Yet again nothing to do with the satnav ... just poor driving

Where there's a will ... there's a way.

Had he been looking out of the window instead of his 're-calibrating' SatNav he might just have noticed the cross roads and the cyclist. So the sat nav was to blame. It distracted him!
How the hell can "As a result Conlan suffered a lapse in concentration and failed to stop" be mitigating circumstances.

Hopefully it won't be accepted as 'mitigating' ...

But if he's that 'distracted' by something in his car he's to blame, not what distracted him ... my daughter in the back could 'distract' me on most journeys, but I don't let her, and I don't let my satnav, radio etc do so either

Where there's a will ... there's a way.

The only acceptable reason I can think of to be distracted by a satnav when driving is when it does something to put your life in danger - such as explode or catch fire (falling off the windscreen because you failed to secure it doesn't count) - anything else I would be too ashamed to admit, let alone try arguing suitable reason in court

J.

Drive a car into someone, and use satnav as your defence. Use a knife or gun get 15 years, use a car, get off.

Mr.G

This is not the Sat Nav thought - just another poor driver balmaing something for his tragic error!

The law regarding TV's in cars must have changed, not that I have ever picked any up you understand, something about them been located so as not to cause a distraction to the driver.

Intrakota.
What you want, when you want it.

My devices have never warned of cross-roads, the road signs do that. This is no defence at all.

Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom

Jail.

It's a wonder he didn't argue his sat nav never told him about the cyclist. I think the defence lawyer probably suggested that would not be a clever move.

We all make mistakes but this driver seems to have (sadly) gone well away from "reasonable care and attention".

I notice though in the Glasgow evening newspaper today a story about the police attending several court cases for a motorist who went "over" a faded painted mini roundabout.

He refused to pay a £30 fine as the roundabout was badly faded, as agreed by the council. But the police had nothing better to do or enforce other dangerous driving. Meanwhile another 2 big crashes this evening around the city.

And a murder on a bus.

But the roundabout driving case is more easy to persue.....

Depends on the circumstances though. Drivers who don't go around mini roundabouts cause accidents, because other drivers assume they will. If he cut the roundabout causing other traffic to take avoiding action his driving was 'careless' and possibly even 'dangerous' so it's only right that he was prosecuted. I'm sure if he'd hit your car while doing so you'd agree

Where there's a will ... there's a way.