Four years for killer driver on a mobile.

spindrift

New Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/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."
 

Elmer Fudd

Miserable Old Bar Steward
spindrift said:
A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed
a cyclist....................

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.
? ? ?
I don't quite see the point ? Agree about the helmet though, although if you're going to jump lights........
 

Bad Company

The Next Stig !
Location
East Anglia
I know I'm setting myself to be shot at here but does anybody else think that 4 years is bit ott??

I'm not defending her, a jail sentance was definately appropriate - but 4 years??
 
Bad Company said:
I know I'm setting myself to be shot at here but does anybody else think that 4 years is bit ott??

I'm not defending her, a jail sentance was definately appropriate - but 4 years??
my thoughtrs as well
had she not been texting and driving she may still not have been able to avoid hitting and killing him.
it's only 50% her fault at worst.
i'm not trying to defend her as most motorists deserve all they get, but so do red light jumpers, it's russian roulette. you will be killed eventually.
is a few seconds worth it?
maybe motorists and cyclists should learn from this.
 

snorri

Legendary Member
The fact that the car was approaching at a speed one and a half times the speed limit probably affected the judgement of the cyclist. Even the speed limit, is just a legal limit and may have little bearing on the safe speed, 30mph through traffic lights could be quite fast in many places.
Although rlj is wrong, the high speed of the car must skew some of the blame from cyclist to driver so I would not agree with the 50/50 blame.
 

ChrisKH

Veteran
Location
Essex
No, it's justified IMO. She was also doing 45 in a 30. Had she been doing 30, the outcome could have been quite different. Had she also been looking she may have been able to avoid him.

Would your view have differed if it had been a 25 year old male? Women usually get treated far more leniently as a gender. It is time this inequality was corrected. She will only serve a proportion of that sentence in any event.
 
snorri said:
The fact that the car was approaching at a speed one and a half times the speed limit probably affected the judgement of the cyclist. Even the speed limit, is just a legal limit and may have little bearing on the safe speed, 30mph through traffic lights could be quite fast in many places.
Although rlj is wrong, the high speed of the car must skew some of the blame from cyclist to driver so I would not agree with the 50/50 blame.
i made the mistake of reading the first post, thinking it was a direct quote, and NOT the link , so now after reading the link i would agree it's not 50 50 blame.
i won't edit the previous post as it will make nonsense of subsequent ones
will have to read the links in future:blush:
 

Danny

Legendary Member
Location
York
If she was actually texting at the time of the accident, she deserves more than 4 years. How can you possibly be alert to what is going on around you if you are trying to drive and text at the same time.

If it wasn't for the fact that the cyclist was apparently RLJing, I'd say she should get life.
 

Bad Company

The Next Stig !
Location
East Anglia
Four years seems like an awfully long sentance. The way I see it this woman is unlikely to re-commit so the purpose of the sentance is to send out a message to other drivers. Fair enough but most would shoot themselves at the thought of a 1 year sentance - never mind 4.

IMO people use phonestext etc., because they do not think they will get caught and they do not think an accident can happen to them:sad:.;)

The solution IMO is more traffic police not longer sentances.
 
OP
S

spindrift

New Member
4 years seems trivial for taking a life through being recklessly stupid. Driving at a lethal speed is bad enough, breaking the speed limit whilst sending stupid texts about sandwiches is beyond belief.


Ten years would have been fairer.
 

Bad Company

The Next Stig !
Location
East Anglia
spindrift said:
4 years seems trivial for taking a life through being recklessly stupid. Driving at a lethal speed is bad enough, breaking the speed limit whilst sending stupid texts about sandwiches is beyond belief.


Ten years would have been fairer.
Our prisons are already bursting at the seams. I know this lady has done something very bad but I really can't see that she is a threat to anybody.

Are you advocating 10 years as retribution or as a detterent?
 
Top Bottom