Driver found guilty of causing death by careless driving after killing cyclist was using Snapchat moments before fatal incident

Wow, that's shocking.

I'd also be interested to see how modern in-car entertainment interface design has affetcted driver awareness. For example, when the Tesla Model 3 was announced, I recall saying that I would be surpirised that such a car was allowed on UK roads seeing as the (entirely touch-screen based) centre-console required drivers to look away from the road to perform any task. I remember contrasting this with the BMW I drove at the time where all the buttons/dials on the centre-console had different sizes/textures, so that after a few days of familiarisation you could do anything from change the volume, to adjust the climate control, to interact with the sat-nav without taking your eyes off the road. To my surprise, not only was the model 3 interface deemed safe, but pretty much every car released since has tried to copy it. I don't see how touch-based interfaces with no haptic/tactile feedback can be doing anything other than significantly reducing driver awareness.

That and the Brake link I posted show that the current offences are out of step with the modern driving experience and fail to reflect the amount of cognitive overload and consequent issues of various types of technology.

I think eburtthebike may have mentioned some review of road traffic offences.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I don't see how touch-based interfaces with no haptic/tactile feedback can be doing anything other than significantly reducing driver awareness.

Car manufacturers love them as they're cheap and can be trivially redesigned. They just need to include a disclaimer about not using them whilst driving and then they can blame the driver for any issues that arise.

There was some research done in Sweden using an old Volvo as the "control" vehicle comparing how long it takes to do stuff in cars with touchscreens. This is  not surprising.

I find it interesting that the Apple Car Play always comes out more distracting than the equivalent Android. I have always found Apple products less than intuitive, but I know others wouldn't use anything else. I was wondering if it was corrected for whether the driver was a habitual Android/ Apple user or have I been right all along?

“As soon as my car came to a stop. I immediately ran out of my car to see what was happening on the road. I saw the cyclist. I sought medical help as soon as I could and dialed 999.”

"there was a 30 second gap between her using the app and the moment the 25-year-old called 999"

I would interperet the 2 statements above as definite proof, unless you suggest the first statement takes more than 30 secs and she finished her texting/snap chat before calling 999

Not sure I fully understand your sentence... 

To clarify my position... looking at those thirty seconds... 

The accident itself will have taken time. From impact, to going into the ditch, to coming to a stop. Being generous, lets say ~5 seconds. Then there will be a period of pause... where you go, 'what the fudge?' Again lets say that was 3-5 seconds. Getting out of the car would be a further 5 seconds, with a similar amount of time spent assessing the situation, so a further 5-10 secs.... You also need to factor in time to take the phone out of your pocket, unlock and dial... thats got to be 5 seconds. Best case scenario, 23 seconds minimum. 

So we've a maximum possibility of 7 seconds of wiggle room. But wait, you have to factor in the other side... from finishing on Snapchat, the phone will need to have been closed and placed down and the hand returned to the steering wheel... thats another couple of seconds of distraction at least.

So to me, by being incredibly generous, there is a potential 5 sec window between last phone use whilst driving and the impact. But wait, some of that 5 seconds would have included pre-impact time... where the two parties were deviating on to a collision course.

And, I'm ignoring the fact that as the phone had been in use, it would not have been in the drivers pocket, so post crash, this would need to have been located, which takes time... well unless the phone was already in the hand.

I struggle to understand how any reasonable person would not accept the phone was in use at the time of the impact. 

I think we ar in agreement here, she was definetly using her phone, the 30 second window proves it (and your breakdown is good too).

You can substitute drink driving there.

A concerned effort to make phone use as unacceptable as drink driving is now is needed.

Which also needs someone like essex police to do a bit more than send a letter when given video evidence. So much for vision zero.

Mobile phone use only really started early 90s, became common in the mid 90s.

Phone use while driving was mad illegal in lateish 2003.

A decade, maybe a tad more.

It's been against the law for a generation.

I think that the problem is actually the opposite. It is not the fact that in the 90s some cars had phones in, and in 2001 my employer installed a hands free kit in my car so that I was "always available". It is the fact that now cars have apps, cars encourage you to use your phone for sat nav, music etc, and people have come to define themselves by their online activity so can't bear to not have their phone in reach. 

Add to this the feeble sentencing and the almost total lack of road police presence and people just carry on texting, online dating etc knowing they will get away with it.

And then someone dies.

hirsute wrote:

https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-cent... The primary impairment that drivers face from using a phone behind the wheel, is the mental distraction from the driving task. Research has shown that after using your phone, it can take half a minute to regain full attention, during which time your driving is impaired

Which doesn't bode well for people watching films etc while their Tesla is in 'not quite self-driving' mode...  I wonder how long that takes to get their brains back in gear?

"Tragic accident", "unforeseen consequences".  As you know this goes something like: this happens all the time.  We (magistrates, judge, jury) have seen / know people who did / have done similar ourselves - albeit at a minor level - which didn't lead to this result. Driving is dangerous but it's normal too.  So we want to see some kind of intent*, the driver has to be a major wrong'un or really, utterly reckless - like "I set my house on fire because I just don't care" wild.

* Even though careless and dangerous were created - if I recall - because juries weren't convicting for murder / manslaughter ie. I think the idea was to "drain the drama" and lessen the "intent" part.  Not a lawyer though...

It wasn't an accident. It was a fatal crash caused by a total lack of care on the part of the driver.

Not excusing it but I wonder if there was a lack of credible witnesses to the event.  If say the accident investigation was all they had to go on?

Just trying out permutations in my head that dont lead someone rational to dangerous driving.   Mind boggling.

Yeah, I doubt anyone would be on the phone to 999 within 30 seconds of a crash that put their car in a ditch. So either she crashed, then logged on to Snapchat for a selfie before checking on her victim, or she was on Snapchat at the moment of the crash.

andystow wrote:

Yeah, I doubt anyone would be on the phone to 999 within 30 seconds of a crash that put their car in a ditch. So either she crashed, then logged on to Snapchat for a selfie before checking on her victim, or she was on Snapchat at the moment of the crash.

quite she was either using the phone at point of impact or less than 5 seconds before, how long does it take to stop get out the car, check other people and then call 999? it's not less than 20s

Amazing that she was even collected enough to call 999 within 30s

One assumes that the lack of honesty during the trial will be an aggravating element in her sentencing - stand by for dishonest pleadings by her barrister during sentencing.

Given that the judge was convinced that the defendant was using the phone and was driving on the wrong side of the road, one has to wonder just how far below the standard of a reasonably careful and competent driver you have to fall before the courts will convict for dangerous driving.

IanMSpencer wrote:

...one has to wonder just how far below the standard of a reasonably careful and competent driver you have to fall before the courts will convict for dangerous driving.

It's mad. I've mentioned before that in my opinion the defining factor should be that careless driving is negligence and dangerous driving is a conscious choice. If you’re generally distracted or not paying attention then careless driving makes sense, but if you’ve made the conscious decision to reach for your phone, drive above the speed limit/fit speed for the conditions, or drive whilst intoxicated/impaired/otherwise medically unfit, that should be automatic dangerous driving.  

Staggering isn't it. Being so distracted she didn't realise she was on the wrong side of the road with another vehicle approaching head on isn't dangerous driving?