The driver responsible for the death of professional cyclist Jason Lowndes is unlikely to go to jail after pleading guilty to dangerous driving causing death. 23-year-old Lowndes was killed shortly before Christmas in 2017 when he was struck from behind while training.
Last year Billie Rodda, now 22, was charged with dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and using a phone while driving in connection with the incident.
Rodda told police that she had been driving at between 80 and 100 kilometres an hour. She said she had been looking at her speedometer when she rounded a bend and saw Lowndes, but said she didn’t have time to react.
Last year a court heard that Rodda sent 11 text messages and received seven between 9.44am and the 10.15am collision.
Prosecutor Georgina Coghlan said that at 10.14am Rodda had tried to send a message, but it did not transmit because of poor phone reception. She hit Lowndes 68 seconds later.
"We are not talking about yes and no messages here, some were lengthy messages," she said.
The Bendigo Advertiser reports that both the defence and prosecution this week accepted that she was not using her phone in the moments before the crash.
The prosecution did however argue that Rodda’s moral culpability could be informed by her use of her mobile phone in the lead-up to the crash.
“She would have to accept that her inattention was the main cause of the crash," said Grant Hayward.
Defending, Rahmin de Kretser said the case was an exceptional one. “There are a unique set of factors in play, including low moral culpability of the accused, uncertainty as to the speed and time she had to react, and finally the interplay of environmental factors."
Hayward said Rodda should be sentenced to jail, but Judge Wilmoth said she was satisfied a custodial sentence was not necessary.
Wilmoth ordered Rodda be assessed for a community corrections order. She will be sentenced at a later date.
Lowndes raced for Drapac in 2016 and Israel Cycling Academy in 2017 and had been due to ride for the British team JLT-Condor in 2018.
Add new comment
9 comments
Complete nonsense - I read reports of cyclists being killed by inattentive drivers pretty much weekly. They all turn up to court with a confected story and claim unique circumstances. And why not? They usually get away with it.
I don't think that the issue is that he was a pro rider, other than to show he was experienced.
The guilty party should be punished, and as a life has been lost and the circumstances are OBVIOUS, prison is the only appropriate punishment.
If governments want more people cycling then stronger penalties need to be imposed to deter bad driving and protect cyclists. Until that happens the wider public wont be persuaded to swap four wheels for two wheels.
Indeed. I think you'll find, However, that the Australian government couldn't give two shits about getting more people cycling - having proved this time and time again at the local and federal level. Australia is a country in thrall to the motor industry and transport lobby - always has been (even more than the UK)
Australia soft on crime once more. Having watched some of cop shows the sentences doled out to most of the offenders was more of a joke than UK sentencing. My brother has been over their a while now and says that the driving standard is crap compared to the uk, too many automatics and not enough attention being paid to driving. As least manual gears keep you engaged with actual process of driving.
I find away from the city (Melbourne) the standard of driving in Australia to be exceptionally good.
Lorries pass wide, cars pass wide and everyone uses their indicators!
Is that when you're also driving a car, though...?
<Defending, Rahmin de Kretser said the case was an exceptional one. “There are a unique set of factors in play, including low moral culpability of the accused, uncertainty as to the speed and time she had to react, and finally the interplay of environmental factors.">
Sends multiple texts, takes bend fast enough that when she sees a cyclist she doesn't have time to react, is uncertain of her speed in the bend (as she was thinking about her texts)
I see no uncertainty, the cause of the collison was her innatentive driving, too high a speed into a bend meaning that she "didn't have time to react". Are people not taught to drive at a speed whereby they can stop in the distance they can see ? Even on roads I know extremely well, on the bends I can't see round I'm always off the loud pedal and covering the brakes, even if I simply let the vehicle decrease speed naturally.
By "environmental factors" I assume the defence means the poor mobile signal meaning she was looking at the phone to see if the message had sent yet.
Driving is a privelage not a right, the driving laws need to change such that an incident happened when you were driving, therefore you automatically lose that privelage. The need to prove guilt would therefore be reduced.
Also if you are the registered owner of the car and you won't say who was driving then you take the responsibility.