The tragic case of Timothy Sanders

Hi folks, (again, sorry!)

I have just been re-reading the story in this weeks 'Cycling Weekly'
about triathlete Timothy Sanders who, on 14 Feb 2002, was run down
from behind whilst cycling past an intersection on the A3 near
Guilford by someone using a mobile phone.

Sanders has been left with catastrophic spinal injuries that means he
now suffers from 'Locked in Syndrome'. Basically his mind is alert but
he has no control over his body. He is currently been looked after in
a unit in Germany that specialises in such injuries.

The court has awarded the cyclist £8 million to be paid at £250,000 a
year to pay for his care, despite the 'defence' claiming the cyclist
should have used another route (even though there isn't a direct
alternative) or got off and crossed the road on foot!

The thing that gets me is that the police have brought no charges
aginst the driver even though the driver admitted to the police he was
using his phone and 'not seen' the cyclist until he was only 10 yards
away. Even stranger the name of the driver has not been released.

Now this may be just another example of a police lack of action when
cyclists are injured by errant drivers- although given the extent of
the injuries and the fact the driver was using his phone I would have
thought even the police would have shown some interest. Perhaps the
police/CPS/court are now of the opinion that no driver can be held to
be responsible for the death or injury of a cyclist who uses an 'A'
road. It certainly seems little action is ever taken against drivers
who kill cyclists taking part in 'A' road time trials.

Whatever the strength of the case against the driver I also feel that
the fact that the drivers name has been withheld demands further
explanation. This suggest to me that the driver just might be some
sort of high profile figure and the CPS has decided that it would not
'be in the public interest' to bring any charges/ name the person
because of this. If so such a decision stinks!

I have certainly not come across a drivers name been withheld in this
way before. Can anyone else suggest what might be going on here?

Howard wrote:

Whatever the strength of the case against the driver I also feel
that the fact that the drivers name has been withheld demands
further explanation. This suggest to me that the driver just might
be some sort of high profile figure and the CPS has decided that it
would not 'be in the public interest' to bring any charges/ name
the person because of this. If so such a decision stinks!

I have certainly not come across a drivers name been withheld in
this way before. Can anyone else suggest what might be going on
here?

Sad story - if you want an insight into what his condition means I can
highly recommend "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean Bauby.
Bauby had the same condition and dictated the book by blinking to a
read out alphabet. A short but moving book.

You could try contacting the solicitor who acted for him - Simon Holt
of Cycle Aid - 0800 387815

I found the following which gives a bit more detail on the web:

Fleet driver on phone faces £9m crash bill


A CYCLIST left paralysed from the neck down and on a life support
machine is expected to receive damages of about £9 million after being
hit by a company car driver while he was using a hands-free mobile
phone.

The company representative, who has not been prosecuted, was on hold
to his bank when he hit Timothy Sanders at about 70mph in his Peugeot.

A court was told: 'The driver had been on the phone for some minutes,
but at the material time he stated he was not actually speaking to
anyone, merely waiting for his call to be transferred to someone
else.'

The £9 million payout is thought to be the highest awarded to a
British citizen by an English court and raises concerns of whether
hands-free kits should be made illegal. Lawyers representing the
driver's company insurers admitted that using the phone had played a
part in the accident.

Sanders' solicitor, Simon Holt, said: 'This case shows the inherent
danger of people making telephone calls while driving even if they
have a hands-free system. The driver was never prosecuted but it was
our case that using the phone had to have been a distraction or he
would have seen Timothy.'

The judge approved a payment of £250,000 a year for life, alongside a
£1.1 million lump sum, which could total more than £9 million during
Sanders' lifetime. The funds will be used to pay for around-the-clock
care. Although his brain is working perfectly, Sanders has been left
immobile, unable to breathe, move, speak, eat or swallow on his own,
requiring 24-hour care for the rest of his life.

From December 1 it will be illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone
while driving. Drivers will be charged a fixed penalty of £30 and
three penalty points or a fine on conviction of up to £1,000 (Fleet
NewsNet September 19). Hands-free mobiles are not affected by the
legislation.


Tony

Howard wrote:

Perhaps the
police/CPS/court are now of the opinion that no driver can be held to
be responsible for the death or injury of a cyclist who uses an 'A'
road.

Oddly, A roads are still statistically safer than cycle paths.

Howard wrote:

Whatever the strength of the case against the driver I also feel that
the fact that the drivers name has been withheld demands further
explanation.


why do you expect the police to reveal the name of someone who has not been
charged with any offence?

whether he should have been or not is another issue..

pk

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
wrote:

Whatever the strength of the case against the driver I also feel that
the fact that the drivers name has been withheld demands further
explanation.

why do you expect the police to reveal the name of someone who has not been
charged with any offence?

Because they constantly do it for other offences?

How many times do we see/read/hear about named individuals arrested or
bailed in connection with investigations before any charges are
actually brought, let alone convictions obtained.
--

"Bob"

Email address is spamtrapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

Because they constantly do it for other offences?

How many times do we see/read/hear about named individuals arrested or
bailed in connection with investigations before any charges are
actually brought, let alone convictions obtained.
--
The named individuals are noramlly household names whose reported antics sell papers and are therefore of interest to the hacks who cobble together the stories. I'm sure that the publication of their names is in breach of their rights and in some instances anonymity has been preserved, witness the players from a north eastern premier division football team who still remain nameless when the alleged rape in a London hotel is reported. The Leeds UNited player was not so fortunate.

IN the case of Timothy Sanders, there's no circulation boosting merits
for any newspaper to publish a name whether or not it has been released
by the police.

Besides, what merits are there in knowing the driver's name?

Vernon
In Leeds

Call me Bob wrote:


Because they constantly do it for other offences?

How many times do we see/read/hear about named individuals arrested
or bailed in connection with investigations before any charges are
actually brought, let alone convictions obtained.

Yes but that's arrested (and you can't be bailed without being
arrested) and it seems this guy wasn't. Now I know they do let it be
known if a celeb is helping them with their enquiries but they
shouldn't

Tony

On 2003-11-23, Tony Raven wrote:

Sad story - if you want an insight into what his condition means I can
highly recommend "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean Bauby.
Bauby had the same condition and dictated the book by blinking to a
read out alphabet. A short but moving book.

I imagine it would be very difficult, as all the things I can think of
doing with 250,000 a year (having fun on trikes for example) require
some amount of movement. Even minor disability for a previously able
bodied person is a scary thought. I hope he can recover, and know that
there is some interesting research into that kind of damage.


A CYCLIST left paralysed from the neck down and on a life support
machine is expected to receive damages of about £9 million after being
hit by a company car driver while he was using a hands-free mobile
phone.

Interesting that it was hands free. I don't know how hands free, hands
free are, or how close they come to talking to someone sitting next
to you.

- Richard (I have a mobile phone, somewhere in the cupboard under the
stairs I think)

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

"Zog The Undeniable" wrote in message
...
Howard wrote:

Perhaps the
police/CPS/court are now of the opinion that no driver can be held to
be responsible for the death or injury of a cyclist who uses an 'A'
road.

Oddly, A roads are still statistically safer than cycle paths.


That's probably not saying very much without an attempt to explain the
reasons for it, with reference to what exactly is being counted, for what
sample sizes etc. Accidents on cycle paths might be more numerous, for
example, but those on A roads could well be more devasting. There will be
many more cycle miles travelled on cycle paths than on A roads and by less
experienced cyclists so one might well expect higher percentages there
without saying anything about the risks even experienced cyclists expose
themselves to when riding on A roads, particularly of the dual carriageway
semi-motorway kind.

Personally, while not wishing to blame the victim or deny cyclists the right
to cycle where they choose within the law, I have to question the wisdom of
cycling on dual carriageway A roads that are motorway in all but name. It
seems to me that if we are going to accept prohibition of cycling on
motorways, there is perhaps even more reason for prohibiting on these class
of roads - at least motorways have a wide hard shoulder and room to keep
well away from traffic if it looks where it's going - the speeds limits are
the same - so on balance shouldn't A road dual carriageways without the
benefit of wide hard shoulders be less safe for cycling than motorways?

Rich

Richard Corfield wrote:
Interesting that it was hands free. I don't know how hands free, hands
free are, or how close they come to talking to someone sitting next
to you.

Difference is: the person on the other end of the conversation can't see
when the driver is coming up to a tricky bit of road or traffic to know
when to shut up and let the driver concentrate.

~PB