Missing the point

[Gareth]

From Mr Cholmondeley-Warner's message above ...

Sgt Alison West, of Hampshire Constabulary's road death investigation team [...]

"It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards involved," she said.

To paraphrase - we (the accident investigators) search for illegal actions first before considering other causes of the incident.

That is, the use of the mobile phone was being treated as more reprehensible than the cyclist passing through a red light, (and not taking enough care when doing so).

This strikes me as a worrying aspect - is it now normally the case that blame is pinned on the easy target regardless of circumstances?

In similar vein I've heard that the BiB breathalyse all drivers at the scene of an incident, and if one or more are found to be over the limit don't bother searching further for the cause.

[Søren]

I can see both sides of the argument. There is little doubt that a court would find evidence of use of a mobile phone very persuasive in the argument towards qualifying the drive as careless or dangerous dependant on circumstances, although the actual cause of the collision may be entirely nothing to do with the use of the phone.

That said, most collision investigators will look at the overall picture, recording all the reconstructive analyses, and in conclusion will often list a set of possible causes of the accident. They could range from the use of the phone, to the ignoring of the red light, with other causes possibly featuring. The calculated range of reaction times would be very significant, especially if it was observed that there was no time to react and brake, or conversely if there was lots of time for the motorist to react and brake. The analysis of the motorists reaction time would have a significant impact on the weight placed on the mobile phone evidence.

If there is evidence of mobile phone use, and no other obvious explanation as to the cause as in a case highlighted on 'traffic cops' some time ago where the 7.5t goods vehicle drove straight into the back of a queue killing a young lass in her car, it would be hard to see past that phone evidence as the most likely cause of loss of concentration.

However the primary indisputable driving error would have to lie with the cyclist. Beyod that it would have to be down to the witness evidence and the physical evidence left on the road to try to buuild a picture of the level of culpability attributable to both sides, then place that evidence before a court, evidence that is fully available to a defence team to contradict and pour doubt upon. It would appear that they were unable to do so.

[jmaccyd]

Where in there does it say "well above the speed limit"?
Where do the court or the Police say she was touching the phone at the time of the incident?
On the other hand it DOES say "went through a red light".![/quote]

Details from an article printed in The Times, 2nd of Feb,

The court was told that Kiera Coultas, 25, did not see him at a busy junction on February 7 last year because she was sending the text at the time. She was replying to a message from her estranged husband.

Coultas, a hotel manager, admitted that her BMW was doing 45mph in a 30mph limit when she drove on to the junction in Southampton shortly after 7am. She told Southampton Crown Court that she had received three fixed penalty tickets for speeding � two of the offences were committed on a road leading to the junction.

[/quote]

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Fair enough. The BBC report was the only one posted in the thread, but obviously there are more. The court transcript would be the only reliable source, imho.

[jmaccyd]

Yes, sorry didn't think to link that report to my earlier post.

To make it clear I am not defending the action of the cyclist in jumping the red light what I am stating is that one road user was in control of a bicycle weighing twenty-five pounds probably capable of no more than 20MPH while another was in 'control' of a tonne of metal capable of 100MPH plus.

[Gareth]

what I am stating is that one road user was in control of a bicycle weighing twenty-five pounds probably capable of no more than 20MPH while another was in 'control' of a tonne of metal capable of 100MPH plus.

I'm reminded of shipping where, I seem to remember being told, some vessels give way to larger, since the former are more easily controlled. The same is true of bicycles and cars.

Seems a bit arse about face when we head towards a situation where the less manoeuvrable is made more responsible.

On balance I'm not sure comparing top speeds and weights is all that helpful. What we can say is the cyclist paid for his mistake with his life, which is indeed a high price. And the motorist paid a relative high price courtesy of the courts when compared with the probable result if there had been no death as an outcome of her actions.

[jmaccyd]

Sorry, completly wrong - steam gives way to sail (ie non-powered vessels have priority over powered vessels) I have seen this sailing analogy on forums before and have to say I don't think it is relevant. After all where not at sea!

[jont]

Sorry, completly wrong - steam gives way to sail (ie non-powered vessels have priority over powered vessels) I have seen this sailing analogy on forums before and have to say I think it isn't relevant.

When you're in a small yacht and there's a large container ship on collision course with you, I'd suggest while you might be morally right, you know who's going to lose if you have a coming together, assuming the container ship even notices anything. Have you seen this story?

Even aside from common sense, there are rules that apply for example where shallow waters mean a larger vessel may not be able to manouver out of the way of a sailing boat.

[jmaccyd]

Yes, indeed! Mind you you would hope the container ship was keeping to the correct speed and was maintaining a proper watch - anyway it is a silly analogy and I will not expose any more of my 'weekend' sailing knowledge