AdelaidePeter wrote:antigee wrote:lets hope the Victoria Police have a strong well prepared case and the jury (if applicable?) don't choose the it could happen to any one of us verdict - the defence line described above was used in a UK teen cyclist death...apparently defence lawyers can choose to use it when the sun failed to shine at the time of the appalling driving:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/v ... ile-33310/
“At this point he said he was possibly 10 to 12 seconds away from the point of collision when he noticed the cyclist who he claimed rode off the pavement and onto the road without looking, “ the prosecutor said.
Mr Sullivan said it was then taken away for analysis where text messages were discovered between the driver and his partner......."
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/v ... ing-33772/
shocking death and shocking outcome
\
What a disgrace. Texting up to 2 minutes before the ambulance was called, and lied to police about his phone. But one difference: over there, as far as I can tell from that second story, it isn't illegal to text and drive.
Yes, that jury decision is an absolute disgrace. For the guy to be not just using his phone, not even just reading texts, but actually trying to type in a text at the very time that he killed that poor cyclist. And then for the courts to find him guilty of
absolutely nothing - that is just plain ridiculous!
Also, when I read that driver's pathetic excuses it really makes me mad.
“I was texting just using my left hand. When I pulled out onto the road I was trying to keep my attention on the road, so I typed without looking at the phone.”
“It was all very quick but it seemed to me he had adjacened (sic) out slightly from the lane he should have been on.”
So it was the cyclists fault because he wasn't where he
"should have been". Is this guy serious? Take a look at the google street view of the area where it happened and tell me where else the cyclist could possibly have been.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@51.1663 ... 6656?hl=en