Login Register

Can't stop texting: Lorry driver caught sexting lover while driving leaves court on the phone

By PWhitelam_LE  |  Posted: October 23, 2013

Can't stop texting: Lorry driver caught sexting lover whilst driving leaves court on the phone

Ian Wood left court on his mobile phone

Comments (13)

A lorry driver who exchanged saucy texts with his lover while driving through Lincolnshire villages on wet roads has been found guilty of dangerous driving.

As Ian Wood, 43, approached Welbourn one morning doing around 46mph he texted her: “Don’t give me a hard winkle.”

In Navenby, this was followed by more salacious messages as he drove at 40mph.

Then at Bracebridge Heath he sent a message urging her to: “Head to Lincoln on the A15 and wait in the first lay-by you come to.”

The meeting planned for later that day never happened because at 8.51am on November 3 last year Wood was involved in a fatal collision on the A46 just past the Welton turn-off.

Special constable Scott Bennett lost control of his car and was killed.

Wood did not cause the crash and the last text to or from his phone was 13 minutes beforehand.

However, Lincoln Magistrates’ Court heard police checked Wood’s phone and the vehicle’s tachograph and discovered the messages and the speeds he had been driving.

The court heard other messages referred to a hotel the lovers had visited the previous day.

He texted: “Hope you found it OK.”, to which she replied: “I did thanks. God it’s really nice.”

Then at 7.56am he wrote: “Yeah, it posh. Just went past it 10 minutes ago.”

Wood, of Wegberg Road, Nocton, denied dangerous driving on November 3 on the A607, the A15 and Great Northern Terrace, in Lincoln.

Wood has been disqualified from driving for 15 months, ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work and will pay a £60 victim surcharge and £100 costs.

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters

13 comments

  • matttye  |  October 25 2013, 7:32PM

    Roadscource, Perhaps you need to read the article again. Specifically this bit: "However, Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard police checked Wood's phone and the vehicle's tachograph and discovered the messages and the speeds he had been driving." The clear implication being that the tacograph and corresponding times on the messages showed he was texting whilst driving and also speeding. This isn't simply a case where the only evidence of any dangerous driving is that a message was sent 13 minutes before the accident. The accident is what caused them to investigate further, but this chap was speeding and texting on his phone at the same time! If that's not dangerous, what on earth is!?

    Rate   2
    Report
  • Captain_Blue  |  October 24 2013, 6:06PM

    I don't see how he can be a scapegoat. There is absolutely no suggestion that he was in any way responsible for the death of the other driver. If there had not been an incident then he would probably have carried on texting all the way to his destination. He was unlucky in that he got caught up in an incident, which ended up with the police finding that he had been driving dangerously. That's why he is a culprit. I personally think he was lucky in that he got caught and will now have time to reflect on the fact that texting whilst driving is reprehensible behaviour. And lucky that he has not actually caused any injury due to his behaviour. Yet. And you are right. Texting shouldn't be allowed.

    Rate   6
    Report
  • Roadscource  |  October 24 2013, 5:31PM

    "the last text to or from his phone was 13 minutes beforehand" I hope i never get a text message and then jump into my car thirteen minutes later or i too may drive dangerously, i had no idea texting could have such a prolonged detrimental affect on my ability to drive. Surely texting shouldnt be allowed at all?

    Rate   3
    Report
  • Roadscource  |  October 24 2013, 5:27PM

    "but you, and others, do seem to be trying to defend the culprit" Culprit or scapegoat........you decide.

    Rate   2
    Report
  • Captain_Blue  |  October 24 2013, 3:08PM

    @Roadscource He was approaching Welbourn; single carriageway road, doing 46mph, in a lorry. I'll allow you the point, if the lorry was not more than 7.5tonnes laden. Otherwise he was breaking the speed limit for his vehicle. "And whilst we are on the subject, why dont emergency vehicles have tachographs so we can ascertain their status within the law at the time of an accident?" Why should they? The law requires tachos for certain classes of vehicle. Unless you want a tacho in your own car, why should a police car have one? I am not defending the police here (hardly surprising as they aren't on trial), but you, and others, do seem to be trying to defend the culprit.

    Rate   -1
    Report
  • Roadscource  |  October 24 2013, 2:01PM

    "I wish people would read the whole story before commenting". Why doesnt this also apply to you Captain_blue? Where does the story state "he was speeding"? And whilst we are on the subject, why dont emergency vehicles have tachographs so we can ascertain their status within the law at the time of an accident?

    Rate 0
    Report
  • Captain_Blue  |  October 24 2013, 11:30AM

    Fair enough Wilfy, but if these facts were disclosed in open court, and a journalist wrote them down, they are fully entitled to report them.

    Rate   -2
    Report
  • Wilfy  |  October 24 2013, 11:17AM

    I fully agree with you captain_blue, the point I was trying to make is the actual contents of the texts should not have been published. As I understand it your mobile will be checked as a matter of course if you are involved in a serious accident anyhow.

    Rate   5
    Report
  • Captain_Blue  |  October 24 2013, 10:42AM

    I wish people would read the whole story before commenting. He was involved in the crash, albeit not his fault. Therefore the police were fully justified in checking the contents of his mobile phone, because until they did check there was the possibility that he might have been using it at the time of the crash. Having checked both his phone and his tacho they then matched up the time's at which he was speeding with the times he was texting. So they proved his dangerous driving. So the contents of his text are entirely germane to this case. If they had just randomly stopped a driver and insisted on checking the phone, or managed to get a warrant to check the records of a randomly selected person, then I would agree they were out of order. I'm guessing that his phone was on the dashboard or immediately at hand when the police turned up. If you don't want your phone to be checked; don't use it. Keep it switched off and out of reach whilst you drive. Simples. And what the hell has Brussels got to do with it?

    Rate   4
    Report
  • Wilfy  |  October 24 2013, 9:54AM

    One of the most disgusting things I have read... how dare they publish personal things like that. The contents of their texts have absolutely nothing to do with the case.

    Rate   4
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES

       
       
       

      MOST POPULAR