Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 09:12

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
The 'read' status indicator at best would prove that the message was read sometime after it was sent. I would assume that there was quite a delay between the accident and the police getting a look at the phone, during which the message could (even accidentally) have been marked as read.

They really can't say "message received while driving = phone use while driving". And in the case of my phone they can't say "message sent while driving = phone use while driving" because I can tell mine to send a message at a later date/time.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 21:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
I'm sure there is some CCTV or perhaps the cyclists watch that could show what time the accident took place, and if an incoming message was read shortly before it wouldn't look good. But I know that not good enough for the courts, and rightly so. There are lots of examples of innocent parties becoming caught up because things "didn't look good".

We don't even know the full facts so this is largely pointless. But I'm utterly unconvinced that it has got anything to with the council!!

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 21:49 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
Smithy wrote:
I'm sure there is some CCTV or perhaps the cyclists watch that could show what time the accident took place, and if an incoming message was read shortly before it wouldn't look good.


the message could have been read while stationary at a set of lights/traffic queue less than 30 secs before the accident. not legal I guess, but far from concrete evidence of the accident cause.

Quote:
But I know that not good enough for the courts, and rightly so. There are lots of examples of innocent parties becoming caught up because things "didn't look good".


Like several others here I'm intrested how "recieved a text while driving" makes a quantum leap to "she must have been replying, lets make that accusation and make her prove innocence" Given that a driver has no control over when people choose to send them messages, how does the network indicating reciept of one prove anything? It does nothing more than give a clue. Are prosecutors allowed to make such statements based on clues and presumptions? I thought you needed evidence to back it up?

Quote:
We don't even know the full facts so this is largely pointless. But I'm utterly unconvinced that it has got anything to with the council!!


Ziltro's point is valid. Accidents usually have several contributing factors, and I'll admit to flooring it to "make the green", especially for certain sets of lights I know have been reprogrammed seemingly to impede traffic flow with long waits. I don't like doing it but... Treat people with belligerence and they'll respond in kind.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 22:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:58
Posts: 62
In your opinion it is valid. Unless you can prove it is still just an opinion. One that I disagree with but we're all entitled to opinions.

Something else that may go against her is if a reply was saved in her drafts that mentioned a key fact mentioned in the incoming text "Yes I would like a sandwich" or whatever is was is again not going to look good. My phone saves uncompleted text messages if you slide it shut which is the likely course if you were just involved in an accident.

If something like that is present I think it's a legitimate line of enquiry for the Police don't you? If they think they have the evidence to proscute on that basis then what's the issue? If there is no evidence let's hope that justice prevails and the court sees that.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 22:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:30
Posts: 56
hairyben wrote:
Like several others here I'm intrested how "recieved a text while driving" makes a quantum leap to "she must have been replying, lets make that accusation and make her prove innocence" Given that a driver has no control over when people choose to send them messages, how does the network indicating reciept of one prove anything? It does nothing more than give a clue. Are prosecutors allowed to make such statements based on clues and presumptions? I thought you needed evidence to back it up?



Very good point. The prosecution are clearly making an assumption, but of course the driver isn't going to able to prove they weren't in the middle of texting a reply. Even if the phone was recovered with a partially completed reply on it, it wouldn't be able to be proved that the driver was texting at the time of impact.

Of course the facts will show the phone was on, and a text had been read. Which of course the driver shouldn't have been doing. The phone should have been off. But then again the cyclist shouldn't have jumped a red light.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 22:38 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I was thinking that whatever she had been doing on the phone would probably have been interrupted if she used it to call an ambulance. Which only adds to the complication.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 23:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Ziltro wrote:
I was thinking that whatever she had been doing on the phone would probably have been interrupted if she used it to call an ambulance. Which only adds to the complication.


Unless, of course, the mobile phone company has records that say: 'phone number 07*** answered text message at 08.58am.'

I know nothing about modern phones, but I would not be surprised if they could give that much detail.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 23:07 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I don't know if they can differenciate between writing a message and replying to one (as e-mails can) but they mose certainly have that level of detail. I suspect they store every message you have ever sent as well.

They need date, time, from and to in order to bill you.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 23:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Even that has reasonable doubt. If you write a text message when in a low signal area it will (presumably on most phones?) get sent as soon as you get somewhere with coverage.

I'm not sure if the date/time on the message are when it was written (ie. generated by the phone) or are when it was sent (generated by telephone company). I suspect it is the latter.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 23:17 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Added to what I was told about cross network texts,by a mobile network - that all internal texts are dealt with first ( in this case it was Vodafone -so Vodafone -Vodafone ones went first followed by those to other networks ) ---if one does this -possibly they all do -so the real time of texting could be vastly different to time of receipt( and that would be the time returned to the sender as time of receipt )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Quote:
Jurors heard that Jordan, who lived in Woolston Road, Netley, had momentarily stopped at the traffic lights but then went through them when they were red. He was about two-thirds across the junction when Coultas struck him in her BMW.

I presume that there is evidence either CCTV, or witness statement, since they have identified his movements so accurately.
You then have to ask if this evidence includes detail about the BMW driver's behaviour.
Quote:
and queried her speed in the 30mph limit. But the answer became clear when checks were made on her mobile phone.

Any evidence provided by the phone is unlikely to include clues about her speed!
Either the press are making assumptions, or misreporting the case.
Note also that in the scenario described - two thirds way across the junction could put the cyclist clearly in her line of sight - not behind the A-pillar.
Image
On the other hand, the acute angle could have made spotting him harder.

I have to pose the question, if the driver had sneezed, and there had been no mobile phone evidence, or if she simply had not seen the cyclist, and this had not been questioned by police, what would the likely outcome be?

The actions of the cyclist clearly created the situation... what was the likelihood that use of a phone prevented the driver from avoiding a collision?
I dont use a mobile except in emergencies - I'm presently on my third £10 top up in 7 years. I find it incredible that anyone can be so dependent on their phone that they feel obliged to use it while mobile, but this driver deserves a fair trial.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
I hope this precedent of mobile phone evidence doesnt keep going on. A number of times I've left my work phone unlocked and in my pocket while driving, and when I finally make it to my destination, poor Aaron who is fist in my names list has sent me a text saying "stop f**king texting me" because my phone has managed to send him 20 or so text messages due to being knocked about by the other contents of my pocket.

That's me royally screwed if I'm even involved in an accident then.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 07:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
The question hasn't been asked "why didn't the cyclist see the car?"
The cyclist had no A pillars, the car would have been lit,

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:12 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
DAY 2
Quote:
Driver's text messages were no accident, court heard
By John Hoskins

Keira Coultas
TEXT messages from a driver accused of knocking down a teenage cyclist could not have been sent by accident, a court heard.

An expert told jurors that Keira Coultas would have had to open her phone and press at least four buttons to send a text.

The prosecution claims that Coultas, 25, was texting her estranged husband when she collided with Jordan Wickington, 19, at the junction of Mountbatten Way and West Quay Road, Southampton, shortly after 7am on February 7 last year.

Jordan had momentarily stopped at the lights in Mountbatten Way but then carried on - though the lights were still against him.

He was about two-thirds across the junction when a BMW, driven by Coultas, came through green lights in West Quay Road and struck him side on.

The teenager - who lived in Woolston Road, Netley Abbey - died hours later in hospital from severe head injuries.

advertisementThe city crown court has been told that Coultas was on her way to the hotel in Hythe where she worked, to meet her estranged husband, Chris, when she received a text message from him.

Jurors were shown a log chronicling the calls Coultas had made or received at the time of the accident.


Jordan Wickington
DC Stephen Case described how he had determined their order and timing after examining her Samsung mobile phone.

The officer - who is based with the communications intelligence unit at Netley - was handed a summary of the network times of phone calls and messages on her phone.

The sequence began at 7.08.08 with a text message from Chris Coultas to his estranged wife. Forty-seven seconds later she sent a text back.

The court heard Coultas then dialled her current boyfriend but no message was recorded, either because she terminated it or there was no connection, and then immediately phoned the emergency services.

Ten minutes later, she again rang her estranged husband and then her boyfriend.

Coultas, of Frost Lane, Hythe, denies causing death by dangerous driving.

Proceeding

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Soo

Was she texting at the time of the accident?

No!

Was she "engaged in phone communication" at the time of the accident?

Not proven (as yet)

(all we can say thus far is that the collision occured some time between the instigation of the second phone call and the call to the emergency services.)

They say "Immediatly" I wonder how long a period "immediatly" is? 10 seconds is actually a long time on the road!

Thus far I would agree that her driving behavior falls below an acceptable standard. However, to my mind, the fact that ther "Victim" was also behaving irresposibly and illegaly gets her off the "D by DD" charge.

Put another way.

She *may* have avoided the cyclist if she had been paying more attention to what she was doing. (but we cannot prove that "beyond reasonable doubt")

However she would "definitly" have avoided the cyclist if he haddent run the red!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
If this was car v car who would they be prosicuting?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:06
Posts: 301
Location: Swindon
Ok, here's a question-and I don't think we have the answer to it.

What exactly does the phrase '2/3 of the way across the junction' mean when used by the prosecution?
Does it mean 2/3 of the way between the right hand stop line and the end of the lane merging with Mountbatten Way-ie level with the larger pylon visible in the pic above- or does it mean 2/3 of the way across the joining point of the last lane?

Given the size of the junction it's quite possible that the cyclist was moving at speed exceeding 15mph at the point where he was hit. This could easily mean he was out of sight behind the A-pillar. I notice there's no mention of whether or not the cyclist had lights on at the time either-yet this is in one of the reports:-

"Mr Jenkins said: "It was a cold, clear morning, not quite daylight, and the street lights were still on."


Note-I'm not defending her. Her speed on the junction was excessive for the conditions-BUT-there's far more information relevant to this than is being reported by the papers.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:55 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
Thatsnews wrote:
I remember someone saying to me that "a green light only ever means proceed with caution, as you can't tell what someone else will do."


That's right. A red light means you should not cross. A green light only means it might be OK, but then again it might not be.

Aside: We all assume others will sometimes do stupid things - we see it everyday. So good drivers hope for the best but get prepared for the worst. Whatever the truth of the texting allegations, was she making an effort to prepare for the worst if she was crossing urban traffic lights at way above the speed limit?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:59 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
anton wrote:
If this was car v car who would they be prosecuting?


You can't really prosecute a corpse, so I'm assuming you mean that both drivers survive?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
Prosecution suggestion wrote:
"If she was doing that and texting, that is certainly dangerous because she wasn't looking ahead."


Before my wife started using PDA-style phones she had a succession of Nokias, on which she'd become very adept at "touch-typing" texts without needing to look at the phone except to pick the right number from the contacts list. Now, if she was replying to an incoming message then the phone picked the right number for her, so once she'd read the incoming message she could go through the *entire* reply process without needing to look at the phone at all...

Now, it's entirely feasible that Ms Coultas doesn't possess this same ability, but it's still a bit dodgy of the prosecutor to be saying that the act of texting MUST require looking at the phone, because for some people it absolutely does not.



Lum wrote:
poor Aaron who is fist in my names list has sent me a text saying "stop f**king texting me" because my phone has managed to send him 20 or so text messages due to being knocked about by the other contents of my pocket.


It won't stop the texts being sent by accident, but if you store a "safe" number (e.g. your own mobile number) as the first entry in your contacts, at least it'll stop such errant texts/calls being routed to unwilling recipients.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.045s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]