Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Collision
Casualty
Campaigning
Driver who killed cyclist while adjusting her sat nav faces a jail sentenceJustice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)

Driver who killed cyclist while adjusting her sat nav faces a jail sentence

Jury found Victoria McClure guilty of death by dangerous driving after she admitted lesser charge of careless driving
by Sarah Barth
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:00
39

A driver who hit and killed a cyclist when she took her eyes off the road to adjust her sat nav has been convicted of death by dangerous driving.

Victoria McClure is almost certain to face a custodial sentence when she returns to court at the end of August.

In a rare move, the jury found Ms McClure guilty of the more serious offence of death by dangerous driving, although she had already pleaded guilty to death by careless driving.

Anthony Hilson was out for a Sunday morning ride on September 9th 2012 when he was hit from behind by McClure on the A4 Bath Road in Twyford, Berkshire.

It was a straight stretch of road and visibility was good, but Ms McClure was adjusting the zoom function on her sat nav.

According to Rhia Weston, a road safety campaigner for the CTC: "Although this was a successful prosecution, the presentation of evidence did cause some concern. The police forensic investigator made no attempt to calculate exactly how long Hilson would have been in McClure’s sight if his speed were taken into consideration."

Prosecutor Matthew Walsh was left to tell the jury, "Assuming she's travelling at the speed limit of 60mph, it takes about 18 seconds to cover the distance - that's the length of time she would have had the cyclist in her view." He added that there were no skidmarks or signs of evasive action at the scene.

The jury did not in the end accept the defence claim that Mr Hilson’s black, red and white cycling gear made him difficult to spot.

Although a strong sentence for dangerous driving leading to the death of a cyclist is welcomed by the CTC, it's not a custodial sentence that they were pushing for in this case, although a representative attended the trial. 

In a statement the organisation said: "CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution, as in most cases they only present a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car. Thus, imposing long-term or life-time driving bans is a more effective solution and deterrent to bad driving.

"When drivers have caused danger intentionally or recklessly, or if they have a history of breaching driving bans, long custodial sentences are more appropriate."

Last year, British Cycling and CTC were among organisations that launched a campaign urging for a review of sentencing in cases in which the victim is a cyclist, leading to a meeting with justice minister Helen Grant that the governing body’s director of policy and legal affairs, Martin Gibbs, afterwards called “a significant step forward.”

In February, CTC launched another campaign calling on residents of England and Wales to urge their Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to prioritise road safety.

The organisation said that police forces need to thoroughly investigate road traffic incidents involving vulnerable users including cyclists and ensure the drivers involved face appropriate action.

According to CTC, shortcomings in investigations of such cases result in less evidence being available to the prosecution, which has a knock-on effect in terms of the charges that are brought and, ultimately, sentencing in the event of a conviction.

sentencing
death by dangerous driving
death
cyclist death
CTC
court
Anthony Hilson
Victoria McLure

Add new comment

39 comments

Avatar
Bez | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'm not extending the argument to all killers. Those who kill or injure through intent or rage deserve custodial sentences IMO (though, importantly, note that other charges such as GBH are able in these cases, and have been used accordingly), and it should always be a sentencing option, eg for cases of extreme negligence or lack of remorse.

But this is a tiny minority of cases. Most incidents are caused by people who have absolutely no intent to harm, but who have allowed their driving standards to carry significant risk of these kinds of incident. (The effects of malice and negligence may sometimes be the same, but the causative factors are quite different.) And a crucial aspect of this is that those attitudes to driving are reinforced and normalised by the media, by commercial companies, by the law and by the licensing system.

How can you deter people from being distracted? You socially stigmatise distracting behaviours and you punish them heavily. 3 points and £60 does not deter someone from an activity that can kill.

Reversing the question: How do you deter someone from causing a death, when that death occurs as a result of an activity that you do not deter and which the perpetrator does not for one moment believe will cause death? You cannot. It is impossible. All you can deter is the activity that leads to death, which means punishing people for using satnavs while driving, teaching them not to do so (and why) when they learn to drive and perhaps even making it impossible to do so - which would be technically trivial to implement.

Yes, of course some people ignore bans. You missed the bit about saying the use of bans would require draconian punishments - eg lengthy imprisonment - for breaching them?

There is no silver bullet. But can you not see that simply calling for greater *punitive* measures (rather than retrospectively preventative ones such as removing drivers from the road) for *only* those who have already killed or injured is not going to achieve a damned thing?

Avatar
IanW1968 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I like the strategy of long term or life time bans for dangerous driving being the first punishment, saving custodial sentences for repeat offenders or those who drive whilst banned or extreme cases.

Suspect a life ban would be quite a deterrent for a lot of motorists and locking them up just costs more money.

This case would imo be in the extreme case category.

Avatar
TeamCC | 11 years ago
0 likes

Terrible tragedy, I'm sure Victoria did not mean to hit the cyclist but taking control of a vehicle means you are responsible for driving with care.

I'm surprised she admitted to not focusing on the road, her honesty will get her the maximum sentence. In other similar instances, a person who says nothing and has a lawyer work their defense can see a much lighter sentence. I don't have an answer to what is right here, just, taking a step back from the tradegy and focusing on the defense only, an honest person gets no breaks in a courtroom.

I'm sure in 50 years time we will have smart cars, like the google cars that drive themselves, and our grandkids will be shocked that we were allowed to simply drive these massive machines on our own.

Until a better future comes about, we are stuck with the imperfect roads and imperfect courts.

Avatar
Malaconotus replied to TeamCC | 11 years ago
0 likes
TeamCC wrote:

her honesty will get her the maximum sentence.

It certainly won't. The maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_...

I willing to bet she gets less than the absolute minimum in the sentencing guidelines, which is two years.

Avatar
Bez | 11 years ago
0 likes

I fully agree with the CTC's comment. Bans need to be used more heavily, including where a driver commits a safety-related offence but no collision occurs. In most cases custody is not helpful.

More: http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=556

The "deterrent" argument is fallacious. People do not believe they will kill someone therefore it is inherently impossible to implement a deterrent for this. What is needed is a deterrent against things like adjusting a satnav while driving, and to achieve that, such a deterrent must be enforceable regardless of death.

There is no point in calling for custodial sentences for killers. The thing to do is to call for deterrents to the actions which cause death when the dice roll badly, because the point is to prevent people becoming killers in the first place.

Avatar
paulfg42 replied to Bez | 11 years ago
0 likes
Bez wrote:

I fully agree with the CTC's comment. Bans need to be used more heavily, including where a driver commits a safety-related offence but no collision occurs. In most cases custody is not helpful.

More: http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=556

The "deterrent" argument is fallacious. People do not believe they will kill someone therefore it is inherently impossible to implement a deterrent for this. What is needed is a deterrent against things like adjusting a satnav while driving, and to achieve that, such a deterrent must be enforceable regardless of death.

There is no point in calling for custodial sentences for killers. The thing to do is to call for deterrents to the actions which cause death when the dice roll badly, because the point is to prevent people becoming killers in the first place.

One of the daftest arguments I've read anywhere. At least the author of the article doesn't try to extend the argument to all killers.

How can you deter people from being distracted? And you do know that lots of drivers ignore bans?

Avatar
ScotchPoth (not verified) | 11 years ago
0 likes

'CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution'

Whose side are the CTC on? This statement beggars belief,you take someones life through dangerous driving but not receive a custodial sentence?
A custodial sentence,coupled with compensation and a driving ban is the minimum the CTC should be calling for,it isnt either/or
Lengthy custodial sentences are more of a deterrant than any driving ban,what planet are the fools on?
The CTC are the acceptable media friendly middle class conservative face of the cycling 'community',why their opinion is called on in these cases to represent cyclists viewpoint and not other groups doesnt make sense
They certainly dont represent me
I suspect alot of CTC members are also motorists,accounts for the duplicity and wishy washy compromise

Avatar
Sara_H replied to ScotchPoth | 11 years ago
0 likes
ScotchPoth wrote:

'CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution'

Whose side are the CTC on? This statement beggars belief,you take someones life through dangerous driving but not receive a custodial sentence?
A custodial sentence,coupled with compensation and a driving ban is the minimum the CTC should be calling for,it isnt either/or
Lengthy custodial sentences are more of a deterrant than any driving ban,what planet are the fools on?
The CTC are the acceptable media friendly middle class conservative face of the cycling 'community',why their opinion is called on in these cases to represent cyclists viewpoint and not other groups doesnt make sense
I suspect alot of CTC members are also motorists,accounts for the duplicity and wishy washy compromise

I can see where the CTC are coming from, but don't agree with their stance.

Of course, this woman does not represent a threat to the public if she doesn't take to the wheel of a car. But custodial sentences are not just about protecting the public, they're about punishment. She committed a stupid and criminal act that resulted in the death of another person, of course that should result in a custodial sentence - otherwise what message are we sending to others.

Avatar
Mostyn replied to Sara_H | 11 years ago
0 likes
Sara_H wrote:
ScotchPoth wrote:

'CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution'

Whose side are the CTC on? This statement beggars belief,you take someones life through dangerous driving but not receive a custodial sentence?
A custodial sentence,coupled with compensation and a driving ban is the minimum the CTC should be calling for,it isnt either/or
Lengthy custodial sentences are more of a deterrant than any driving ban,what planet are the fools on?
The CTC are the acceptable media friendly middle class conservative face of the cycling 'community',why their opinion is called on in these cases to represent cyclists viewpoint and not other groups doesnt make sense
I suspect alot of CTC members are also motorists,accounts for the duplicity and wishy washy compromise

I can see where the CTC are coming from, but don't agree with their stance.

Of course, this woman does not represent a threat to the public if she doesn't take to the wheel of a car. But custodial sentences are not just about protecting the public, they're about punishment. She committed a stupid and criminal act that resulted in the death of another person, of course that should result in a custodial sentence - otherwise what message are we sending to others.

I agree, this driver took a human life! There should be some kind of punishment. Far too many accidents involving cyclists being killed or injured.

Pages

Latest Comments