Ban drivers who text behind the wheel say parents of killed triathlete

Bez has updated his blog bit.ly/1FXiYLS yesterday 15 April

Thank you to him for all his unpaid work on this awful subject

Here in Deal:
The whole town is confused about why there was no justice for Daniel. Please support our campaign to get the answers we need and justice for Daniel. There will be a meeting at The Admiral Keppel on Thursday 2 April at 6 p.m. to form a campaign team and to take this forward.

If you feel you can help in anyway , please attend.
If you are confused by what happened, please attend.
If you have questions, please attend.
If you want justice for Daniel, please attend.
Together we can get the answers we need.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Daniel-Squire/359997557530384...

Please help the Squire family take this forward by showing your support:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Daniel-Squire/359997557530384

Samsung's S-drive would be a help. (Only in Australia though).

https://www.samsung.com.au/sdrive/

Retrial? Financed by Cyclists' Defence Fund?

Any penalty for being caught for texting or using a mobile phone should be severe enough to be a deterrent but not that severe that it can't be dealt with in a Magistrates court (or Sheriffs court in Scotland). This way the law can be applied without the use of a jury, which have a habit of letting motorists off the hook. Magistrates must apply the law according to the common meaning of the wording. They have very little discretion on the verdict.

I commute every day and I can see from drivers behaviour who's texting as opposed to just speaking on the mobile. I have not seen anyone pulled over for using their mobiles whilst driving or stopped at lights, MET Police far more likely to pull a cyclist for jumping a red light, or being ahead of the ASL. More hassle and paperwork for the police stoping a vehicle, the penalties for using mobiles and the incentive for Police to uphold the law has to be changed, then maybe drivers will think twice, or even just the once.

If I receive 22 texts from my partner in an hour and a half and I wasn't driving I'd be pissed off I would probably stop answering after 2 or 3. Did she know he was driving? Presumably she knew he drove for a living? Would that make her an Accessory? Should the law be changed to make her an Accessory?

I fully support more enforcement and stiff punishments for those that persist with texting. An instant ban It is distracting when standing still so I find it impossible to believe this driver was in full control of his vehicle. The law is an ass to let this man off.

How about the government provide some budget for some hard hitting adverts. EDUCATION IS THE KEY

There will be a lot of grey areas, ie what about if you change your music on your mp3, adjust your sat nav, light a fag....it can all take your eye of the road.

Cases like this makes me wish the Punisher was a real person and he rides a bike. It's a travesty.

It cannot and should not be assumed that simply because he was texting while driving at some point on his journey, he was doing so at the point of collision. This is key to the case.

If someone texts while driving, but does not have a collision, then puts their phone down and returns their attention to the road for sufficient time as to recover their normal level of awareness of their surroundings, and then has a collision, that collision (and thus any death resulting from it) was not caused by texting while driving.

It would appear that the CPS was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sinden was using his phone at or immediately before the point of impact. This may be because insufficient evidence exists to support that version of events (which includes the possibility that Sinden was indeed not using his phone at such a time); it may be because the CPS failed in the task of identifying and presenting that evidence; or it may be because the jury failed to convict in spite of a compelling case.

Any one of these may be the key reason as to why the use of the mobile phone did not give rise to a guilty verdict. I'm trying to identify which of these things is the case, and the first step of that is to establish what forensic evidence exists.

There remains the fact that, if mobile phone use could not be proven to be the cause, a guilty verdict would also be possible if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sinden's standard of driving was of a sufficiently low standard in any other way to have cause the collision.

Naturally, most people reading about the case here would consider it beyond reasonable doubt that Squire was never on the pavement, and that driving at speed into the rear of someone with no apparent attempt to avoid them should quite patently constitute careless driving at the very least. Res ipsa loquitur. It's not quite that simple in court, though.

There is something so wrong with the justice system if killing someone while breaking the law - provably breaking the law - doesn't result in a punishment or even a conviction. He was texting repeatedly while driving, he admits he was texting while driving, then he killed someone while doing it. But no, nothing done about it. I despair.

This case bothers me. Did the prosecution hand him a phone in court and ask him to compose a text whilst looking away?

We all read regularly about DBDD and DBCD cases not resulting in convictions and many seem like injustice, but this one is simply breathtaking when you look at the publically available facts.

The guy was using his mobile and he killed a cyclist.

Is there any course for legal review?

Absolutely scandalous verdict given by the jurors. It's beyond belief that given all the evidence they would come to the conclusion that the driver was blameless. It's like saying, 'well it wasn't his fault he was texting while driving.' 'It was the fault of the cyclist for being in his way while he wasn't concentrating on his driving.' Were these jurors paid off???
I really feel for the family who have not only lost a cherished family member, but who are also never going to trust the British justice system ever again.

The issue in this case was the jury. WTF were they thinking? Did the judge incorrectly direct them on the law? In any case it is a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to make the case. How could they fail to do that with facts like this? Beggars belief. I bet Philip Sinden and his defence counsel were grinning ear to ear with delight. It's an absolutely shameful result.

Can't the verdict be appealed on a matter of law as something clearly went very wrong?

Mr Sinden should be careful the roads are a dangerous place with c**ts like him driving and using their mobile phone at the same time. Let's hope he is flattened by a huge tipper truck with it's driver doing the same as he was.

Any research done into texting vs drink driving? It would seem to me that texting whilst driving is actually more dangerous than driving when over the drink-drive limit. Whilst your actions and judgement are impaired when drunk at least you've got your (limited) attention on the road ahead. Not the case when texting with your phone on your lap. Of all the in-car distractions its the most serious because your primary sensor (eyes) aren't devoted to the task in hand. Texting is never "momentary inattention" - it requires SECONDS of inattention - during which time a considerable distance has been covered and the hazards have been moved. Was recently sat behind a driver who was clearly texting in queued traffic - eyes down, phone in lap, only occasional glances forward. Made her jump when I used my horn (missus) to encourage her to drive into the 6 car gap which had opened up in front of her so clearly attention no longer on the road.

... and email and check facebook ...

Unbelievable, and very sad that the life of a vulnerable road user seems to be worth so little.

How about the Police working with phone companies to instantly disable a phone number if caught? Usual stuff around points and a fine for the driving side, but phone companies showing they care by disabling the account. You'd then have to get a new account, and your name would be on a black list, similar to car insurance, that would show to the phone companies you'd been caught, therefore your next contract would be dearer or your pay as you go charges dearer. You've got to hit these people where it matters, directly in the pocket and the hassle of changing numbers. Maybe even have a "special prefix" number that everone knew was given out to convicted driving phone users?