Police charge driver in latest fatal road smash

| 06/12/2011

IMG-20111130-00037.jpg(CNS): An 31-year-old man has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Patrick Raymond Brooks-Dixon appeared in court Tuesday 6 December charged with killing Richard Martin, aged 52, from Pennsylvania, USA, who was a student at St Matthew’s University and living on Grand Cayman. The fatal crash occurred on Esterly Tibbetts Highway in the early hours of Wednesday, 30 November, close to the Lakeside Villas entrance. Martin, who was driving a Honda Logo, was pronounced dead at the scene when his car was hit by Brooks-Dixon in a Chevrolet Blazer. His passenger was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

The driver of the Chevrolet Blazer and his female passenger were also taken to hospital but the driver was later arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and driving under the influence. The man was released on bail after his appearance in summary court.

Martin was the sixth person to be killed on Cayman’s roads this year.

Category: Crime

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Well actually it is not a stupid entrance! The future plans for that road is to have 2 lanes going in each direction with a median which cannot be crossed, meaning when you exit that property you will have to go up to the Camana Bay round about and turn around in order to get to industrial park area. which is the same as when you are exiting the strand and you have to go up to the round about and turn around, or when you exit and enter Safe Haven. Therefore the entrace is actually made so that you can enter and exit correctly! It is just the NRA which has been waiting so long to add the other side of the road (the other 2 lanes) which will be on the side that the dump is on, they have the space to build the road but probably no funds to do so. But hey! I guess a few lives lost means nothing cause they would rather add in a few more round abouts in other places on the island before tackling this problem!!!

    • Dred says:

      So you are going to build something TODAY that is DANGEROUS with the view that SOMETIME out into the future it will be right.

      First and formost is no matter which element persist into the future a STRAIGHT FORWARD IN AND OUT WORKS. However the ASSININE way it was done does not work well now. So now in saying that where is the sense in your arguement? You have no clue whether the 2 lane will ever happen but you do know what you have now.

      I really can not see your argument at all.

      • Whodja Blow says:

        OK, he was very right.  The NRA made it for the future and there are clear signs on the inside of the complex AND the main road showing how to use it.  The fact people blatently defy the law and disregard the signs and put others' lives at risk shows just how ignorant, lazy and selfish they are.

        What is worse, I have watched taxis do this regularly (I believe one such moron is a resident I have seen them so many times) – they are supposed to be professional drivers!!!

        Until the median is built, idiotic mornons will continue to misuse the entrance – the median is going to force them to stop being so selfish and ignorant since they are incapable of following the signs!!!

        It just amazes me how awful the drivers are here and how selfish and ignorant in their practices!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      And the entrance to the new National Gallery is just the same, so do not turn right and use the roundabouts!

  2. The lone Haranguer says:

    Mr Martin is not going to be the last person killed there planning should have never given Naul permission to exit that developpement onto the hiway, but you know how that goes, so that is one down many to go.

    • Anonymous says:

      the developer could have paid for proper entrance but he took the cheap option….as usual….

    • Dred says:

      I have said this before and I will continue to say it. The entry and Exit of Lakeside is disfunctional and HIGHLY DANGEROUS. I have NO CLUE what the developers were thinking. It is by far and away the most STUPID Entry/Exit system I have seen. I am surprised it was approved by planning.

      • Anonymous says:

        nothing wrong with 'left  in left out'….. any other usage is against the law…

      • Anonymous says:

        I disagree totally, it is the drivers who ignore the rules of the road that make it dangerous. Quite simply; No right turn out when exiting, No right turn in when entering. Use the roundabouts, even if it means driving that couple of minutes more. Unfortunately, in the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid".

        • Anonymous says:

          anon 1554, while I agree you cant fix stupid I do not agree that this exit is anything short of amatuer work. You really expect to sell the idea that it is okay to design this appartment complex with that exit. A simple straight out road means that the driver can choose to turn left or right much more efficient. Instead the customers of that complex must drive far down to the road to the turn around and come back.

          My five year old child could do a better job. It is also very alarming that this was approved by planning.


          • Whodja Blow says:

            THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO RIGHT turning out, nor turn in heading south – that is the whole point.  It is morons who fail to see this or choose to ignore it, that are at fault!!!

        • Dred says:

          I say the accidents DISAGREE with you totally. As they say the PROOF is in the pudding. Not words.

    • Anonymous says:

      So what you are saynig is bascially that there should be absolutely no exits or entrances to any property, road or building from any highway – now that is a stupid idea.

      This exit & entrance is actually done very well, the problem is actually the drivers going in or out of it as they do not adhere to the rules of entering only from the Left and exiting only to the left – therefore no crossing of the main road.

      One more thing, where in this article did it mention that this exit had anything to do with this crash. One driver was swerving all over the road (according to the witness)


      • Dred says:

        No it's a messed up system. It's fancy looking and all but what it does is put a strain on an exiting driver to see oncoming vehicles more so than a simple straight entrance would.

        To be honest the LOGIC of this entry is none existent. A straight entry/exit would have worked so much better but someone wanted to be FANCY and what they have done is to create what amounts to a DEATH TRAP.


  3. noname says:

    No DUI charge!

    Yet almost everyone was going on about drunk driving! Look at the 92 comments when the news article first broke. This man Brooks-Dixon has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving only.

    I am sorry that Mr. Martin lost his life but people sure jump on the band wagon about DUI and yet no charge brought by the RCIPS. It was only because of the arrest of Brooks-Dixon on ‘suspicion’ of DUI.

    Public Prosecution, Trial & Sentence is worse than ever.

    Brooks-Dixon will now be tried in Court for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and if found guilty should receive the sentence afforded by Law.

    Condolences again to Mr Martin’s family and friends.

    • Dred says:

      I did not write anything in the initial article but I find your remarks quite silly.

      First let's be clear. The initial report stated "A police spokesperson said the driver  was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and driving under the influence". This means that the issue of alcohol was not fictiously created. There must have also been alcohol present but just not to the level that would have qualified as DUI why it was not charged.

      Now saying this I would make this comment.

      Anyone who goes out and drinks and causes someone life to be taken from them whether legally drunk or not DESERVES THE WRATH of the people on this forum.

      Alcohol and driving do not mix. PLURAL. I could care less if it's a stranger or my best friend, right is right and wrong is wrong, period.

      So don't go railing people for blackguarding someone who was out drinking and then drove home irresponsibly and caused someones death just because he did not meet the legal limit to be prosecuted. I have known people to be under the limit legall and are actually drunk and I have known the other side also. So the limit is a medium. Simply put he deserves to be chewed out for doing what he did whether or not it is chargeable or not.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, I think it would have been better for the driver if he would have been drunk as this would have perhaps explained (NOT EXCUSED) his dangerous driving!

      To think that he drove the way he seemingly did with full consciousness is probably even worse! Just confirms what I said before, drinking is only part of the issue, the dangerous driving is more often due to bad attitude!