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.
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.