4 years seems far too harsh to me. Yes she shouldn't of been texting but ultimatly it was the cyclists fault for jumping a red.

make the arguement easy.

take away the mobile phone.

take away the fact he was on a bike.

a person who had stopped, looked both ways and then crossed the road was hit by a lady driving a car doing 45 in a 30 zone. Dangerous Driving. Jail. Full Stop

This seems madness. Cyclist goes through red light and as a result ends up dead. Allegedly, Ms Coultas is both speeding (how much?) and texting. Absolutely prosecute her for dangerous driving or without due care and attention but effectively the sentence she's been handed is more in line with manslaughter. The real question is should the 19yo cyclist have burst the red light. I worry about this verdict because there are already enough nutters on both sides of the argument who'll use this to antagonize the situation and make cycling even more dangerous. Bottom line for me is we (cyclists) must obey the rules of the road if we want to be allowed use them.

I think the blame lies equally on both sides here. The driver deserves jail for speeding and texting simultaneously. The cyclist jumped a red light and took his chances (and incidentally was not wearing a lid).

The speeding is irrelevant, he was going to get killed if she'd hit him at 30...

She's a prat for using her phone and I've regularly showed my disgust to other drivers I've seen doing this. That said, I'm equally vocal and annoyed about idiots without helments/redlight jumping...

This is tragic for all involved but 4 years!?

As my Mum always taught me as a child, two wrongs don't make a right!

I think all cyclist's should be pleased that the judge has seen the seriousness of her offence and handed down a logical and reasonable sentence, despite the actions of the cyclist being also illegal. It acknowledges that she is in charge of a potentially deadly weapon and she was driving without due care and attention, speeding and using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, thus breaking UK law on at least THREE counts.

I suspect that the judge took all these things, including the cyclists illegal actions, into consideration when handing down the sentence. After all, lets say she had not hit a cyclist but a child who had suddenly run out into the road chasing a football or an elderly person who as taking slightly longer to cross the road even though the lights were green. I suspect she would have been looking at more like 6 to 8 years and deservedly so! Also, what if it was the other way round and she had jumped the light and he was going through at green... I also think at least 6 to 10 years!

How many times have we seen judges NOT apply this type of logic to sentencing people when they have killed cyclists in the past?

Also, don't forget she will probably serve her time in an low category prison and if she behaves herself could be out in less than half that time!

She broke the law on THREE counts and has paid the price for dong so, the cyclist broke the law on one count but he ended up paying the ultimate price! There is a lesson in this for both motorists and cyclists!

I suspect that had she not been using a mobile phone whilst driving the sentence would heve been be much less. I think its part of the zero tolerance of using mobiles driving campaign, rather then a vindication of the injustice of kiling the cyclist. If you jump red lights you are inviting an accident, and therefore must be partly culpable.

Texting while sitting in one's livingroom, kitchen or office is one thing, but texting while driving is careless, reckless and mindless. There's no way one can commandeer a vehicle while texting, and common sense should ring loud and clear that mixing the two can and will have dire consequences more often than not.

Driving a car itself is a multi-tasking effort that should require one's undivided attention. Here in California, a hands-free law is going into affect in July 2008. Thank God. It won't keep people from breaking the law, but it'll get people thinking.

Let's see some social justice on the roads, eh?

It wasn't ultimately the cyclist's fault at all. If he hadn't gone through the red light then yes the accident wouldn't have happened. If the driver wasn't staring at her phone instead of looking where she was going AND been travelling at a slower speed, ie 30mph, she would have seen the cyclist and been able to slow down/stop to avoid the collision. Fault lies with both parties. If it was your child that had run out into the road chasing a ball would it have been ultimately your child's fault for running out into the road? This is why speed limits are in force. IF the unexpected suddenly happens you have a chance to slow down/stop to avoid a collision with something - be it a kid running into the road/dog/cyclist/pedestrian/other vehicles. But then again if motorists are too busy looking at their mobile phone instead of watching the road then watch chance does anyone have? It annoys me that motoring culture seems to be 'i'm in my car, everyone gets out of my way and hard luck if you don't'. Doesn't work like that. When you're driving you have as much responsibility to prevent injuring someone else as well as looking after your own interests. So, that means if a cyclist/another vehicle goes through a red light or a kid runs into the road then as a driver you make sure you're driving at a speed that allows you to stop should the unexpected happen. Driving at 45mph in a 30mph zone is bad enough but texting as well? Deserves all she got.

A cyclist who jumps a red light can die being hit at 30mph by a driver who is concentrating fully.

A cyclist who waits at the red lights will not be hit by the car doing 30mph or 45mph.

Yes but she won't do 4 years. 2 at the most for killing someone, 4 would seem fairer. Yes the cyclist was an idiot for jumping a red light but for that he has paid the ultimate price. Tougher sentences might make a lot of people think before they reach for their mobiles in future while driving. Once your behind the wheel you have to accept that your in charge of a lethal weapon. And as for the "He wasn't wearing a lid" argument, what a load of codswallop.

"If it was your child that had run out into the road chasing a ball would it have been ultimately your child's fault for running out into the road?"

Erm... Yes, of course it would, at least partly.

The simple fact is that this is a shared responsibility - the accident would not have happened had both parties been obeying the law. There are speed limits and rules against texting while driving, and there are traffic signals for the same reason. No, it's not fair that one party dies and the other gets four years, but that does not absolve the cyclist of part of the responsibility, and giving the driver a longer sentence won't bring him back.

So let's not text, speed or jump red lights. It's pretty simple, no?

"make the arguement easy.

take away the mobile phone.

take away the fact he was on a bike.

a person who had stopped, looked both ways and then crossed the road was hit by a lady driving a car doing 45 in a 30 zone. Dangerous Driving. Jail. Full Stop "

Okay - and let's also make the cyclist an orphan on his way to save the dolphins, and imagine it was Hitler driving the car.

What's your point? He DIDN'T look both ways, he shot a red light.

A cyclist who jumps a red light can die being hit at 30mph by a driver who is concentrating fully.

4 paltry years for killing an innocent cyclist cos she couldn't be bothered to pull over for texting?

Another case where the killer gets off very easily, and as stoobyvale has stated, she will only serve two years.

Disgusting!!