A driver who admitted she “just didn’t see” a Cambridge cyclist crossing the road has pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. A police spokesman said the incident had been “completely avoidable”.
Wildlife conservationist Dr Tony Whitten, 64, was crossing Newmarket Road at about 9.15pm on November 29, 2017, when he was hit by 56-year-old Emma Featherstone.
The BBC reports that Featherstone had turned right out of Sun Street into Newmarket Road. She told police that she “just didn’t see” the cyclist.
At a voluntary interview in March last year, she said she turned right at the junction while in first gear and at no point noticed Whitten
Whitten, a senior advisor with Fauna and Flora International who had 11 new species named after him, died at the scene.
A collision investigation report concluded Featherstone had failed to look adequately before pulling out of the junction.
PC Paul Gale, who investigated, said: “It’s incredibly sad when we have to attend incidents where drivers have made a mistake resulting in tragedy.
“It is vital that people drive in a safe, considerate way in order to prevent awful instances like this occurring in the future. We attend these kinds of incidents far too often and many are completely avoidable.”
Featherstone was handed a 12-month community order, a 20-day rehabilitation activity requirement and has to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work. She was banned from driving for 18 months.
47 thoughts on “Driver “didn’t see” cyclist crossing road before “completely avoidable” fatal collision”
Since none of the normal
Since none of the normal boxes to be ticked are not mentioned I infer he had lights, hi viz etc.
I’m sure Mr Briggs will be campaigning about this.
My deepest sympathy to the
My deepest sympathy to the family, friends and colleagues of Dr Tony Whitten.
Just didn’t see is simply the
Just didn’t see is simply the socially acceptable version of didn’t bother looking
dodpeters wrote:
if she simply can’t see she simply shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
I simply can’t see why anyone who has been responsible for someone else’s death in this sort of way is allowed to keep their licence. Would someone who shot somebody else that they simply couldn’t see be allowed to keep their gun licence?
dodpeters wrote:
Looking at google maps, it looks like Sun Street is just a car park precinct rather than a “proper” road. Perfect visibility along a straight road.
I admit to some surprise that she “just didn’t see”, but then wasn’t that what Gail Purcell, the driver who ran into the back of Mick Mason, also said? (although didn’t GP add that she’d thought that there might have been a sack of potatoes falling from the sky…)
Note to self: If you ever
Note to self: If you ever want to kill someone, just say you didn’t see them there.
just bring in life bans…now
just bring in life bans…now ffs!!
I do get that people don’t go out to kill and maim others on the road and we ALL make mistakes from time to time and so no, it’s not always appropriate to send people to prison for this type of thing. But a life ban should be an absolute minimum with no exceptions for killing on the road, and any killer driver who disagrees obviously cares nothing for the victim or their family and so proves the ban is correct.
I think we should go further
I think we should go further than life-time driving bans for drivers that end up killing someone. I reckon a life-time driving ban for anyone involved in a collision that uses the “didn’t see” excuse – if you don’t have the visual acuity and/or attention span to see what is going on around your vehicle then you are not fit to hold a driving license at all.
How is her vision going to
How is her vision going to massively improve in the next 18 months?
Just yesterday morning, about
Just yesterday morning, about 10am, I was crossing a road on a zebra crossing on foot. There were no cars coming so off I went. I was about halfway across when I saw a car approaching. I stopped walking because it was obvious the driver hadn’t seen me, as he was staring fixedly ahead. No eye contact. No turn of the head. As I stepped back, the car passed just ahead of me. The driver’s window was open so I shouted, very loudly, “Oi!”, right next to his lughole. His reaction was priceless. He jumped out of his skin. He had no idea I was there. This is a roundabout in a town centre with a zebra crossings on each of the four exit roads. Visibility is good. These crossings are always busy with people so drivers know they should be paying attention. I’m sure, had he hit and killed me, the incident would have been labelled as an ‘accident’ and the driver would have gotten away with very light tap on the wrist. “Be more careful next time, okay? Now off you go”.
Killing with a car is so normal, so everyday, so ordinary, so…dull, it hardly raises a ripple of concern or interest. Just ‘one of those things’, apparently.
dobbo996 wrote:
A couple of years back, I was heading to a BMX training sessionin the local park with my eldest. He pressed the button and we waited at the pedestrian crossing for the green man. When the lights changed we were just about to cross when a Mercedes 4×4 drove through the red light, its driver utterly unaware. I had just enough time to grab my son’s collar as he began moving forward. It wasn’t the best way to stop him. but at least he didn’t go under the wheels of the Mercedes, which sailed on, its driver utterly unaware that he’d come very close to causing (at the very least) serious injury.
Yep, he was on his phone.
Tony Whitten was one of the
Tony Whitten was one of the foremost conservationists around, a legend in the field. There is a memorial fund set up in his name: https://www.fauna-flora.org/appeals/tony-whitten-memorial-fund
As I’ve said before, I
As I’ve said before, I completely understand the weary cynicism, but…
It’s clearly not socially acceptable – a collision investigation report concluded she had failed to look adequately before pulling out of the junction; she was charged with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving; and she received a sentence. You may not think the sentence is appropriate, but being convicted is usually a good indicator that your actions were not considered socially acceptable.
quiff wrote:
Maybe not socially acceptable, but acceptable in the “justice” system?
When this new driver killed people on the other side of a blind bend the coroner deemed it totally unavoidable as the driver couldn’t possibly have seen the people and apparently being on drugs and everything was all totally fine and normal.
I wonder if any of this has anything to do with the killer driver’s parents being coppers?
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/teenager-who-killed-two-men-16561520
ChrisB200SX wrote:
When this new driver killed people on the other side of a blind bend the coroner deemed it totally unavoidable as the driver couldn’t possibly have seen the people and apparently being on drugs and everything was all totally fine and normal.
I wonder if any of this has anything to do with the killer driver’s parents being coppers?
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/teenager-who-killed-two-men-16561520
— ChrisB200SX“you don’t slow down for the possibility of someone being on the other side of a blind corner”.
Well, that’s exactly what you do. If I didn’t adopt this approach, I would have had many collisions by now.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
So having just passed his test, he’s driving a powerful car (the least powerful A5 has 158BHP), at midnight, nearly double the permitted drug level, with traces of opiate codeine in his system and basically they say the accident was unavoidable! Totally avoidable, but hey his parents WERE both coppers so he must be a good egg.
Apparently, he was using the Audi lent to him by his dad, so its going to be a lot more than 158BHP, as his BMW was being repaired following another accident. So he’s had two accidents in two months and he thinks he’s a good enough driver to smoke cannabis and still handle a high power car.
He also agreed with his dad to be home by midnight, considering that the crash happened at midnight, I’m guessing he was flooring it in order not to be bollocked by his dad (and possibly lose use of the car). But for some reason, they could not determine the speed of his car at the time of the accident. Normally skid marks etc are a good indicator, so I’m guessing he didn’t brake hard.
I’ve always said, if you want to kill with impunity these days, use a car.
quiff wrote:
I think sociablly acceptable is a fair shout. The UK public is willing to put up with 1800 deaths or so a year in exchange for car usage.
quiff wrote:
The charge isn’t correct, by definition it’s dangerous driving at the very least, manslaughter should be closer the mark given the standard applied to people on bikes for less worse behaviour.
CPS/government have turned the whole killing/maiming of human beings into a sick joke that makes light of that, it IS socially acceptable because it barely gets a murmour when a motorist kills another human being on our streets, even less so when it’s a person on a bike. That’s IF the case even gets to court, police as shown by the non prosecution of Gail Purcell and many before her show us that absolving motorists of their crimes is the done thing by the very people who are there to uphold the laws of the land, you don’t get more ‘socially acceptable’ than that do you!
It’s also factually correct that it’s become socially acceptable to the masses to state ‘they deserve it’ (death or injury). Only last week did I hear exactly that from a PCSO who was a former driving instructor who was sat in my van going around to see our clients. i found his words abhorrent but sadly not out the ordinary.
Whenever I’m sick with the
Whenever I’m sick with the ‘flu, and nearly walk into people while dragging my exhausted body around a supermarket to restock on food and paracetamol, I get an insight into how people in the bottom tenth-percentile of awareness of one’s surroundings blunder through their entire lives. You’d think it’d be possible for the driving test to weed these people out. Of course it could, but society has deemed it too important that they not be excluded from economic activities enabled by car use.
Perhaps the next cyclist that
Perhaps the next cyclist that kills a pedestrian should try the “I didn’t see” defence as it’s as it seams like a guarantee get out of jail free card.
“I didn’t see” should be taken as admission of being guilty of dangerous driving. Your one job when your driving your terrorist weapon is seeing stuff and not driving into it.
Housecathst wrote:
Won’t work. The “I didn’t see” defence only applies to drivers. Cyclists are required to predict the unpredictable. Drivers are excused from having to predict the predictable.
Perhaps the next cyclist that
[quote=Housecathst]
Perhaps the next cyclist that kills a pedestrian should try the “I didn’t see” defence as it’s as it seams like a guarantee get out of jail free card.
That’ll work well
In terms of looking first, I have to say pedestrians worry me more than drivers these days. God knows how they’ll cope when electric vehicles are more common. I’m one of those odd people who looks very hard before crossing a road. I trust no one. I was hit by a car as a child and know how much it hurts.
This incident, the one being reported on, really hits home, doesn’t it? Sometimes, no matter how careful you are, how hard you look, they’re still gonna get you. Take care out there.
It is regarded as socially
It is regarded as socially acceptable – thats why so little is done about it, so little spent on the roads, and improving infrastructure compared to spending on motorways and A-roads. The motor lobby is all powerful in the UK. The car is King here.
No-one ever gets a life ban.
No-one ever gets a life ban.
This woman claimed she never saw the young girl she hit and killed on the pavement. Tried to leave the country and her family have been intimidating the child’s parents so obviously no remorse! 20 month sentence. Short driving ban.
How can anyone think this person is fit to drive ever again?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/careless-driver-killed-10-year-16561798
No-one ever gets a life ban.
Duplicate post
No-one ever gets a life ban.
Duplicate post
Is thsi really the state we
Is thsi really the state we are in with regards to driving ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49029665
One in five new motorists are involved in an accident during their first year behind the wheel, figures suggest.
In an effort to address this, the government has announced it is considering a ban on new drivers in England, Scotland and Wales travelling at night.
hirsute wrote:
Problem is how are they going to enforce it? There aren’t enough traffic police to enforce the mobile phone ban and speed limits. The only solution would be a compulsory black box recorder. Might be a good idea for all drivers.
Also limit new drivers to very small cars for a few years, nothing too powerful.
CaribbeanQueen wrote:
Is thsi really the state we are in with regards to driving ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49029665
One in five new motorists are involved in an accident during their first year behind the wheel, figures suggest.
In an effort to address this, the government has announced it is considering a ban on new drivers in England, Scotland and Wales travelling at night.
— CaribbeanQueen Problem is how are they going to enforce it? There aren’t enough traffic police to enforce the mobile phone ban and speed limits. The only solution would be a compulsory black box recorder. Might be a good idea for all drivers. Also limit new drivers to very small cars for a few years, nothing too powerful.— hirsute
45bhp for ALL vehicles and nothing that can accelarate greatern than 0-60 in 15seconds, why would a motorist need anything more?
My very first car was an Austin Allegro 1.1, could do 90mph at a pinch and had a wheezy 45bhp motor. The only reason that probably wouldn’t be enough now is down to the bloated tanks that infest our roads!
If a fifth of drivers have a
If a fifth of drivers have a crash in their first year, the testing methodology is totally unfit for purpose.
I can’t think of any other field where such a high incidence of potential lethality would be considered acceptable.
srchar wrote:
It’s completely inadequate. First night after I passed my test at 18 I took three mates out (funnily enough, also in an Allegro BTBS) and almost stacked it into a telephone box driving like I thought I was Ayrton Senna. So close to a major tragedy. Few weeks later I close-passed a cyclist on Shoreham Road at about 70mph (it was a 50 limit then), no idea how I missed him. I had three collisions in the first 4 years, all my fault. My brother wrote off three cars (one his own) in three separate collisions in the first 6 months of driving, and that was in a 950cc Pop Plus Fiesta. He had zero time off the road, just got another banger to drive around in.
It’s not necessarily the power of the car, its the lack of testing rigour and risk of enforcement of standards.
kil0ran wrote:
Did you go from cycling to driving?
I was lucky in many regards, I didn’t need a car in my youth and it was all bike and then I joined the army after college so still didn’t need to drive. Wasn’t until I was 23 that I decided I should seeing as my son was a year old and I needed to transport him between mine and his mothers, for me driving was easy compared to cycling. The Allegro was a good way to learn though didn’t have it for long. I did 6 proper lessons in a Metro 1.1 then two lessons in a 205 TD incl one of them on the morning of my test. I didn’t actually drive for another 3 months and my first solo drive was 185 miles from East Yorkshire back to Herts in the rain after buying my grandpops old car.
I guess the cycling for quite a few years beforehand, my age and also having the squid in the car for virtually all journeys (I still cycled to work.shops etc) meant I was probably not your average ‘new’ driver. That’s not to say I haven’t driven like a bit of a dick at times but it’s true that experience and age generally does make you a better driver but understanding the road and the dangers you present to others is a huge factor as well as the power under your right foot.
I also did an advanced driving course/test about 12 years ago which was interesting, some of it I didn’t agree with from a cyclist POV and I did have some lengthy chats with the course instructor regarding that but it was a positive even though by that time my driving was only about 3k/year. Certainly don’t miss the commute into/around London and SE and now the only driving I do is once a week for work in a tracked Ford Van where we get naughty points for even very minor indiscretions (the tracking device is pants at times)
Maybe if all vehicles had these fitted and you had money taken straight from your bank account and/or took minutes/data/text away from your phone for each indiscretion that would change your driving habits pretty damn quickly!
Behindtheshed.
Behindtheshed.
You last comment makes no sense. Cars don’t kill, people kill. Limiting the power of cars will not stop drivers from not looking. If anything it will add to the problem as many drivers see their license as a right to get from A-B as quickly as possible, not a responsibility to get from A-B as safely as possible. Therefore they will take more risk as not to slow down.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
No, he’s right, and his comment, I think, is not targeted at this case, but at reducing accident statistics in general. Look at the proliferation of more powerful versions of the Volkswagen Golf among certain younger, recently passed drivers, and the way they are driven. Golfs driven aggressively by young people are the single biggest private car threat I notice on the roads, regardless of mode of transport I use – even above the Dark Triad (Merc, BMW, Audi) and Land/Range Rover. The tempation to drive like crap for the thrill factor is there. Those who have yet to learn responsible driving have no business driving vehicles with any kind of power.
Luca Patrono wrote:
Behindtheshed.
You last comment makes no sense. Cars don’t kill, people kill. Limiting the power of cars will not stop drivers from not looking. If anything it will add to the problem as many drivers see their license as a right to get from A-B as quickly as possible, not a responsibility to get from A-B as safely as possible. Therefore they will take more risk as not to slow down.
— Luca Patrono No, he’s right, and his comment, I think, is not targeted at this case, but at reducing accident statistics in general. Look at the proliferation of more powerful versions of the Volkswagen Golf among certain younger, recently passed drivers, and the way they are driven. Golfs driven aggressively by young people are the single biggest private car threat I notice on the roads, regardless of mode of transport I use – even above the Dark Triad (Merc, BMW, Audi) and Land/Range Rover. The tempation to drive like crap for the thrill factor is there. Those who have yet to learn responsible driving have no business driving vehicles with any kind of power.— Yorkshie Whippet
I don’t think it’s entirely young people. You also get the occasional decrepit old duffer driving a vehicle that is unecessarily powerful, and accelerating into a shop window or something.
The higher the acceleration the less time there is likely to be to look. There’s no need for it in urban areas, it just feeds stupid fantasies of being a getaway or F1 driver.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
I’m with BTBS on this one. In urban areas with traffic lights and roundabouts everybody expects to be able to reach 30+ mph in the 200 metres before the next thing that stops them. With less acceleration everybody might chill out a little bit more and the differential between different vehicles would be lessened.
From an enviromental point of view imagine the change if suddenly small family hatchbacks did not need 2.3l engines.
bobbypuk wrote:
Slightly OT, but I’m still trying to work out why there’s a noticeable increase in large sports cars tooling around city centres.
Anecdotally – I work in Bristol city centre, 20 mph posted speed limit, and I have started noticing at least two veeeeery large Lamborghini type cars passing by my office window every day (really wide, really long, about two feet tall and looking like an excitingly sculpted cheese wedge
). Yes, I’m aware of confirmation bias, but I hadn’t noticed either until maybe a year ago.
These things have zero luggage space, and I cannot believe that their working at their best efficiency running below 20 mph, so what on earth is their point? Why would ANYONE need something like that for driving around any urban area??
brooksby wrote:
Generally caused by TPS (tiny penis syndrome).
burtthebike wrote:
That’s body-shaming.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
You fail to understand basic human psychology. lower power/slower acceleration means that drivers adapt more often to the gaps they can go for so less pulling out at junctions as they cannot accelerate into so easily, there is a still an element of hazard even if it’s a person on a bike/foot.
Lack of power dampens the urge to ‘push on’, if you look at why people on e-bikes have more incidents than on normal bikes as a rate, why in NL the death rate jumped significantly in only the grouos that were buying e-bikes in massive numbers and talk to people who ride e-cycles and the exhilaration they experience both in the speed they can maintain and the acceleration, it’s clear that ‘power’ and easy speed attained has a detrimental effect on behaviour.
Cycling using your own power is different, you might well be able to accelerate quickly and go at a decent speed but the fact there is an element of danger to you presented by similar groups such as pedestrians and most of all motorists plus the effort itself means for the most part the sensation is not the same. Obviously helmet wearing distorts that risk factor as having a chunky safety cell of a car does. Reduce the power and the motor has to reduce in size or you lose top speed and acceleration.
Have you ever driven something like an Allegro knowing there is no crash cell, no gadgets, no airbags, no power steering, drum brakes that seem to take an age to slow you (comparatively to a modern car)? Trust me, you drive it and feel different to something that has more power and acceleration.
I have a vehicle which has 0
I have a vehicle which has 0-60 in 4 secs a top speed of 155mph. It is ridiculously fast-great fun, but I find it corrupts my driving, having a car that is so rapid.
Fortunately, I can via phone app limit its acceleration and top speed. It does 0-60 in 7.5secs and 1/2 the top speed. Chilled now 🙂
A quick trawl of youtube car
A quick trawl of youtube car crash compilations would seem to indicate that box shaped Ladas are by far the most common vehicle involved in collisions. They pretty much meet the power restrictions and acceleration characteristics specified.
Would it be fair to assume that this suggestion is not based on any research or actual statistics, but rather a gut feeling that powerful cars are more likely to be driven recklessly?
I have an easy fix. If you
I have an easy fix. If you are involved in an at-fault collision, you can’t drive for 6 months. Enforce it. Watch how much the standard of driving improves.
srchar wrote:
I think I detect a flaw in your argument.
Morgoth985 wrote:
Indeed. There may well be technological solutions for enforcement, rather than human ones, such as mandating facial recognition technology in new cars, linked to the DVLA database. Banned face tries to drive? Car won’t start. Perhaps allied with fingerprint sensors or a microphone for spoken-word identification. Probably wouldn’t even be that expensive, given the economies of scale involved, and the fact that a hundred quid smartphone contains all the componentry required for implementation.
I won’t hold my breath though, given that easy wins like GPS-based speed limiters could be legislated tomorrow, for sod all cost, but haven’t been.
srchar wrote:
Every workable solution is killed by a combination of privacy outrage and the motor lobby. We should have mandatory black boxes and dashcams in every car, with speed limiters which work from inbuilt maps. A car would require authentication in order to start, with mediation managed by the black box over mobile Internet, and the vehicle’s actions are the responsibility of the person whose auth was used – no more “don’t know who was driving it” bollocks. Use an auth that is not yours? Jail. Tamper with the box? Tamper signal sent, authorization rejected for that vehicle until rectified, and vehicoe flagged as tampered for ANPR. Link cameras on legitimate vehicles into the system to automatically report sightings of that vehicle’s plate. If you succeed in driving with a tampered vehicle, jail.
But it’ll never happen. Remember, driving is a Human Right.
Regarding earlier point about vehicle power: I’m not sure there is much in it for private cars with regards to acceleration. 0 to 60 time is not relevant on city roads. 0 to 10 and 0 to 20 would be better indicators.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-49051772