Four years for killer driver on a mobile.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.

I never, ever understand how driving bans run concurrent with a
custodial sentence- YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!!



A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed
a cyclist has been sentenced to four years in prison.
Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries when he went through a
red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas' car in Southampton in
February 2007.

Coultas had earlier been found guilty at Southampton Crown Court of
causing death by dangerous driving.

The 25-year-old from Hythe, Hampshire, was banned from driving for
five years.

Following the crash, Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, who had not
been wearing a helmet, was taken to Southampton General Hospital where
he later died.

Sgt Alison West, of Hampshire Constabulary, recommended drivers
switched off their mobile phones during journeys.

"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.

"In this particular incident, it transpired from a phone analysis that
there was phone use close to the time of the incident."

On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.

How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
he'd of worn a helmet?


I never, ever understand how driving bans run concurrent with a
custodial sentence- YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!!

She probably won't be in prison for very long - so can still still
catch the thick end of the ban in a year or two.

Regards,

Duncan

On 29 Feb, 16:22, Duncan Smith wrote:
On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.

How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
he'd of worn a helmet?



I never, ever understand how driving bans run concurrent with a
custodial sentence- YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!!

She probably won't be in prison for very long - so can still still
catch the thick end of the ban in a year or two.

Gosh, that's heartening!

On 29 Feb, 16:22, Duncan Smith wrote:
On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.

How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
he'd of worn a helmet?



The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 29 Feb, 16:22, Duncan Smith wrote:
On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm
Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.
How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
he'd of worn a helmet?



The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

And possibly also if the driver had been observing the speed limit. Oh
sorry - I forgot it's impossible to send a text while your eyes are
glued to the speedo.

In article 3ff935c4-b252-4255-974b-c0c4f057dfb0
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Sir Jeremy
says...

The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

If he hadn't run the light she might have - there's nothing certain
about it.

Rob Morley wrote:

Sir Jeremy says...

The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

If he hadn't run the light she might have - there's nothing certain
about it.

It wouldn't matter (to him) if she had "run a red light" (she didn't, as
far as any of us know). That's because they were travelling towards a
common point from two different directions.

He'd have been safe if he'd stopped for the red light as he was obliged
to. But of course, he knew better - or thought he did.

"Sir Jeremy" wrote

The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

He just made a judgement call that turned bad on himself. If his death
serves a purpose it is that bad driving can cause harm to others..

DavidR wrote:

"Sir Jeremy" wrote

The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

He just made a judgement call that turned bad on himself. If his death
serves a purpose it is that bad driving can cause harm to others..

That is a one-sided view: his death could be used to suggest also that
bad cycling can harm bad cyclists.

Intelligent readers will note the use of the conditional in the previous
sentence. I am /not/ suggesting that the late cyclist was a bad one as I
haven't seen enough of the evidence to explain why he is claimed to have
run a red light.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

Duncan Smith wrote:
On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.

How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
he'd of worn a helmet?

Or indeed if he hadn't run a red light.

snip