Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Banking heiress banned from driving for six months after cyclist caught her using phone behind the wheel

Kate Rothschild admitted using her phone after her car had stalled in west London, but asked the court to spare her a driving ban due to her home’s “very remote” location

Banking heiress Kate Rothschild has been banned from driving for six months after a cyclist spotted her using a phone behind the wheel after her car had stalled.

The music producer and scion of the famous Rothschild banking dynasty was reported to the police after cyclist Beatrice Goater passed her using her phone while sat in the driver’s seat of her Audi Q7 SUV in Fulham, west London, the Evening Standard reports.

The 41-year-old, who was prosecuted for the offence as she already had racked up too may points on her licence to receive a Fixed Penalty Notice, told Lavender Hill magistrates last week that she was checking the notes app on her phone after her vehicle’s ghost immobiliser had kicked in, stalling her car.

> Top TV comedy producer who “flipped the bird” and told CyclingMikey to “go f*** yourself” fined over £2,000 and handed six points for phone use while driving

She admitted the offence but asked the court to consider sparing her a driving ban, claiming that she needs her car for emergencies due to the “very remote” location of her countryside cottage.

The magistrates rejected the mother-of-three’s plea, however, and handed her six penalty points which, added to her previous tally, saw her landed with an automatic six-month driving disqualification. She was also fined £450 and ordered to pay a further £280 in courts costs and fees.

Speaking to the court, cyclist Goater explained that she was riding on New King’s Road in Fulham on 30 August 2022 when she noticed a motorist with “strawberry blonde hair” using her mobile phone.

“I am cycling and I pass the vehicle”, she said. “I notice the driver on her phone and I ask her to stop using her phone. She pays no attention to my request.”

> Mr Loophole applauds police action against "vigilante cyclists" filming law-breaking drivers

In a letter to the court explaining the situation ahead of last week’s hearing, Rothschild claimed that her car “had cut out and the ghost immobiliser had kicked in stalling my car.”

She continued: “My partner had recently changed the code after having two cars stolen and the new code was written in the notes section which I was checking.

“I am, of course, aware that I have done wrong and that I have previous points on my licence. However, I just hope that you can and you will take this all into consideration.”

The heiress also told the court that it would be “really unsafe” for her to be banned from driving, as she mainly resides in a “very remote” cottage in Wiltshire, despite also having a home in Fulham.

“Taxis will often refuse to go up the track and emergency vehicles will not necessarily find it so not having a driver’s licence is really unsafe as my partner is often away and I have two teenage sons and a two-year-old baby boy”, she said.

“The thought of being at home with my sons and not being able to get them to a hospital should the need arise terrifies me.”

> Taxi driver warns CyclingMikey he will "end up needing the dentist" after challenging phone use

Rothschild is the second notable name in the space of a week to be found guilty of using a mobile phone while behind the wheel of a car in London.

At the weekend we reported that Jimmy Mulville, the co-founder of Hat Trick Productions, the company behind hit TV programmes such as Have I Got News For You, Father Ted, Derry Girls, and Room 101, was spotted using his phone by road safety campaigner and YouTuber CyclingMikey, real name Mike van Erp, while driving in traffic over Battersea Bridge last July.

According to Van Erp, after being confronted over his phone use, Mulville “flipped the bird” and shouted at the cyclist “go f*** yourself”.

Mulville, who was previously banned from driving in 2020 and handed another three points last October for speeding, was prosecuted for driving while using his mobile phone after not paying a Fixed Penalty fine.

At City of London magistrates court last week, the 68-year-old comedian, who belatedly admitted to using his phone to check a text, was handed six points on his licence and ordered to pay £1,000 fine, plus £625 in costs and a £400 court fee.

> “People need to see justice being done”: CyclingMikey says camera cyclists suffer online abuse because some motorists “feel they have the right to drive how they want”

Noted camera cyclist Van Erp, whose widespread reporting of law-breaking motorists has also led to the successful prosecutions of Guy Ritchie and Chris Eubank, thanked Beatrice Goater on Twitter for reporting Rothschild for her phone use.

“Camera cyclists are everywhere, and you’ll never know when one of us might pitch up next to you,” he wrote. “Another driver bites the dust for driving badly.”

In January, speaking to road.cc, Mikey said “people need to see justice being done” and that any abuse he receives is simply because some motorists “feel they have the right to drive how they want”.

“In the beginning of my camera work, almost 17 years ago, I took a lot of strain at the abuse thrown my way,” he said. “I’d answer each comment seriously. Nowadays, there has been such a torrent of abuse and lies about me that I just let most of it wash off me.

“In the UK cyclists are considered by society to be ‘cockroaches of the road’, unworthy scum who freeload on the public highway and are terrible lawbreakers. For such a person to challenge a driver for lawbreaking is a massive affront to the social order, and people don’t like this.

“Many of those throwing abuse also feel that they have the right to drive how they want, and that nobody can tell them what to do. They see the prosecutions, and they are afraid of the consequences, and they are angry that someone dares to do this to them.”

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

40 comments

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
3 likes

Just to be clear - I am not condoning or trying to excuse her illegal behaviour. I am genuinely trying to understand. My car doesn't have an immobiliser (neither does my bike) so I have no frame of reference to understand this.

If I was a bit dim (not too much of a stretch) and couldn't remember a PIN - I can imagine a scenario where I put the PIN in my phone. My phone is always with me, whereas I tend to bin random bits of paper I find. I wouldn't think it a problem, as I would say "I need the PIN to turn on the car, so I'm not using my phone with the car turned on." The next time I need the PIN - the car would be turned off, as that is what an immobilizer does? Have I gotten this completely wrong?

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to HoldingOn | 1 year ago
4 likes

I don't suppose she is that dim, unless she has some serious memory problem it's quite a stretch to imagine that her partner changed the PIN "recently" but that she didn't bother memorising it and has had to get her phone out every single time she's started the car, isn't it? If I'd been on the bench I think I might have asked how far her journey was to that point and so how long it was since she had last used the PIN. If her partner changed the PIN, why wouldn't he have changed it to something they could both remember? It sounds pretty unlikely and it seems the magistrates agree.

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
2 likes

I think I see where I am getting confused - her defence was the car was immoblized, but the likelihood is that she was sat in a queue of traffic, the car had automatically turned engine off and she was playing CandyCrush (or whatever drivist deem more important than people's lives)

The Court thankfully saw through the lies.

I was worried I was breaking the law by checking Google Maps on my phone, while my car was parked in my driveway with the engine off!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to HoldingOn | 1 year ago
2 likes

HoldingOn wrote:

I think I see where I am getting confused - her defence was the car was immoblized, but the likelihood is that she was sat in a queue of traffic, the car had automatically turned engine off and she was playing CandyCrush (or whatever drivist deem more important than people's lives)

The Court thankfully saw through the lies.

I was worried I was breaking the law by checking Google Maps on my phone, while my car was parked in my driveway with the engine off!

You can do what you want in your driveway (within reason) as it's not a public road. If you're parked up with the engine off, then it's fine to use a mobile too.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to HoldingOn | 1 year ago
5 likes

HoldingOn wrote:

I was worried I was breaking the law by checking Google Maps on my phone, while my car was parked in my driveway with the engine off!

Parked up (legally!) and engine off anywhere it's fine to do what you want with your phone.

Yes, it's very likely a dubious excuse. They do succeed sometimes, I recall that lawbreakers' friend Nick Freeman got Jimmy Carr off a charge because police had observed him with his phone to his mouth while driving but he claimed he had thought of a joke and was using the device as a dictaphone. Fortunately that particular loophole has been shut down by the recent law changes.

Avatar
giff77 replied to HoldingOn | 1 year ago
7 likes

What happens in your driveway stays in your driveway 😉

Avatar
Hirsute replied to HoldingOn | 1 year ago
2 likes

"Just like your credit card but you can make your car disarm sequence even safer by making it up to 20 presses long!"

No wonder she needed to look it up !

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
2 likes

I always have a little chuckle to myself over some "I am not a robot" checks websites have. They require you to solve the sum of two numbers. I'm sure there are people out there that use a calculator just to double check their answer. Using a computer to prove you aren't a computer.

Making your immobiliser so difficult, you can't use your car anymore.
ohhh - new way to lessen car use.....

Avatar
Sriracha replied to HoldingOn | 1 year ago
3 likes

You're not being dim, what you say makes perfect sense. Because as you say, the only time you'd need to look up the PIN is whilst the car is "off" and parked, as a precursor to starting the parked car. Since immobilisers do not switch off a running car, neither is it realistically possible to stall an automatic yourself, her story does not add up.

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to Sriracha | 1 year ago
2 likes

Sriracha wrote:

...her story does not add up.

That is the bit I was missing - I thought the immobiliser had kicked in, but she was lying about that.

I would imagine if you could prove the immobiliser had kicked in, then the Court outcome would be different.

Pages

Latest Comments