A driver who strayed into the opposite carriageway while using Snapchat moments before colliding with a cyclist who died in hospital eight days later has been found guilty of causing death by careless driving.

Silan Kaya was found guilty of death by careless driving at St. Albans Crown Court after being found not guilty of death by dangerous driving, reports the Welwyn Hatfield Times (link is external).

The incident happened just before Christmas day in 2019 when Kaya hit Brian Hart-Leverton on Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath near the Hertfordshire town of Potters Bar in her white BMW 220D.

The prosecution could not say that Kaya was using the social media app at the moment of the collision, but they found that there was a 30 second gap between her using the app and the moment the 25-year-old called 999.

Unfortunately, Mr Hart-Leverton died eight days later on December 29 2019 in The Royal London Hospital.

Kaya was reported to have said in the witness box: “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane. After that moment something happened. All I remember was my car coming into the ditch and my glass breaking.

“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.”

Kaya pleaded not guilty for both death caused by dangerous driving as well as death caused by careless driving but the judge deemed that she was “distracted by text messages” despite her protest of “No, it was not.”

Kaya will be sentenced on October 14 2022 by Judge Lana Wood.

https://road.cc/content/news/snapchat-driver-guilty-killing-cyclist-295905

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> A driver who strayed into the opposite carriageway while using Snapchat
> moments before colliding with a cyclist who died in hospital eight days
> later has been found guilty of causing death by careless driving.
>
> Silan Kaya was found guilty of death by careless driving at St. Albans
> Crown Court after being found not guilty of death by dangerous driving,
> reports the Welwyn Hatfield Times (link is external).
>
> The incident happened just before Christmas day in 2019 when Kaya hit
> Brian Hart-Leverton on Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath near the
> Hertfordshire town of Potters Bar in her white BMW 220D.
>
> The prosecution could not say that Kaya was using the social media app at
> the moment of the collision, but they found that there was a 30 second
> gap between her using the app and the moment the 25-year-old called 999.
>
> Unfortunately, Mr Hart-Leverton died eight days later on December 29 2019
> in The Royal London Hospital.
>
> Kaya was reported to have said in the witness box: “The cyclist was
> pretty much approaching me in my lane. After that moment something
> happened. All I remember was my car coming into the ditch and my glass breaking.
>
> “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.”
>
> Kaya pleaded not guilty for both death caused by dangerous driving as
> well as death caused by careless driving but the judge deemed that she
> was “distracted by text messages” despite her protest of “No, it was not.”
>
> Kaya will be sentenced on October 14 2022 by Judge Lana Wood.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/snapchat-driver-guilty-killing-cyclist-295905
>

1. No evidence of use of phone / Snapchat while driving only after
accident. Therefore irrelevant.

2. Cyclist on wrong side of road.

Cyclist caused accident by being on wrong side of road.

Cyclists should have insurance to pay for damage they cause.

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.

The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the other side of the road.
I really don't know what else you'd need to do to be more dangerous.
Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
I hope she never drives again.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the other side of the road.
> I really don't know what else you'd need to do to be more dangerous.

> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.

“The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”

Why did the cyclist take such a road position?

> I hope she never drives again.

Typical petty vindictiveness on your part.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> A driver who strayed into the opposite carriageway while using Snapchat
> moments before colliding with a cyclist who died in hospital eight days
> later has been found guilty of causing death by careless driving.

Well, well.

After Didsbury and Deptford, where cyclists killed pedestrians yet walked
free, this comes as no surprise.

> https://road.cc/content/news/snapchat-driver-guilty-killing-cyclist-295905

--
Spike

There is probably more than a generation that have grown up using phones in cars before the laws were changed and therefore stopping their use is an uphill task as they don't see it as a problem. However the courts and legal systems should be able to sentence offenders much more severely, like a ban from driving for ever and then other future offenders just might think again. I can't see this ever happening though and therefore this will happen again and again and again.

On 14/09/2022 09:12, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the
>> other side of the road. I really don't know what else you'd need to
>> do to be more dangerous.
>
>> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
>
> “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”

If you bothered to look up Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath on a map,
you might notice that it is not a dual carriageway.

> Why did the cyclist take such a road position?

Where else should the cyclist have been?

>> I hope she never drives again.
>
> Typical petty vindictiveness on your part.

Pity it wasn't a 44 tonner that was approaching in "her lane".

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is probably more than a generation that have grown up using phones
> in cars before the laws were changed and therefore stopping their use is
> an uphill task as they don't see it as a problem. However the courts and
> legal systems should be able to sentence offenders much more severely,
> like a ban from driving for ever and then other future offenders just
> might think again. I can't see this ever happening though and therefore
> this will happen again and again and again.

Does a cyclist sent to jail for killing a pedestrian (very rare, I know)
encourage other cyclists to think again?

Thought not.

--
Spike

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 09:12, Spike wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the
>>> other side of the road. I really don't know what else you'd need to
>>> do to be more dangerous.
>>
>>> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
>>
>> “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”
>
> If you bothered to look up Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath on a map,
> you might notice that it is not a dual carriageway.
>
>> Why did the cyclist take such a road position?
>
> Where else should the cyclist have been?

You need to ask? Good grief.

>>> I hope she never drives again.
>>
>> Typical petty vindictiveness on your part.

> Pity it wasn't a 44 tonner that was approaching in "her lane".

Typical cyclist callous remark.

--
Spike

HRH Prince Del Boy (swldx...@gmail.com) wrote:

> A driver who strayed into the opposite carriageway while using Snapchat moments before colliding with a cyclist who died in hospital eight days later has been found guilty of causing death by careless driving.
>
> Silan Kaya was found guilty of death by careless driving at St. Albans Crown Court after being found not guilty of death by dangerous driving, reports the Welwyn Hatfield Times (link is external).
>
> The incident happened just before Christmas day in 2019 when Kaya hit Brian Hart-Leverton on Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath near the Hertfordshire town of Potters Bar in her white BMW 220D.
>
> The prosecution could not say that Kaya was using the social media app at the moment of the collision, but they found that there was a 30 second gap between her using the app and the moment the 25-year-old called 999.
>
> Unfortunately, Mr Hart-Leverton died eight days later on December 29 2019 in The Royal London Hospital.
>
> Kaya was reported to have said in the witness box: “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane. After that moment something happened. All I remember was my car coming into the ditch and my glass breaking.
>
> “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.”
>
> Kaya pleaded not guilty for both death caused by dangerous driving as well as death caused by careless driving but the judge deemed that she was “distracted by text messages” despite her protest of “No, it was not.”

Was this some new sort of Crown Court where the judge decides the
verdict as well as determining the penalty?

> Kaya will be sentenced on October 14 2022 by Judge Lana Wood.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/snapchat-driver-guilty-killing-cyclist-295905
>

On 14/09/2022 12:37 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 14/09/2022 09:12, Spike wrote:
>> HRH Prince Del Boy <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the
>>> other side of the road. I really don't know what else you'd need to
>>> do to be more dangerous.
>
>>> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
>
>> “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”
>
> If you bothered to look up Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath on a map,
> you might notice that it is not a dual carriageway.

You are right. It's a typical semi-rural single-carriageway road with
lanes about 11' or 12" wide.

Any idea what road.cc meant, then, when one of their notoriously
semi-literate contributors wrote:

"A driver who strayed into the opposite carriageway..."?

A puzzle, isn't it?

>
>> Why did the cyclist take such a road position?
>
> Where else should the cyclist have been?
>
>>> I hope she never drives again.
>>
>> Typical petty vindictiveness on your part.
>
> Pity it wasn't a 44 tonner that was approaching in "her lane".

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

I can imagine here, that the lack of definitive proof of phone use at time of impact will have been clung to by members of the jury, uncomfortable with the reality of potentially committing a 'nice young lady' to 8 years in prison.

'Here by the grace of god' is very much a factor for jurors in these cases, and this is a prime example where reasonable judgement has been lost due to personal bias.

The lack of guilty plea won't have helped as jurors will know that guilty verdicts will result in higher sentences.

Personally, I think an admission of earlier phone use, the mere 30 seconds gap between proven phone use and 999 dial, and the lack of memory of the impact (other than noting the cyclist was deviating from their line, natch), is proof beyond reasonable doubt, but hey ho, I'm not on the jury.

Urgent rethink needed for how these cases are dealt with.

OldRidgeback replied to chrisonatrike | 4193 posts | 4 hours ago
2 likes
It wasn't an accident. It was a fatal crash caused by a total lack of care on the part of the driver

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 [SIC] 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

I would interperet [SIC] the 2 statements above as definite proof that any
normal person would be appreciative of the lady concerned getting to the
cyclist in only 30 seconds after crashing into a ditch with sufficient
force to break her window glass.

Perhaps you’d like to have a go and see how well you do.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can imagine here, that the lack of definitive proof of phone use at
> time of impact will have been clung to by members of the jury,
> uncomfortable with the reality of potentially committing a 'nice young
> lady' to 8 years in prison.
>
> 'Here by the grace of god' is very much a factor for jurors in these
> cases, and this is a prime example where reasonable judgement has been
> lost due to personal bias.
>
> The lack of guilty plea won't have helped as jurors will know that guilty
> verdicts will result in higher sentences.
>
> Personally, I think an admission of earlier phone use, the mere 30
> seconds gap between proven phone use and 999 dial, and the lack of memory
> of the impact (other than noting the cyclist was deviating from their
> line, natch), is proof beyond reasonable doubt, but hey ho, I'm not on the jury.

> Urgent rethink needed for how these cases are dealt with.
Your moronic advice seems to be ‘plead guilty even if you didn’t do it’.

--
Spike

From the IAM.

https://iamwebsite.blob.core.windows.net/media/images/default-source/landing-pages/infotainment/iam-roadsmart-and-trl---reaction-times---march-2020---padding44031e85032968e9a61eff00000def30.jpg?sfvrsn=db2a765c_4

I'd consider that whether or not she was on SnapChat is just an aggravating factor - driving on the opposite side of the carriageway and hitting someone/something is clearly far below the standard of a careful and competent driver. It beggars belief that she was found not guilty of dangerous driving and I wonder what kind of instructions were given to the jury.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd consider that whether or not she was on SnapChat is just an
> aggravating factor - driving on the opposite side of the carriageway and
> hitting someone/something is clearly far below the standard of a careful
> and competent driver. It beggars belief that she was found not guilty of
> dangerous driving and I wonder what kind of instructions were given to the jury.
Can you (general) give instructions to a jury?

Whatever can stop them disobeying such instructions once they are in the
jury room?

--
Spike

And another case that makes me think we really should make dangerous vs careless a matter of sentencing guidelines not different offences.

Instead having (at least) two offences classes where the difference is mens rea/intentional acts;

Hit a rider as a nurse when driving while too tired after long shift - negligent but not intentional. Also low level speeding, failing to look properly, etc. A lot of minor offences that can be fixed with training (and probably become a lot less likely after the incident reminds people why they were trained to do X/Y/Z - because once in a blue moon it prevents a potentially serious incident).

Hit a rider while using phone - specific example of intentional negligence (recklessness) (but not mens rea) (also knowingly driving with uncorrected vision, high level speeding (going 40 in a 30 can be error in reading signs; Doing 100 in a 30 is clearly intentional...). You made an active decision to break the law but didn't intend to hurt someone.

Hit a rider by driving at them after making death threats etc - mens rea - Should be automatic driving ban + mandatory requirement to get psychologist to sign off on you ever driving again (and black box, vehicle restrictions (weight, speed, acceleration), etc).

The first can be improved with training (and the incident will likely help because people are likely to take fewer risks); For the last training is completely irrelevent.

Yet we basically treat all the same with the difference in penalties being strongly based on outcome

On 14/09/2022 14:01, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 09:12, Spike wrote:
>>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the
>>>> other side of the road. I really don't know what else you'd need to
>>>> do to be more dangerous.
>>>
>>>> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
>>>
>>> “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”
>>
>> If you bothered to look up Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath on a map,
>> you might notice that it is not a dual carriageway.
>>
>>> Why did the cyclist take such a road position?
>>
>> Where else should the cyclist have been?
>
> You need to ask? Good grief.

I have developed the habit of driving and cycling on the left, which
seems to have worked so far.

It would be interesting to know what you think I'm doing wrong.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> And another case that makes me think we really should make dangerous vs
> careless a matter of sentencing guidelines not different offences.
>
> Instead having (at least) two offences classes where the difference is
> mens rea/intentional acts;
>
> Hit a rider as a nurse when driving while too tired after long shift -
> negligent but not intentional. Also low level speeding, failing to look
> properly, etc. A lot of minor offences that can be fixed with training
> (and probably become a lot less likely after the incident reminds people
> why they were trained to do X/Y/Z - because once in a blue moon it
> prevents a potentially serious incident).
>
> Hit a rider while using phone - specific example of intentional
> negligence (recklessness) (but not mens rea) (also knowingly driving with
> uncorrected vision, high level speeding (going 40 in a 30 can be error in
> reading signs; Doing 100 in a 30 is clearly intentional...). You made an
> active decision to break the law but didn't intend to hurt someone.
>
> Hit a rider by driving at them after making death threats etc - mens rea
> - Should be automatic driving ban + mandatory requirement to get
> psychologist to sign off on you ever driving again (and black box,
> vehicle restrictions (weight, speed, acceleration), etc).
>
> The first can be improved with training (and the incident will likely
> help because people are likely to take fewer risks); For the last
> training is completely irrelevent.
>
> Yet we basically treat all the same with the difference in penalties
> being strongly based on outcome

This could be applied to the cases of the Didsbury and Dalston killer
cyclists.

--
Spike

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 14:01, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2022 09:12, Spike wrote:
>>>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the
>>>>> other side of the road. I really don't know what else you'd need to
>>>>> do to be more dangerous.
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
>>>>
>>>> “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”
>>>
>>> If you bothered to look up Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath on a map,
>>> you might notice that it is not a dual carriageway.
>>>
>>>> Why did the cyclist take such a road position?
>>>
>>> Where else should the cyclist have been?
>>
>> You need to ask? Good grief.
>
> I have developed the habit of driving and cycling on the left, which
> seems to have worked so far.
>
> It would be interesting to know what you think I'm doing wrong.

I’m more interested in finding out why the cyclist was veering into the
car’s path than discussing your irrelevance.

--
Spike

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.

On 15/09/2022 18:31, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 14:01, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/2022 09:12, Spike wrote:
>>>>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The newspaper story makes it clear that her car strayed into the
>>>>>> other side of the road. I really don't know what else you'd need to
>>>>>> do to be more dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong side of the road. Oblivious to oncoming traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> “The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane”
>>>>
>>>> If you bothered to look up Dancers Hill Road, Bentley Heath on a map,
>>>> you might notice that it is not a dual carriageway.
>>>>
>>>>> Why did the cyclist take such a road position?
>>>>
>>>> Where else should the cyclist have been?
>>>
>>> You need to ask? Good grief.
>>
>> I have developed the habit of driving and cycling on the left, which
>> seems to have worked so far.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know what you think I'm doing wrong.
>
> I’m more interested in finding out why the cyclist was veering into the
> car’s path than discussing your irrelevance.

Good grief.