Daniel Straker Trial: Driver Says He Didn’t See Pedestrian Kewal Singh Dhesi Before Deadly Collision in Ettingshall, Wolverhampton – Court Hears Van Driver Deny Causing Death by Careless Driving.

WOLVERHAMPTON, UK – A tragic collision on a quiet residential street has led to a deeply emotional trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court, where a van driver maintains that he never saw the pedestrian he struck until it was too late. The case centers on the death of 72-year-old Kewal Singh Dhesi, who was hit by a van on November 4, 2014, in Ettingshall, Wolverhampton, and later succumbed to his injuries.

The driver, 53-year-old Daniel Straker, of Graiseley Lane, Wednesfield, has been charged with causing death by careless driving—a charge he vehemently denies. Throughout the proceedings, Straker has offered a consistent and remorseful account: he simply did not see Mr. Dhesi before the impact. This case explores the complex legal and human dimensions of the “looked-but-failed-to-see” phenomenon, a tragic occurrence in road traffic accidents where a driver’s honest perception fails to register an obstacle directly in their path .

The Incident: A Fatal Turn on Parkfield Road

The court heard that the fatal collision occurred as Straker was driving his van along Parkfield Road in Ettingshall, a suburban area of Wolverhampton. The specific location was the junction with Myatt Avenue. According to testimony, Straker was attempting to turn from Parkfield Road into Myatt Avenue when the accident happened.

It was at this moment that Kewal Singh Dhesi was crossing the road or was near the vehicle’s path. The impact, described by collision investigators as producing “soft dents to the front of the vehicle, near the headlights on the driver’s side,” proved catastrophic for the elderly pedestrian. Mr. Dhesi was rushed to a hospital but died from his injuries .

Immediately following the crash, Straker remained at the scene. Witnesses and police investigators noted that the driver appeared to be in a state of shock. He was cooperative with emergency services and later voluntarily participated in extensive interviews with the police, maintaining the same position he holds today in court.

The Driver’s Testimony: “I Didn’t See Him”

Taking the stand in his own defense, Daniel Straker provided a detailed account of the moments leading up to the crash. He described the traffic conditions on Parkfield Road at the time of the incident as “quite busy.” As he approached the junction to turn left onto Myatt Avenue, he recalled interacting with another motorist.

“Another driver flashed me to go through,” Straker explained to the jury. Believing the road was clear and that he had been given the right of way by the oncoming traffic, he began his maneuver. “When I went to turn, the road was clear. The first time I saw Mr. Singh was when I hit him and he went backwards” .

Straker was emphatic that he was driving in a normal, responsible manner. He stressed to the jury that he was not rushing, nor was he intoxicated. “I was just driving in the normal way,” he said. “I was in shock.” The court heard that Straker had held a full driver’s license for 35 years at the time of the accident, working professionally as a lorry driver for Tufnells in Brierley Hill. His only prior driving infractions were two speeding convictions, which occurred years before the fatal collision .

Expressing deep sorrow, Straker addressed the court regarding the loss of Mr. Dhesi. “I’m truly sorry for what happened to Mr. Singh. I’m sorry for the family’s loss,” he said. However, he maintained that his driving behavior was not careless. “I took the bend correctly and responsibly. If I drove there today, I would do it exactly the same way. I don’t know what more I can say” .

The Science of “Looked but Failed to See”

The defense’s case was significantly bolstered by the testimony of vehicle collision experts. Two experts, Robert Seston and PC Mark Weaver, took the stand to analyze the physics and visibility constraints of Straker’s van during the left-hand turn.

Their findings pointed to a specific, dangerous phenomenon known as the “A-pillar blind spot.” The A-pillars are the vertical supports on either side of a vehicle’s windshield that hold the roof up. In modern vehicles, these pillars have become thicker to meet rollover safety standards, but this thickness creates a significant blind spot, particularly when a vehicle is turning.

The experts agreed that as Straker turned left onto Myatt Avenue, his view of the crossing area would have been obstructed by the driver’s side A-pillar. They posited that Mr. Dhesi’s position relative to the van likely kept him perfectly hidden behind this pillar as the vehicle pivoted through the turn .

Despite agreeing that Straker’s view was obstructed, the experts did tell the court that Straker’s specific claim—that he didn’t see the victim until after he hit him—”could not have been correct” in a strict optical sense. They suggested that while the pedestrian may have been obscured initially, the driver should have registered him at some point. However, they conceded that even if Straker had seen Mr. Dhesi a split-second earlier, there may not have been sufficient time for the driver to react, apply the brakes, or swerve to avoid the collision .

The Victim: Kewal Singh Dhesi

While much of the trial focuses on the driver’s state of mind, the court has also heard emotional testimony regarding the victim, 72-year-old Kewal Singh Dhesi. Described by family members as a beloved member of the community, Mr. Dhesi was a pedestrian exercising his right to use the roadway. Under UK law, pedestrians do not have an automatic right of way everywhere, but drivers owe a duty of care to all vulnerable road users.

The prosecution has argued that regardless of the A-pillar obstruction, a competent and careful driver should have been aware of the potential presence of pedestrians when turning at a junction. They noted that the damage to the van—specifically the “soft dents” near the headlight—indicated that the van was moving at a speed where stopping should have been possible if a proper lookout had been maintained.

In contrast, the defense barrister, Mr. Gurdeep Garcha, urged the jury to separate the tragic outcome from the question of legal guilt. “You have heard from the experts that the pedestrian, like the driver, has a duty of care to check that it is safe to cross. It wasn’t a zebra crossing, there was no priority for the pedestrian,” Garcha argued. “You have to decide if this was careless driving, or just a tragic accident. Just because a man has died as a result of this terrible incident, it doesn’t mean that somebody has to be guilty and there must be someone to blame” .

Legal Context: Careless Driving vs. Tragic Accident

This trial highlights a difficult distinction in UK traffic law: the line between a tragic accident and the criminal offense of causing death by careless driving. Careless driving (often referred to as “driving without due care and attention”) implies that the driver’s conduct fell below the standard expected of a competent driver. This is a lower threshold than dangerous driving, which requires a more serious deviation from standard driving practices.

In this case, the prosecution must prove that Straker’s actions—specifically his failure to see Mr. Dhesi—constituted a lapse of attention that a reasonable driver would not have made. The defense counters that Straker was paying attention; he checked the road, saw the “all clear” signal from the other driver, and began his turn. The fact that Mr. Dhesi was invisible due to the A-pillar, they argue, does not make Straker careless; it makes the situation an unavoidable tragedy.

Community Reaction and Road Safety Implications

The case has resonated deeply in Ettingshall and the broader West Midlands community. Local residents have expressed mixed feelings. Some sympathize with Straker, noting that the junction at Myatt Avenue and Parkfield Road can be tricky, especially with modern vehicle designs creating large blind spots. Others mourn the loss of Mr. Dhesi, arguing that drivers must be hyper-vigilant in residential areas.

As the trial continues, the jury is tasked with a heavy responsibility. They must decide whether Daniel Straker is a criminal who caused death through negligence, or a grieving driver who was involved in a tragic but unavoidable accident. They will have to weigh the expert testimony regarding the A-pillar against the simple, devastating fact that a 72-year-old man lost his life.

Straker remains on bail as the trial proceeds. He continues to deny the charge of causing death by careless driving. The court is expected to hear closing arguments from the prosecution and defense before the jury is sent out for deliberation.