Special Constable on the phone at time of collision

[Nigel Worc's]

XCP said:

La Liga said:

Most police officers (probably all) are of the opinion the CPS are much more likely to send police officers to court. I've seen some shockers go to court where there was no chance of a conviction when a police officer has been the accused.

Agreed. I too have seen cases prosecuted that would not have got through the charge room door, but for the fact that the suspect was a Police Officer.

From what I've read, and it is only my opinion, I feel she has been investigated much more harshly than a member of the public would have been.

I feel that the investigating officer, and the inspector, have been a little less professional than I would have hoped for.

They are entitled to their opinions of course, but shouldn't seek to represent them as anything other than opinions.

For me, the crucial statements are those from the witnesses, especially the van driver.

I still feel sad someone died, and for his family, but he does seem largely to blame for that himself.

As an ex special constable, I feel there are two main issues here, firstly, people do seem to always try to defend cyclists and motorcyclists for being out of position, and secondly, in my experience, with a very few regular officers, specials can do no right.

[singlecoil]

Nigel Worc's said:

XCP said:

La Liga said:

Most police officers (probably all) are of the opinion the CPS are much more likely to send police officers to court. I've seen some shockers go to court where there was no chance of a conviction when a police officer has been the accused.

Agreed. I too have seen cases prosecuted that would not have got through the charge room door, but for the fact that the suspect was a Police Officer.

From what I've read, and it is only my opinion, I feel she has been investigated much more harshly than a member of the public would have been.

I feel that the investigating officer, and the inspector, have been a little less professional than I would have hoped for.

They are entitled to their opinions of course, but shouldn't seek to represent them as anything other than opinions.

For me, the crucial statements are those from the witnesses, especially the van driver.

I still feel sad someone died, and for his family, but he does seem largely to blame for that himself.

As an ex special constable, I feel there are two main issues here, firstly, people do seem to always try to defend cyclists and motorcyclists for being out of position, and secondly, in my experience, with a very few regular officers, specials can do no right.

It does seem that some here believe that having a phone on your lap, and talking to someone on it is much, much worse that 'overtaking several cars' (how fast would one need to be going to achieve that?) at a junction.

[davemac250]

Ah, but what would have happened if it had been a police motorbike...

Let the ranting commence.

[Nigel Worc's]

davemac250 said:

Ah, but what would have happened if it had been a police motorbike...

Let the ranting commence.

Mods ......... Mods ....... a troublemaker !

[Dibble]

singlecoil said:

It does seem that some here believe that having a phone on your lap, and talking to someone on it is much, much worse that 'overtaking several cars' (how fast would one need to be going to achieve that?) at a junction.

It depends how fast the cars were travelling. If they were nose to tail, stop start, a motorcyclist at 20mph would pass loads.

[Dibble]

Accident/collision investigators are usually regarded as an "expert witness" and are therefore entitled to give evidence of opinion (relating to their area of expertise) at court.

[singlecoil]

Dibble said:

singlecoil said:

It does seem that some here believe that having a phone on your lap, and talking to someone on it is much, much worse that 'overtaking several cars' (how fast would one need to be going to achieve that?) at a junction.

It depends how fast the cars were travelling. If they were nose to tail, stop start, a motorcyclist at 20mph would pass loads.

Witness reports say the traffic was at a steady 30mph (I have a feeling a poster said earlier that there was a temporary 30mph limit in force at the time. He was overtaking two cars and a van.

[Nigel Worc's]

Dibble said:

Accident/collision investigators are usually regarded as an "expert witness" and are therefore entitled to give evidence of opinion (relating to their area of expertise) at court.

IF he'd had any evidence, the young lady would've been in court !

[singlecoil]

Nigel Worc's said:

Dibble said:

Accident/collision investigators are usually regarded as an "expert witness" and are therefore entitled to give evidence of opinion (relating to their area of expertise) at court.

IF he'd had any evidence, the young lady would've been in court !

Indeed, and such evidence as was available, from actual witnesses, indicated that there would have been no case to answer.

[anonymous-user]

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

[Dibble]

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

[singlecoil]

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

[sunoco69]

Still say "Round them up, put em in a field..........

[XDA]

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

Why the sudden backtrack?

Where did I take it as fact?

[singlecoil]

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

Why the sudden backtrack?

Where did I take it as fact?

There's no backtrack, it has only ever been an opinion, it has never been evidence because there's hasn't been a court case.

As for the last question, I didn't say I meant you, but I guess you've tried that hat on and found that it fitted perfectly .

[vonhosen]

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

It was just his opinion.

[XDA]

vonhosen said:

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

It was just his opinion.

Which "has weight" in court and is admissible?

[vonhosen]

XDA said:

vonhosen said:

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

It was just his opinion.

Which "has weight" in court and is admissible?

Only in his area of expertise.

[XDA]

singlecoil said:

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

Why the sudden backtrack?

Where did I take it as fact?

There's no backtrack, it has only ever been an opinion, it has never been evidence because there's hasn't been a court case.

As for the last question, I didn't say I meant you, but I guess you've tried that hat on and found that it fitted perfectly .

An opinion from an expert witness, who's word could be used in court. You dismissed it as just an opinion.

Who did you mean then? The hat doesn't fit perfectly, it's for a much bigger head. Presumably yours.

[XDA]

vonhosen said:

XDA said:

vonhosen said:

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

Dibble said:

La Liga said:

I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise).

Nearly everybody reading this knew that it was only an opinion, although there was one person who took it as a fact, but that was because he has an agenda.

Yet you (and a couple of others) dismissed the police accident investigators evidence as just his opinion.

It was just his opinion.

Which "has weight" in court and is admissible?

Only in his area of expertise.

Yes, accident investigation. (As per this whole discussion).