Driver in fatal crash cleared of careless driving after trial
A LORRY driver has been cleared of careless driving when his articulated vehicle was in a fatal collision with a cyclist on the A40 near Carmarthen.
Christopher Shapland, 28, from Brecon, denied causing the death of Olin Poulson — a 20-year-old student from Pencader — by driving without due care and attention during the early evening of September 3 last year.
He was found not guilty yesterday by a jury at Swansea Crown Court.
The prosecution case was that Mr Shapland was driving at a "grossly excessive" speed, and distracted by his hands-free mobile phone, at the time of the collision.
The speed limit for lorries was 40mph, but — according to tachograph evidence — Mr Shapland's 45ft vehicle was doing 52mph when it struck Mr Poulson near the High Noon service station at White Mill.
The court heard that on the evening in question Mr Poulson had gone out for a bike ride with his mother, Mary Poulson.
Mr Shapland overtook Mrs Poulson then struck Olin Poulson as the latter prepared to turn right into the garage.
Yesterday, in his closing speech to the jury, prosecutor Ian Wright alleged that if Shapland had been travelling at the maximum speed of 40mph, he would have been able to bring the lorry to a complete halt.
"If he'd obeyed the law and driven within the speed limit, Mr Poulson would not have been hit off his bike," claimed the barrister.
"Fairly compelling evidence" in the case, added Mr Wright, was the fact that the lorry had been 86 metres away from the point of collision when Mr Poulson had begun to cycle from the left-hand kerbside to the middle of the road.
It was also significant, said Mr Wright, that a motorist had seen Mr Poulson with his right arm extended, signalling his intention to turn, at the time of the collision.
Giving evidence earlier this week, Mr Shapland said that on the evening in question his lorry was laden with agricultural machinery.
Asked how fast he thought he was travelling, he replied: "40 to 45mph."
Mr Shapland said that, after seeing the two cyclists, he moved to the off-side lane to overtake the first of them, Mrs Poulson.
He had been using his hands-free phone, but he had stopped talking to concentrate on overtaking.
But Mr Poulson suddenly "stuck his hand out as if he wanted to turn right" and started to move across the carriageway, the court heard. "He crossed the road," said Mr Shapland.
"He did not look behind him and he struck the side of my lorry. I was trying to move away from the cyclist coming across the road towards me."
Defence counsel, Frank Phillips, addressing the jury, said yesterday: "The cyclist turned across his path in a short moment of time."
Not even a careful and competent motorist could cater for the unpredictable, added the barrister.
At the end of the case, Judge Keith Thomas turned to the public gallery and said he wished to extend his sympathy to the Poulson family following last year's tragedy.
9 Comments
View all
by deargwalia
Sunday, November 20 2011, 6:52PM
“Whilst a combination of unfortunate events led to this incident, speeding and using a mobile telephone unfortunately amount to dangerous driving and how a court of law decided otherwise is beyond comprehension.
Sadly this young man has a series of driving offences under his belt and is remorseless and arrogant in his attitude towards this tragic event. His family are routinely ashamed and devastated by his disgusting behaviour and most are astounded that he didn't receive the sentence they felt he deserved.
I'm sure there are no words to describe how wronged the Poulson family must feel, my deepest sympathies for your loss.”
by Somaken
Wednesday, November 16 2011, 5:07PM
“I can't see any "Bile and vitriol" in any of the comments here and this isn't directed against lorry drivers who have a massively stressful job to do.
I think we're all horrified by what happened and some of us are really angry that Christopher Shapland was proved to have been speeding while involved in a fatal accident, yet has been cleared of careless driving.
The fact that he linked to a Facebook page that advocates speeding (which he has since removed) is relevant given the circumstances as it demonstrates that his speeding on the day of the accident was not likely to have been a one-off, and if the jury had known of this they MAY have reconsidered their verdict.”
by SwanseaLassie
Sunday, November 13 2011, 5:44PM
“You can quote from the prosecution barrister as much as you like, but he is bound to say that because he wants a guilty verdict. The case has been heard and taking ALL the evidence into account, the jury decided it was NOT Mr Shapland's fault. If it was my child, I would be devestated, but I would not want somebody to be punished for an accident which was not their fault. Mr Poulson did NOT look behind him and only briefly signalled before turning into the offside carriageway and into the side of the lorry. Why else would Mr Shapland have mounted the kerb on the other side of the road to try to avoid him?
We are all aware of the dangers on our roads, but it is not just large vehicles that pose a threat. A cyclist can cause an accident as much as anyone else. Bile and vitriol is not helpful.
Oh, and it is completely irrelevant what Mr Shapland has or has not got on his Facebook page and I wonder why you feel you have any right to look at it?!”
by siarad2
Sunday, November 13 2011, 11:10AM
“"If he'd obeyed the law and driven within the speed limit, Mr Poulson would not have been hit off his bike," claimed the barrister.
The cyclist probably assumed the speed limit was being obeyed & had time to turn, in any event the lorry shouldn't have been overtaking past a large entrance or exit.
86m away when the cyclist signalled & he couldn't stop! at 40mph he'd stop in under half of that distance & easily at 52mph, no wonder I'm scared when these dangerous vehicles get so close behind me.
What did the court know we don't.
Not even a speeding fine?
I've seen people crossing roads in towns unexpectedly having to run because of speeding motorists.
My sympathies for the family & friends”
by Jailspeeders
Sunday, November 13 2011, 12:26AM
“Disgusting. If you kill when speeding you should automatically be found guilty. No ifs, no buts.”