- 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
news
Simon Draper (Dyfed-Powys Police)Five-year sentence for van driver who killed cyclist while distracted by Facebook and Instagram
A distracted driver who was browsing social media moments before he hit and killed a cyclist has been jailed for five years.
Simon Draper pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, but was last month also found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving as a jury rejected his account that the mobile phone was being used by his 13-month-old son.
Back in Swansea Crown Court for sentencing yesterday, 42-year-old Draper received five years in prison, up to half to be served in custody before release on licence, and a six-year driving ban.
Wales Online reports judge Hywel James told the court the case highlights the fatal consequences of using a mobile phone while driving, and noted the observation from the pre-sentence report that Draper was still claiming it was his son using the device, even after being found guilty.
"Paid the ultimate price"
After a little over three hours of deliberation at last month's trial a jury found Draper guilty of causing the death of Lynwen Thomas by dangerous driving.
An off-duty police sergeant, the cyclist was riding on the A40 to her home in Carmarthen on the evening of 25 February 2021 when she was fatally hit by the father of four, travelling in a Ford Transit van with his young son.
One witness had described how Draper looked distracted and veered across the solid white line on the left of the carriageway "several times" before hitting Ms Thomas, who was pronounced dead at the scene.
The driver claimed he had given his phone to the child to calm him down and that he had failed to see the cyclist because he had looked back to check on his son. Draper's legal team attempted to argue Ms Thomas was not wearing bright clothing when she was hit.
However, analysis of his phone showed extended use on Facebook and Instagram in the moments before the crash, prosecutor Carina Hughes concluding Ms Thomas had "paid the ultimate price" for Draper being "distracted".
The trial also heard from paediatrician Dr Mohammed Rahman who told the court it would be impossible for a child of that age to have either the manual dexterity or mental ability to undertake actions that had been performed on the phone in the minutes before the collision.
This included double-tapping the phone's home button and swiping between apps, and Dr Rahman also suggested an infant would not be able to hold the phone in portrait orientation with one hand while carrying out those commands with the other.
Draper claimed he had given the phone to "soothe" his son, an account he maintained even after being found guilty. At trial he told jurors he would never "forget or forgive myself".
"It's not just me it's affected," he said. "My kids have suffered. Everybody has suffered because of what happened. If I could have gone to them (Ms Thomas's family) that night to explain that I did everything I could, I would have done."
However, the prosecution insisted — despite displaying signs of remorse — Draper would do "whatever he could" to shift the "blame" from himself.
"The utter senseless and unnecessary devastation caused by using a mobile phone whilst driving"
Commenting on the case, police sergeant Sara John said it demonstrated "the utter senseless and unnecessary devastation caused by using a mobile phone whilst driving".
"Lynwen was less than 10 minutes away from home when Draper, who was persistently using his iPhone at the wheel, collided with her whilst she was cycling along the A40," she said.
"Lynwen was a respected colleague and a loving mother, daughter, sister and partner who was taken far too soon due to the arrogant and selfish actions of the defendant which have left a young child without their mother. Lynwen's family have welcomed today’s verdict but now wish to have their privacy respected."
Judge James praised Ms Thomas' family for their dignity throughout the trial. The family subsequently said they felt justice had been served after a long and painful 20 months.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 21 min 13 sec ago
Your link didn't work for me, so here's one that does https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly0w2xzzd4o
- chrisonabike 24 min 13 sec ago
Neighbourhood: you can't change anything because we have a disabled resident! Also driving children to schools! People power!...
- mctrials23 46 min 47 sec ago
The drivers are also licensed so they obviously behave themselves as well.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 15 min ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- mdavidford 1 hour 53 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 18 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 2 hours 26 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- mdavidford 2 hours 28 min ago
...and a square of faux sheepskin for the back of your saddle.
- Rapha Nadal 3 hours 38 sec ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
37 comments
I often see motors in front of mine , swerving in and out of a straight line. They are the constant threat. They are always distracted in charge of a phone.
Getting caught with a phone in hand should come with a lengthy automatic driving ban.
And the WhatsApp Gap, when a queue of traffic starts moving when the lights change, and there's always at least one car which doesn't move but then suddenly lurches forward as the driver looks up from their phone and hurries to catch up.
Opened the Google Maps around Carmarthen and the A40 in particular. Plenty of space and no dedicated cycling lanes. Even a one side of the road 2m extra space for cyclists would have saved a life and possibly created much more cycling traffic, replacing cars.
When will we see cycling UK et al campaign for proper sentences for road crimes?
I'd start with:
- watching a film whilst driving / phone use - immediate 3 year ban
- using a car as a weapon / deliberate close passes - immediate 5 year ban
- causing death by dangerous driving -lifetime ban plus 10 years per life lost
- leaving the scene of an accident where someone is seriously injured or killed without giving details - lifetime ban plus 15 years per life lost
As well as getting the most dangerous drivers off the road it would also have the benefit of reducing congestion for other drivers - so protecting cyclists and pedestrians would be aligned what drivers (wrongly) imagine to be the "majority of hood drivers".
Well I agree. However since properly policing the first will remove 50% of the traffic in some places (great!) and arguments about what is "deliberate" in the second will use up any remaining police time I suspect this is too much change. Or alternatively "more laws which are only very intermittently applied because no-one is policing them and the public don't care".
Laws with minimal enforcement that the public don't see as an issue? We already got one (lots) e.g. speeding.
I would certainly agree to better enforcement - as part of a balanced diet of measures to change our transport habits. What will these banned drivers do? I think the push (off the roads) is best combined with a pull (onto excellent cycling infrastructure / decent integrated public transport). The 2nd part appears lacking currently.
I thought multi year ban for a single close pass seemed excessive until I saw "deliberate" I take this to be the close pass when there is nothing coming the other way and no reason for the close pass other than intimidation.
Anyone claiming a defence of didn't see a road user in front of them should have the ban upgraded to life since they are phyically incapable of driving safely.
Off duty policeman, much more appropriate sentence and charge than normal? Coincidence or am I overly cynical?
Not cynical, you're just a disgrace. Sentencing guidelines don't have anything to do with a victim's employer. Do yourself a favour and look them up instead of posting stupid comments.
Given there are specific crimes against emergency workers, I don't see why a judge should not give a stiffer sentence where the victim is a police officer.
It's not like judges are completely neutral when it comes to sentences.
That seems justified where the police officer is a victim because they are a police officer - they've placed themselves at risk in the line of duty. But I don't think there is any justification for them to have some kind of exalted status in law generally.
No, hence my final sentence (omitted in your quote).
Apologies, I'm clearly missing something, and I don't mean your final sentence. If you delete the "not" then I'd have agreed with your first paragraph.
Poster A claimed they got a higher sentence because the victim was a police officer. Poster B said nonsense.
I suggest judges are not necessarily neutral so poster A may well have a point.
'I don't see why a judge should not give a stiffer sentence where the victim is a police officer.' Any judge giving a stiffer sentence because the cyclist was an off-duty cop is a fool; clearly, the emergency worker provision isn't relevant here.
Safe to assume they also don't have anything to do with race, gender and class?
Sentencing guidelines, as you state, are indeed universal. It's how they are applied and which end of the punishment scale being dished out which causes the cynicism.
And the cyclist was a policewoman, not a man. SMH you can't even get that right.
I believe you are underestimating the power of our emergency worker lives to up the judged seriousness of sentencing.
Even the attempts at prosecution. Had it not been an off duty police sergeant the CPS may have accepted the guilty to death by careless.
And as a society we seem to be moving away from gendered work titles. There seem to be less actresses these days, just actors who may happen to be women.
If we're moving away from gendered titles, please can you explain where there are so many drama queens on Road.cc?
Kittysaz is of course correct, and it's a disgraceful smear on the best justice system in the world to pretend sentences vary according to who the victim is.
Good to know you're not just a one dimensional troll.
He's probably got yet another new persona.
Sigh
Spot on. Personally I would have no problem with drivers who kill police men and women getting much harsher sentences if the sentences for killing civilians were set at a reasonable level to start with. As you say the initial charge is often laughably lenient let alone the final punishment.
I think the phone use is somewhat beside the point, although it does demonstrate sociopathic disregard of other people's safety. Being so oblivious of your surroundings that you plow into another road user, killing them, should be enough to get you permanently disqualified from driving. A six year driving ban is a joke as this driver does not take responsibility for his actions - there's no reason why he should be allowed to be take control of tonnes of deadly metal.
And does anyone seriously think that a driving ban will, er, stop him driving? Just means he'll be in more trouble if he gets caught driving. The6 might even give him another driving ban...
Ideally, people caught driving whilst banned should be imprisoned if only to protect other road users. Just because the Tories are dismantling institutions in order to sell them to their mates is no reason to not hand out the sentences.
.
First sentence good.
.
Second sentence laughably childish.
.
Take the Tory boot out of your mouth and look at the reality. Tory Scum have spent the last twelve years systematically defunding public institutions, from justice to health.
"Tory Scum have spent the last twelve years systematically defunding public institutions, from justice to health."
Health has had real terms increases every year for 12 years - £25b extra in the last 3 years alone (on top of £80b for Covid).
See :
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
Real terms based on what measure of inflation?
That's all great, as I remarked to my GP, A & E consultant and dentist whilst chatting at the end of appointments, really just to help them pass the time.
Pages