- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Jury urges action over junction after finding driver guilty of causing cyclist's death
A jury in Southampton has taken the unusual step of calling for action over an "exceptionally dangerous" junction after finding a driver guilty of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving.
The Southern Daily Echo's John Hoskins reports that Sophie Whitmarsh was found guilty of causing death by careless driving when she hit William Logan on April 28, 2014.
The 70-year-old cyclist was riding down Kitnocks Hill on the A334 at about 25mph when Whitmarsh pulled out of Reading Room Lane intending to go across the road into Outlands Lane and hit him, Southampton Crown Court heard.
Whitmarsh, 25 said she did not see Mr Logan, who was wearing a high-vis jacket and a helmet before she hit him.
William Logan's view of the junction as he approached down the A334
She was three-quarters of the way across the junction when the collision occured. She told the jury that she had not seen Mr Logan until "I heard a scream and looked out my right window.
Sophie Whitmarsh's view of the junction from Reading Room Lane
“I wish I had seen him because then we wouldn’t be here now.
“I looked absolutely everywhere I could. I couldn’t have done more. I’m very careful, very competent.”
Mr Logan had “merged entirely with the background,” she said.
The jury took three hours and twenty minutes to find Whitmarsh guilty and in an unusual step for a trial jury wrote to the judge calling the junction "exceptionally dangerous" and demanding Hampshire County Council "ignore this fact no longer".
The note said: "We as a jury consider the road A334 at the junction of Reading Room Lane and Outlands Lane to be exceptionally dangerous.
"This is shown by the number of accidents at this junction in the past five years. People's lives are being put at risk on a daily basis.
"There is a need for the relevant authorities to ignore this fact no longer."
Judge Peter Ralls QC said he utterly endorsed the jury's comments.
He said he recognised there were a lot of mitigating factors and he was satisfied the case did not warrant a prison sentence but Whitmarsh would be disqualified and have to pay costs, whole or in part.
Judge Ralls described the accident as "a momentary lapse" on Whitmarsh's part, the consequences of which were appalling, and she would have to live with it.
"I would not be surprised if it kept her awake at night."
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- tubasti 4 sec ago
More likely, the fork offset was increased to offset the loss of trail effected by the use of fatter tires.
- wtjs 18 min 26 sec ago
Inexcusable. Allows people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph buffers to tar all cyclists with the same brush...
- Rendel Harris 33 min 45 sec ago
Note that only one of them was actually used by him as a race bike (the 2010 Madone) and that not in his "glory" years, I'm sure one of his Tour...
- notMyRealName 37 min 42 sec ago
Will they, though? Would there be any kind of retroactive analysis at all? Who would know about the previous NFA incident? I'm afraid I have low...
- David9694 1 hour 2 min ago
You have to wonder how many drivers are merrily writing-off their cars this way. Nearly all the coverage is flooding related - Chippenham and...
- Gbjbanjs 1 hour 31 min ago
Prudhomme is the worst thing in pro cycling - even worse than the green washing and red washing.
- OnYerBike 1 hour 56 min ago
Where did you read the minimum tariff is 5 years? Sentencing Guidelines says it's 2 years (minimum disqualification is 5 years)....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 2 min ago
Won't you think of the residents rodents?...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 27 min ago
That is some rustic sashimi there...
- wtjs 2 hours 40 min ago
I bought the excellent Edge 1040 last year with a good, but not sensational, reduction, and this year I have bought a couple of expensive academic...
Add new comment
31 comments
The one thing here that worries me is that the driver's insurance company is now going to use this unusual action from the jury as another mitigating factor and reduce the amount of compensation to the family of the victim. I realise that compo isn't going to bring the guy back but it does help the bereaved.
There are others on here with a lot of legal knowledge who might correct me but my understanding is that the outcome of a criminal trial will have little impact on the case for civil damages. I think it's a positive thing that the Jury has examined the causes of the incident fully and presented such a balanced conclusion.
The driver 'did her best', it wasn't adequate. So either i) she should never drive again because is not competent; or ii) the road design needs fixed, immediately; or iii) 'did her best' actually means 'did what I thought I could get away with because I usually do get way with it.
I suspect the third is the truth, because there are no real consequences.
"The less matter-of-fact argument would be, "What would it gain to imprison someone who made an error of judgement?" As per the comments linked above, people are not trained to know about saccadic masking etc. It's a very human error to make; which isn't to say "stuff happens, let's move on", but it is to say that the nature of the error means that imprisonment seems extremely unlikely to improve the behaviour of either the defendant or any other driver on the road."
I would suggest that actually severe punishment for such 'errors' probably would improve behaviour. Currently, hitting a cyclist is pretty much free from major consequences, so there's no reason for motorists to look properly.
Our processing systems are good at presenting threats for our attention - they evolved for the purpose. So we have to find a way to make cyclist equal 'threat worth considering '. One way to do that may be 'stupidly bright lights', another may be draconian sentences for 'errors'.
I agree with all that. Which is why I also believe that a big stick is a great way to change people's behaviour towards things... especially to protect those that don't have access to a big stick themselves. The big stick, zero tolerence policies (whichever label you wish to give it) are ideal for changing people's behaviour/attitudes so long as it's not something that has some genetic underpinnings, such as addiction. I don't think you can regard slowing people down and having a proper look as a terrible standard to aim for. Ok, maybe this case isn't the best example for the "big stick". The driver says she did her best and everyone seems to agree the crossing is a shitty one, but even so, the penalty still seems to me to be far off the mark for the consequences. There is no doubt in my mind the law is skewed away from the cyclist. Redress must occur in the name of fairness and equality for ALL road users, not just drivers of motor vehicles.
Simply follow the rules and send someone to goal for doing the wrong thing?... Why good Lord! What would happen to the judiciary?
The silly bitch simply wasn't paying proper attention and her very poor driving lead to the death of a vulnerable road user. Period. No ifs or buts about it. She didn't look properly and so killed some one. She's a killer. Should have gone to Specsavers but instead she should go to jail for a long time but courts are soft and so are juries blaming the junction because pretty much all of them are drivers and they think "There go I but for the Grace of God." A disgrace.
I think sometime people see the cyclist, but don't think that they are going that fast and they have more time to make a move.
Yep. I know I'm not alone in seeing just this. The amount of times a driver pulls up to a junction, barely slows, sees me (or glances rather than looks) and accelerates away rather than wait the two to three seconds it'll take for me to pass. Because it's such a hardship, isn't It?
Yeah, they don't look long enough to judge your speed. Last year, a guy pulled out into my path on a roundabout, I slammed into the side of his car and flew over the bonnet. He said he saw me... but I must have been going really fast. Trust me, I really wasn't after climbing to the top of the hill.
So he saw me and pulled out anyway, because he hadn't bothered to properly judge the situation (my speed), but he knew it was safe for him because a bike hitting his car wouldn't hurt him. It definitely hurt me!
He refused to give me his insurance details. He and his wife also claimed to be a cyclists.
If he refused to give you his insurance details after an incident then that was an offence. I don't know how you followed this up but you could have recorded his registration number and then supplied details to the police. I'm not an expert but it'd probably be the same as not stopping after an incident, which would be worth three points on his licence.
I agree, drivers often look right at me and pull out anyway causing me to brake hard. I had the same experience when I drove a Mini (a proper one) so it seems to be based on assumptions about the speed of particular vehicles. Things changed in the Mini when I fitted a loud performance exhaust so maybe super-bright lights could have a similar effect on the bike. Come to think of it I do think I've had fewer such instances since I started using lights during daylight hours.
Superbright lights make a huge difference, it's very noticeable when cars just sit there for ages waiting for the motorbike to pass... no, it's just a bike!
“merged entirely with the background,” = didn't see a car coming so pulled out.
I see it very frequently, a lot of drivers just don't look for bikes, they have a rushed glance and if a car isn't approaching, they go for it, because if a car won't hit them they are totally safe.
At least she was found guilty, she doesn't seem to be showing any remorse though.
This doesn't make sense. Are the jury blaming the junction for the accident? If so how did they find the driver guilty? Or is it simply seen as an attributing factor, but one that could be seen to contribute to more accidents in future?
Either way, does this now present a get out of jail free card every time there's an accident here until the council fixes the junction?
Thanks for comments. Seems odd to have defence that “I looked absolutely everywhere I could. I couldn’t have done more. I’m very careful, very competent.”, and to then for the judge to say "a momentary lapse" on Whitmarsh's part.
My most severe cycling collision was in similar circumstances in North London. Sunday morning, bright/dry day, wearing hi viz, helmet, going about 16mph, no other traffic on my A road (in either direction). I saw the car stationary (and not crawling) waiting at the Give Way line on my left ahead. As I passed, wham, they pulled out. I smashed into the side of their car square on. What happened next, a very painful blur over many months and broken bones, but I lived. Their insurance payout was substantive 4 figure due to injuries.
Logic of my waiting driver went like this: Look right, all clear (cyclist far enough away to not worry). Look left (all clear). Mind then wandered/distracted... pause... Then the car driver pulled out. Wham.
That driver behaviour can kill. That lack of concentration is dangerous. Not looking before pulling out is not “a momentary lapse” it is negligence in command of large vehicle that can kill (even at very slow speeds).
The law needs to make such negligence clearly and totally unacceptable, with substantive £££ penalties to warn all drivers that such driving behaviour is not acceptable.
Pulling out of a Give Way with a cyclist approaching on the main road and less than about 5m away is a dangerous maneuver. Clearer guidance to courts is needed. Give Way means “GIVE WAY”. It does not mean Give Way is optional depending on mitigating circumstances!
Agreed, roads needs to be engineered safer too, but this is not going to happen overnight to every give way busy junciton. Even making the junction a mandatory “Stop”, may not have stopped this tragic death of Mr Logan. Far stronger deterrence’s and laws can change behavoiur.
“I looked absolutely everywhere I could. I couldn’t have done more. I’m very careful, very competent.”
she's lying... she gave it a cursorary glance, saw nothing that could wreck her car and went for it... I've had drivers look right through me and still pull out despite me having high-viz and lights on...
'merged into the background'... what nonsense...
That junction does not look especially worrisome, those are everywhere in the countryside.
It does however say a lot about the standard of driving that it's a hotspot for accidents.
The jury are wrong. I've ridden and driven in every direction at that junction. The visibility is absolutely fine in every direction. In fact the slight angling of Reading Room lane gave her a *better* view of where he was.
There is no need to do anything about it except jail drivers who keep killing us.
I totally agree, I live just down the road in Titchfield and there is nothing especially dangrous about this junction, the sight lines are fine, the only issue I find, generally is that motorists drive to fast on the main road, but that's always the problem isn't it.
The problem is we accept such a low standard for driving. Didn't look at a junction and killed someone? That was careless.
Thoughts on this one:
https://beyondthekerbcasebook.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/william-logan/
The difference between careless and dangerous is statutorily defined as "below" vs "far below" the standard expected of a careful and competent driver. It's problematic: the CPS guidelines list a number of examples that in theory constitute the more serious charge but in reality the CPS don't seem to pursue things accordingly.
Obviously the ability to include careless in any dangerous charge, ie simultaneously try someone for the lesser if they are found not guilty of the greater, is a well-documented issue which accelerates the descent of the subjective bar set by the above wording.
In reality, dangerous tends to pan out as doing something wilfully and obviously dangerous, eg racing, fleeing the police, highly excessive speeding, proven phone use at the point of collision etc. Failure to look properly (or even at all), failure to adapt to lighting, extended inattention etc rarely if ever seem to be recognised as dangerous.
On the issue of custody, causing death by careless driving has a non-custodial starting sentence where it is a matter of "momentary inattention with no aggravating factors", which this (aside from discussions about the phrase "momentary inattention" in general) this seems to clearly be. So that's the matter-of-fact answer. The less matter-of-fact argument would be, "What would it gain to imprison someone who made an error of judgement?" As per the comments linked above, people are not trained to know about saccadic masking etc. It's a very human error to make; which isn't to say "stuff happens, let's move on", but it is to say that the nature of the error means that imprisonment seems extremely unlikely to improve the behaviour of either the defendant or any other driver on the road.
+10 to what Bez said, nice to see a well reasoned post that's not wanting to put everyone in prison. It's far too easy to make a mistake in a car that kills someone. Hopefully technology will help reduce these incidents in the future and road safety refresher courses should be mandatory even if they're only every 10 to 20 years.
Another apologist for numptee and dangerous drivers.
I'm not for jailing people either but there should be some significant sanction - the risk/reward graph just isn't in our favour at present. Until people feel there is a real chance of suffering (e.g a 10 year driving ban) for not concentrating fully on what they are doing and hurting or killing someone then why change behaviour?
I know it's been done to death but if someone told you you had to carry a gun for your job, but if you shot an innocent person you'd go to jail, you'd be very careful how you handled it? Some drivers have lost the connection that what they are doing is essentially dangerous and could hurt or kill people. Clarkson's comment about the way to slow drivers down being to put a big spike in the centre of the steering wheel is actually very astute.
@arthur: I don't disagree. I'd love to see people get used to losing there cars for some amount of time instead of points on the license. I don't buy the car being a necessity line at all, it wasn't a necessity 40 years ago and it isn't now. I think the risk of losing the ability to drive after a minor driving fault would sharpen up peoples driven skills a lot.
At CTC debate on sentencing last year, a rep from the CPS got up & specifically refuted the accusation that they opt for the 'easier' option of charging drivers with careless as opposed to dangerous. The audience wasn't convinced.
https://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/judge-calls-for-cha...
All good that the Jury's making comments like this, but can anyone explain why being found guilty of death by dangerous driving does not lead to a prison sentence?
It was careless driving, the article is in error.
Does anyone think a driver in the UK will ever be convicted of dangerous driving? I can't see any reason for having two distinct offences any more, one has effectively been retired.
we had one the other day... pleaded guilty on day one of the trial... got 10 years for the causing death by dangerous driving and 1 year to follow for a drugs offence... but only because the Police had completely removed any possibility of him wriggling out of it by going the extra mile...
http://road.cc/content/news/148891-hit-run-driver-who-killed-gloucester-...
Pages