2012-09-16 - Rider Down/Fatality, Twyford (Berkshire)

The cyclist, a 46-year-old man from Reading, was riding near Wyevale Garden Centre in Twyford on Sunday morning when he collided with a Honda Accord.

He was confirmed dead at the scene, Thames Valley Police said.

Citation 1
Citation 2

:( rip

x RIP

deepest condolences. I grew up there and rode that road only a couple of weeks ago.

I have just been to Reading Crown Court to see the case for Death by Dangerous driving being tried.
The driver has admitted death by careless driving, but the police / CPS feel the evidence for the more serious charge is strong enough to warrant prosecution.
It is unbelievably harrowing.
The case is expected to last for a couple more days.

Thank you for the for the follow-up Adroit and sorry for your distress.. My faith in the police and the CPS has been revived by your news.. much respect to them.

I am ashamed to say that I did not attend a local case which I'd been following, the outcome of which was catastrophic. I feel my appeal will be weakened by my non-attendance. I will follow your example next time for sure.

Driver killed cyclist while fiddling with her sat-nav, court hears
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3823515.ece

Headline in the Times today

I was there again today to hear the remainder of the case for the prosecution.
The case for the defence starts tomorrow morning.
The evidence is that she was using the sat nav, and this is not disputed. She would have been able to see Anthony Hilsom for between 22 and 27 seconds, and she must have been busy with the sat nav for most of that time.
After the hearing I was riding though town and saw a woman alongside me at some traffic lights putting on make up. As soon as the lights went green I noticed her pick up her mobile phone. She then shot off well in excess of the speed limit till she got stuck in traffic
I caught her up, and she was still on the phone, so I tapped on her window and told her about the court case. Especially the number of times the family had to leave because the evidence of the cyclist being struck by the car was too harrowing to listen to. She never said a word, just looked at me blankly. I hope she got the message.

seriously well done adroit. Such a hard thing to have to experience third hand, it's more than I could have managed to keep my cool seeing another potential fatality in the making.

chapeau, monsieur.

The DM's take on it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375784/Mother-killed-cyclist-took-eyes-road-20-seconds-fiddled-sat-nav.html

Typical poor journalism.
The evidence presented was that Mrs McClure was driving at between 40 and 50 mph, not 60, which is the speed limit.
This would mean that the cyclist would have been in view for between 22 and 27 seconds if he was stationary.
As he was cycling in the same direction this would increase the time he was in view. The Forensic collision investigator wouldn't be drawn into how much longer because he had no clue of Mr Hilsom's speed. But if he was doing 20 mph and she was doing 40 mph I calculate he would have been visible for 54 seconds.
The real reason why she didn't see him will probably never be known.
She had started her journey very close to the scene of the accident, so any changes needing to be made to her sat nav should have been done before she left home, not along the road.
I was not in court today, when the defence gave their evidence, but I will be back there tomorrow for the judges summing up.

I must say I am surprised but the driver was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=259551

This news is much appreciated... Well done to Thames Valley police, the Chief Crown Prosecutor and the jury. Many thanks adroit.

I await the sentencing on 30th August with less trepidation than usual. ".how am I going to live with this?" Would that be your first reaction upon killing someone? She also seemed to be shifting the blame onto her children. Despicable beyond words.

My thoughts are with Mr Hilson's wife and children. x

Some of things she said in her statement.
She left home and went to a petrol station to buy coffee. She was planning to drink her coffee on a journey of 40 minutes. The station is close to her house, she didn't buy petrol, or didn't say she bought petrol.
She allegedly set the sat nav at the petrol station, but it seems that she was setting it on the road after leaving the station.
She was going to her parents house, a journey she did regularly. Hardly the sort of journey that would need a navigation system.
She noticed that the time of journey was longer than anticipated, which she assumed was due to some traffic incident. That in itself took some time to assimilate
Part of her defence was that her children had set the sat nav to zoomed right in whilst in the car earlier (they were not in the car on the journey in question) The kids must have also had the keys, and they were in the car and the ignition was switched on. I don't think anyone believed that for an instant, and it undermined a lot of her other defences. She said she was just zooming out, but had only zoomed out from 50 metre scale to 200 metre scale which took two button clicks and about 3 seconds. So to account for the time she was driving and not seeing Anthony Milsom she would have had to be fairly intently scrutinising and programming her sat nav just to get to her parents.
Today I sat behind Anthony Hilsom's mother, wife and one of his daughters. The other daughter was too traumatised to attend.
To see them frequently break down with emotion at the content of the judges summing up almost reduced me to tears myself.
I am surprised at the verdict because the threshold for Death by Dangerous Driving is very high, and the fact that she was doing well below the speed limit I thought would lead the jury to believe she was careless rather than dangerous.

If any of you perused the actual Sentencing Guidelines, you would go immediately to Homebase (on foot) and purchase a set of wall mounted bicycle hooks from Homebase and thence go into a decline like wot I have......

I will not cycle again until every member of the CPS and the Sentencing Council - and their children, are forced to cycle around E&C, Holland Park roundabout and Vauxhall Cross ten times.

I am surprised at the verdict

So many of these cases seem to have an arbitrary outcome.

RIP Anthony Hilsom. My deepest sympathies are with the family, who it sounds are still finding things difficult a year on.

So tragic, so easily avoided.

Unanimous verdict.

This is down the road from me and I drive and cycle that road. Good to see justice served based on what I've read in the thread. People drive along the A4 like a race track....

Looking at the sentencing guidelines we first must identify the appropriate starting point.

Levels of seriousness
The 3 levels are distinguished by factors related predominantly to the standard of driving; the general description of the degree of risk is complemented by examples of the type of bad driving arising. The presence of aggravating factors or combinations of a small number of determinants of seriousness will increase the starting point within the range. Where there is a larger group of determinants of seriousness and/or aggravating factors, this may justify moving the starting point to the next level.

Level 1 – The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others. Such offences are likely to be characterised by:
• A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving AND/OR
• Consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment AND/OR
• A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 2
Level 1 is that for which the increase in maximum penalty was aimed primarily. Where an offence involves both of the determinants of seriousness identified, particularly if accompanied by aggravating factors such as multiple deaths or injuries, or a very bad driving record, this may move an offence towards the top of the sentencing range.

Level 2 – This is driving that created a substantial risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:
• Greatly excessive speed, racing or competitive driving against another driver OR
• Gross avoidable distraction such as reading or composing text messages over a period of time OR
• Driving whilst ability to drive is impaired as a result of consumption of alcohol or drugs, failing to take prescribed medication or as a result of a known medical condition OR
• A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 3

Level 3 – This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:
• Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
OR
• Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest or knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded OR
• A brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre OR
• Driving whilst avoidably distracted OR
• Failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users
The starting point and range overlap with Level 2 is to allow the breadth of discretion necessary to accommodate circumstances where there are significant aggravating factors.

To my mind she is clearly in level 2 because she was

driving whilst the driver’s attention is avoidably distracted, for example by reading or adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment

for a prolonged period of time.

Next we must "Consider relevant aggravating factors, both general and those specific to the type of offence"

There are no relevant specific aggravating factors.
There are no relevant general aggravating factors, however "failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users" is a factor that increases the "seriousness" of the offence.

Now we "Consider mitigating factors and personal mitigation"
There are no relevant specific mitigating factors. As personal mitigation, we must take into account a "good driving record" (but note that this is not automatically mitigating—she must demonstrate an exemplary record), assistance given at the scene and remorse.

The starting point is 5 years custody and the range is 4–7 years custody. So given that she has one aggravating (vulnerable road user) and one mitigating factor (remorse), she should be given 5 years, with no discount for pleading guilty to the lesser offence (as the family etc were put through the distress of the trial). Presumably she would only serve 2.5 yrs, with the remainder on probation.

This seems about right; perhaps a little high. However the length of the driving ban is more important in my mind. The minimum is 2years and the guidelines specify only that determining it should take into account the likely time to spent in prison.

In an ideal world, this would be a multi-decade or lifetime ban. More likely, 5years.

Mrs McClure, the driver has just started an 18 month sentence half of which will be served in jail, the other half will be on licence. She was also banned for 2 1/2 years, and will have to pass an extended retest before her licence is returned.

This is pretty bloody gut-wrenching:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10293094/It-took-satnav-18-seconds-to-tear-two-families-apart.html

Close your eyes and count to 18.

Imagine looking away from the road and driving blind for that long, at 40 miles per hour.

It’s a terrifying thought, but that is what Vicky McClure did as she drove along the A4 last September. She looked down to fiddle with her satellite-navigation system for at least 18 seconds, and a man died as a result.

“I hate the word 'accident’,” says the victim’s widow, her eyes red with grief. “She bloody murdered him as far as I’m concerned.”

One, two, three, four, five… She was looking down at the satellite-navigation system in the car instead of at the road, according to her own statement. Six, seven, eight… She was travelling at 40mph or more, and he was getting closer, fast.

Ten, 11, 12… She was trying to make the satnav zoom out for a better map, she told the police. Thirteen, 14, 15… Tony was dressed in a bright-red cycling vest and silver helmet.

Sixteen, 17, 18… she saw him at the very last moment, the judge and jury at Reading Crown Court heard in July. There was no time to swerve.

“I rang him but the call went straight to voicemail,” says Maxine in Lower Earley. By noon she was worried, as her husband had not returned. Looking out of the window for him, she saw a policeman approaching the house. “My stomach just went.”

The officer happened to be someone she knew. “He didn’t have to knock, I just opened the door. He said, 'Maxine…’ I said, 'Oh my God, he’s gone, hasn’t he?’. The shock and the dread and the horror, you just can’t imagine it. Millie just screamed. She went running up the stairs. Hannah threw up.”

In reality she was looking for way way more than 18 seconds.
By my maths if she was doing 40, and he was doing 20 he was in view for 54 seconds. The police assumed the cyclist was stationary, and she was doing 50, that's where the 18 seconds comes from.
Try that exercise counting for 54 seconds.

Everyone should be made to read that article before being allowed on the roads. Harrowing how much of an effect it's having on the family.

Just so sad. So sad.