DVSA to join the War Against the Motorist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
What if the person you’re imagining is a judge?
Then your version of ‘unlucky
Then your version of ‘unlucky’ is being in front of a fully constituted Supreme Court.
The judges comments are worse
The judges comments are worse than tbe excuses .,never any consequence to killing when driving
The “Sun in my eyes” defece
The “Sun in my eyes” defence has become a joke, it is used too often. (That’s the wrong word, it’s not funny)
I hate trial by social media, but a case like this only comes to court if the CPS think there is a high probability of conviction, so there is cause some cause for concern with the verdict.
I think there may be a parallel here with another type of “accident”. A few years ago the biggest cause of KSIs for cyclists in inner cities was getting trapped on the inside of (left turning) HGVs. This situation has been very much improved by all parties recognising the problem. Drivers and cyclists have been trained, HGVs fitted with cameras in some cases and signage added to vehicles to warn cyclists of the dangers.
Could a similar approach work with the “Sun in my eyes” defence? Make the legal profession aware that this is not an acceptable defence, (a few punitive sentences may help) then they would not advise their clients to take this route. Educate drivers. And maybe this is one of the few times a cyclst should ride in the gutter? A future campaign for Cycling UK?
Perhaps the weather
Perhaps the weather forecasters should be required to announce approximately what direction and times of day the sun may be found low in the sky. I suspect there might be some sort of pattern, can they at least predict it a day or so ahead?
It’s not needed.
It’s not needed.
Any 8 year old child knows how the sun moves, and any humna being can see it in the sky.
That’s the second one I have seen in a fortnight where the lawyer bullshitted the Jury, and they fell for it.
That’s the second one I have
That’s the second one I have seen in a fortnight where the lawyer bullshitted the Jury, and they fell for it
andystow was laying the irony on thick! You’re right about the Shyster Lawyer, but the jury consisted of willing victims only too keen to seize on any reason to get the the killer driver off. What was the prosecution doing?!
It could be done alongside
It could be done alongside the Pollen Count
Something along the lines of “The Sun sets at 18:00 hrs today. Shortly beforehand you may see a low Sun in the sky. Please take extra care when driving towards it.
During the previous round of
During the previous round of Highway Code consultations, I wrote to Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK, requesting he puts forward a signficant revision to the HC regarding Sun affecting the drivers vision.
I hope he puts these proposals forward at the next round of consultations.
This is the current Rule 93. Pathetic?
There is significant guidance
There is significant guidance* in the Highway Code that appears throughout and with brief, but significant, text. Not all guidance in the HC can be Rule 1.
What is needed is training and public information at a frequency to normalise a focus on good driving, together with better training for practitioners of the legal system (and perhaps a better-trained or reduced role of juries).
* Too many people express the view that guidance in the HC is optional guidance that one can choose to follow or not. It isn’t. It’s guidance that tells you what the minimum standard of driving looks like. Driving below that standard is an offence. That isn’t the nanny state; it’s protecting vulnerable people (all road users in all modes of transport, as well as others) from innjury and death – that is the very basic requirement of the state.
My suggested revision to Rule
My suggested revision to Rule 93 included guidance to the driver to be prepared for dazzling sunlight before beginning a journey.
So relying such a statement:
“within a couple of seconds” of his vision being impaired and that he “couldn’t have done anything differently”
will be NULL AND VOID as a defence.
Exactly that. Surely saying
Exactly that. Surely saying the sun was in my eyes is self-incriminating not mitigation?
Thats not how it works though
Thats not how it works though is it. Every excuse that drivers use is an admission that they are not fit to be driving. “Sorry, I didn’t look”. “Sorry, I thought I could get away with overtaking on a blind corner like I have done dozens of times”. Sorry I thought i would get away with speeding”, “Sorry, I thought I was further away from you than I was.”
They are all admissions you are a shit driver that shouldn’t be near the roads but they are taken as momentary lapses in an exemplary record. Its taken that because you haven’t been caught repeatedly that this is clearly just a single isolated incident.
Imagine if we treated every crime like this.
As I usually say in these
As I usually say in these cases, anyone who has been part of the result in letting the driver off should be put through the conditions the cyclist faced every day untill they realise their error.
This is the current Rule 93.
This is the current Rule 93. Pathetic?
It hardly matters since the police and the average driver ignore even the more than definite rules, such as those concerning traffic lights. See the two videos I show below!
My experience is that the
My experience is that the Police are always quick to tell me that they don’t regard the Highway Code as being applicable to road traffic offences and that the only offences are careless and dangerous driving, but that just shows their lack of understanding of the law:
“These are very difficult
“These are very difficult cases,” Judge Huw Rees told the court following the verdict. “Nobody intentionally does anything to cause harm in a case like this.”
No, not difficult, it’s clear, transparent and obvious.
Intentional or not, someone died as the result of the driver’s actions, or lack of action: but it wasn’t his fault because “…there was nothing he could have done.” Which is so completely, blindingly, utterly nonsensical that I can’t believe the judge and the court and the prosecution didn’t challenge it as being a lie. As others have pointed out, Rule 93 applies, and anyone continuing to drive without slowing down when they can’t see what’s in front of them, must be behaving without due care and attention.
Not in the UK, where killing a cyclist is just one of those things that just couldn’t be avoided. Any careful driver, acting with due care and attention, would have slowed down, but if you’ve got a KC, a compliant court, and it was just a cyclist, the legal system will absolve you of all blame.
Another letter to my MP about getting that comprehensive review of road laws resurrected, using this case as the most egregious example.
Which is so completely,
Which is so completely, blindingly, utterly nonsensical that I can’t believe the judge and the court and the prosecution didn’t challenge it as being a lie
I can. The most interesting question could possibly be answered by a proper report of the trial: did the prosecution just make a token effort because they didn’t think it was a ‘real offence’?
If that guy in Liverpool had
If that guy in Liverpool had ploughed into a group of cyclists, let’s say a chaity ride or a bunch of people protesting about road deaths with a die in, would he get 21 years? Especially if the sun was in his eyes*
* insert other standard excuses here
I posted about this on
I posted about this on yesterday’s blog:
Was just thinking about the case of Paul Doyle driving through the crowds and hitting people at the Liverpool parade.
And how the result compares to what happened in Brazil against cyclists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nab62Lyzwwg
Found this info online:
“Details of the 2011 Incident
Location and Event: The incident happened in Porto Alegre during a “Critical Mass” event, a monthly ride held by cycling activists to promote bike use and safety.
The Driver: The driver was identified as Ricardo Neis, a 47-year-old man, who fled the scene but was later arrested. He claimed he acted in self-defense after feeling threatened by the cyclists who were allegedly hitting his car, a claim dismissed by police and witnesses.
Victims and Injuries: The car plowed through more than 100 cyclists, injuring at least 40 people, some with broken bones and head injuries, though miraculously no one was killed. All injured victims were later discharged from the hospital.
Legal Outcome: Neis was charged with attempted murder, and later sentenced to 12 years in prison for 11 attempted homicides and five injuries.”
Just another case of a Jury
Just another case of a Jury full of motorists who’s main concern is that it could happen to them one day. We see it time and time again….. There needs to be an insistance that no one with a driving licence sits on jurys in cases like this. It happens all the time.
Is it just me that is hoping
Is it just me that is hoping this category of offence will be judged in future and not subject to trail by jury?
What available evidence
What available evidence suggests judges will be any different? Even on the rare cases juries do convict, they almost always hand down the most lenient sentence they possibly can.
“Nobody intentionally does
“Nobody intentionally does anything to cause harm in a case like this.” For the judge it was an act of God, wasn’t it? A man behind a wheel killed a woman, and he walks free. When the driving licence becomes a licence to kill.
How on earth do we have a
How on earth do we have a situation where a lorry driver who kills a cyclist gets off scot free for claiming ‘sun in their eyes’.
Yet, a lorry driver who hits a minibus, where thankfully nobody was seriously injured or killed, gets a suspended prison sentence and banned from driving using the same ‘defence’ (in quotes as it should be an aggravating factor, not a defence).
HoarseMann wrote:
— HoarseMannThis, a thousand times this.
collision report, if the
collision report, if the location is accurate, it’s a very long sweeping bend with good visibility – hardly a ‘corner’…
https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2023631361224/
I’ve just done a 45min drive.
I’ve just done a 45min drive. The sun was low, the road was damp, there was very bad glare at times. BUT I knew the sun was low before I got in the car – because I can see it! It doesn’t come out of nowhere.
By reducing speed it was easily manageable. I had full visibility of the road ahead at all times and could be 100% sure there was nothing in my path. Anyone who is not driving like this or taking note of the position of the sun, is being, at the very least, careless – end of.
If the judge finds these cases difficult, perhaps he is in the wrong job. Let’s remind him that if the person in a case like this had intentionally done something to cause harm, that would be a different charge; murder in this instance.
Intent is irrelevant here. What matters is the standard of driving and that alone should be the factor under consideration. If this had happened during a driving test, would the examiner have shaken the driver’s hand and said, well done, good job, you’ve passed??? If not, then the driving de facto falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver, and is, by definition, at minimum careless. The judge could and should have given the jury guidance in this vein.
My letter to my MP. Feel
My letter to my MP. Feel free to plagiarise.
Dear Mr Bishop MP,
Comprehensive review of road laws
In May 2014, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling MP announced a full review of all driving offences and penalties: that review has not happened, but there have been several very limited reviews, and some changes to the Highway Code. Some recent cases have made it clear that a full review of all driving offences is now required, because drivers are literally getting away with murder.
The most recent case could not be more egregious, that of Nicolette Lewis, who was killed by a lorry driver who continued driving at the same speed, even though he could not see where he was going because he was dazzled by the sun. The Highway Code rule 93 is explicit “Slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by bright sunlight.” The driver did not slow down, and as a result, struck and killed Nicolette Lewis. In court, the fact that he was dazzled was used as a defence, when it was an aggravating factor. Being dazzled by the sun is commonly used as a defence, especially in cases where a cyclist is struck, and this is accepted by the courts, when it is in fact an admission of guilt. That this happens, clearly indicates that the Highway Code and the law are not sufficiently robust, thus allowing drivers who have killed by not exercising due care and attention, to escape justice. The law should be changed so that this defence can no longer be used, but would be considered an aggravating factor.
https://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/25706353.lorry-driver-cleared-driving-carelessly-cyclist-crash/
https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2023631361224/
The story with phone-driving is very similar, with drivers who kill cyclists regularly not being held to account, e.g. the case of Cheryl Tye, who was killed by a van driver who was using his phone when he hit her at 60mph. The driver was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, but guilty of causing death by careless driving. Using a phone whilst driving is not careless, it is a conscious, deliberate act, which everyone knows is illegal and dangerous. The driver’s legal representative told the court that his driving was not dangerous, it was careless. The use of phones whilst driving is commonplace, partly because the punishments for doing so are not significant, and even when a phone-driver kills, juries will acquit them of causing death by dangerous driving. Again, the law should be changed so that any use of a phone whilst driving is dangerous, and the punishment should be appropriate.
https://www.thetfordandbrandontimes.co.uk/news/25364442.norfolk-man-not-guilty-causing-death-dangerous-driving/
Both of the above cases have been repeated many times, demonstrating that vulnerable road users are not protected by the law.
The recent changes to the Highway Code making it clear that drivers should take more care around pedestrians and cyclists is welcome, but is clearly insufficient. The meaning of ‘dangerous’ is not properly defined legally, and it should be changed to reflect the effects of the crime, and if someone has been injured or died, then the driving is, ipso facto, dangerous. Likewise any use of a phone whilst driving should be considered dangerous, with similar punishments to drink driving. The same should apply to failing to slow down or stop when dazzled by the sun.
At your recent meeting about roads and traffic in the Forest, I made the point that the only way to tackle the problem of congestion caused by motor vehicles, is public transport and getting many more people to use Active Travel, cycling and walking. That transformation will not occur until pedestrians and cyclists feel safe on the roads, and all research shows that the single biggest factor preventing people walking and cycling is fear of traffic.
Getting more people using Active Travel has other, massive benefits, both for individuals and society; pollution, danger, obesity, health, climate change, monetary savings and community. A recent YouGov poll “Health pledges top the list of Britons’ New Year’s resolutions for 2026” found that ‘Get fit/exercise more, lose weight, better health and save more/spend less’ were four out of the top five New Year Resolutions. All of those resolutions are addressed by making Active Travel more popular.
Given that a single case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian, Charlie Alliston/Kim Briggs, can result in a law change, the many cases of pedestrians and cyclists being killed by drivers much more culpable than Mr Alliston must result in changes to the law.
Can I ask you to use your best efforts to get the law changed on two points;
preventing dazzle from the sun being used as an excuse, ensuring that using it as a defence will not be allowed, and that it will be considered an aggravating factor.
Changing the law so that any phone driving resulting in injury or death is de facto, dangerous driving
Punishments for both transgressions should be the same as drink-driving
Please copy this letter to the Transport and Justice Ministers, and any others you consider relevant, and obtain answers from them.
Yours sincerely,
Excellent letter. I wish you
Excellent letter. I wish you luck although my own experience is that the MPs are fobbed off by the authorities just like we are. To take mobile phone use alone: Lancashire Constabulary simply ignores it, and my video and still evidence couldn’t be better. Nothing happens, because the complaints system for concern about the police is, and is intended to be, toothless and useless.
Why was there a victim impact
Why was there a victim impact statement and why did the judge start moralising when the defendant was acquitted of the charge?
Which PBU are you ?
Which PBU are you ?