Special Constable on the phone at time of collision

[rewc]

She was using the phone which was on loudspeaker in her lap when she collided with a motor cyclist. The Crown Prosecution Service made a decision not to prosecute her following the collision.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10221551.Spe...

[rewc]

Leaving the mobile phone out there are a couple of lessons for motorcyclists and drivers.
Do not to turn right out of a junction unless you can be sure that nothing is overtaking the vehicles you can see approaching from your right. It may seem that you have enough time to complete your turn before the lead vehicle arrives but as in this tragic case it is not always without consequences.
If you are a motorcyclist do not overtake a line of vehicles whilst approaching a junction as you never know who may pull out.
That is basically what happened in this case. Both the driver and the motorcyclist were unaware of each other.
At the time there was a 30mph speed limit on this part of the A31 due to the rebuilding of the adjacent Canford Bottom roundabout. This led to vehicles travelling in 'convoy' with very few breaks in the traffic at busy periods. It may have been worth considering banning right turns at the junction during this period of the works.

[rewc]

Pontoneer said:

Rovinghawk said:

And yet she doesn't even get the same £60 FPN that she's dished out to others for similar, even though a tiny difference is that she killed someone.

She got off scot free. This is what grates with many people.

RH

Trying to be impartial here , we don't know that 'she killed someone' .

She was involved in an RTC where someone died - that is not the same thing , and is all we know from the facts available .

Could she even be offered a FPN for the offence of using a phone when there were no witnesses that she did. It would be unusual for someone who had committed and offence, normally dealt with by a FPN, to walk into a Police Station and ask for one. I will not hold my breath waiting for queues of motorists lining up outside Police Station asking for a FPN for not wearing a seat belt or exceeding the speed limit.

[rewc]

Spangles said:

The CPS statement in the Mail has this line:-

'Two drivers who were the closest to the collision stated that when Ms Carpenter pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them.

That implies there's more to this story, was the bike overtaking?

Yes the bike was overtaking a line of vehicles. If my memory is correct there was a 30mph speed limit imposed due to the lengthy works associated with the rebuilding of Canford Bottom roundabout. The accident happened within and towards the eastern end of that limit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Sp...

Edited by rewc on Wednesday 13th February 17:16

[rewc]

Rovinghawk said:

The driver closest to the collision was inconvenienced to such an extent that he died; the fact that others further away thought the fatal collision was safe is not entirely relevant.

RH

The rider who died was not the closest to the scene of the accident when the driver of the car started to exit from the side junction. He was overtaking a line of cars and was not visible to her. See the photo in the link to the Mail report.

[rewc]

vonhosen said:

Rovinghawk said:

I'll use someone else's answer:

mjb1 said:

Have you tried driving with a phone on your lap? I haven't with a phone, but with other similar sized objects - every time you change direction or brake it slides off, every time you use the brake or clutch pedal it drops between your legs or falls off down the side of your seat. It's quite easy for it to create an additional momentary distraction over a phone in a cradle.

RH

But that doesn't satisfy the offence of using a mobile phone.

The CPS said "'The evidence showed that Ms Carpenter was using her phone whilst driving but Ms Carpenter stated that her phone was positioned on her lap on loud speaker.
'We also took into consideration that there was no evidence to support that Ms Carpenter was holding her phone at the time of the collision."

It would appear that the CPS do not consider the phone being used in that manner constitutes an offence under the law. Worth remembering if offered a FPN in similar circumstances of use.

[rewc]

Rovinghawk said:

He was sure as hell closest when the collision happened.

RH

This has been posted on the Bournemouth Echo by the driver in the lead vehicle overtaken by the bike:

"they both probably didnt see each other until the last second as their view of each other could have been restricted by my van. (As has been published neither I or the other witness , who was waiting behind her saw her on the phone, there was nothing in her actions to suggest that she was not paying proper attention). If either I had broken the speed limit in the roadworks area or the vehicles in front of me had not broken the law then there would not have been a bigger enough gap for Ms Carpenter to have emerged from the junction and Mr Bartholomew may still be with us today."

[rewc]

La Liga said:

Searching local papers for posts apparently from people involved to cite as being sufficient to counter the CPS and Corner's decision is comical.

The quote I put in from the Bournemouth Echo from the driver in the lead vehicle would appear to support the CPS decision.

[rewc]

jaf01uk said:

Yet Google is littered with reports of drivers who have been prosecuted for being on the phone during or immediately before accidents based on call logs, indeed is it not common practice now to examine mobile phones of drivers involved in rtc's to check if the phone was used in the lead up to the incident?

Yes but in future they will claim that it was in their laps on loudspeaker.

[rewc]

singlecoil said:

jaf01uk said:

singlecoil said:

Rovinghawk said:

singlecoil said:

The manoeuvre was safe.

How do you know?

By applying intelligence, experience and a lack of prejudice to the information that is already available about this accident.

And by disregarding the parts about the coroner calling her a liar and the investigating officer appealing to the CPS regarding their lack of charges? ...

I didn't disregard those parts, I took them into consideration.


I hope you would agree that overtaking a 'line of cars', the lead venicle of which is a van, when approaching a junction, is a dangerous thing to do?

I addition there was a long term temporary 30mph limit in place due to the Canford Bottom roundabout works. The lead driver said he was travelling under the speed limit, it is very likely that the motorbike was exceeding it.
This location is an accident waiting to happen. A right turn onto the A31 is always risky especially during peak periods. A place where one of the three E's, specifically E for Engineering would be useful.

[rewc]

XDA said:

XCP said:

XDA said:

So I can start making and receiving phone calls with a phone that's resting on my lap while driving, without fear of a FPN then as its clearly acceptable?

So she was given preferential treatment by a corrupt police service and CPS. Is that what you believe?

Nothing wrong with the police service. They wanted to bring charges. The CPS didn't.

It would be good to remember that the CPS was formed as the result of a Royal Commission in 1978. "A Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was set up under Sir Cyril Philips. Its report was published in 1981 and had the following three main criticisms of the Criminal Justice system in England and Wales:
1.The police should not investigate offences and decide whether to prosecute. The officer who investigated a case could not be relied on to make a fair decision whether to prosecute
2.Different police forces around the country used different standards to decide whether to prosecute 3.The police were allowing too many weak cases to come to court. This led to a high percentage of judge-directed acquittals."

I am grateful that the decision to prosecute is with the CPS and not the Police.

[rewc]

andygo said:

I wonder if she was 'flashed' out of the junction by the driver to her right and went for it, not realising the flasher had not looked in his door mirror to check his osr was free of oncoming traffic.

Not according to the evidence at the inquest or the Police report of the collision.

[rewc]

XCP said:

XDA said:

So Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police’s traffic unit is very wrong, but the "experts" here are all correct?

Not that it is his decision to make.
I cannot recall a time when Traffic Inspectors made decisions about who was prosecuted. That is what CPS lawyers are paid to do.

It would be good to remember that the CPS was formed as the result of a Royal Commission in 1978. "A Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was set up under Sir Cyril Philips. Its report was published in 1981 and had the following three main criticisms of the Criminal Justice system in England and Wales:
1.The police should not investigate offences and decide whether to prosecute. The officer who investigated a case could not be relied on to make a fair decision whether to prosecute
2.Different police forces around the country used different standards to decide whether to prosecute 3.The police were allowing too many weak cases to come to court. This led to a high percentage of judge-directed acquittals."

I am grateful that the decision to prosecute is with the CPS and not the Police.

[rewc]

XDA said:

I know it's not his decision.

I find it striking that he's voiced his opinion publicly. Especially when it's "one of his own".

Surely someone in his position knows what he's talking about?

With respect to what? In the same statement he said that the Dorset Police No Excuse campaign was doing a great job in lowering fatalities on Dorset roads. This was in spite of their being 23 in 2009, 10 in 2010, they rose in 2011 and in 2012 there were 25.

[rewc]

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

XDA said:

I know it's not his decision.

I find it striking that he's voiced his opinion publicly. Especially when it's "one of his own".

Surely someone in his position knows what he's talking about?

AIUI, his issue was that she should have been prosecuted for using a hand held device, but one would have thought that as an inspector who knows what he is talking about, he would know that you can't prosecute people without evidence.

So why did he make those comments then?

Perhaps he is an example of why "The police should not investigate offences and decide whether to prosecute. The officer who investigated a case could not be relied on to make a fair decision whether to prosecute"

[rewc]

"Why did she deny using her phone? Why did she admit taking an incoming call? Why did she then change it a 3rd time to speaker phone and I started the call before I set off?"

What evidence did the Police have? Both the nearest approaching driver and the motorist directly behind her said she was not holding a phone.

[rewc]

XDA said:

La Liga said:

XDA said:

La Liga said:

We can speculate on a whole host of reasons as to why he's speaking publicly. It doesn't really mean that much factually.

Isn't it quite rare for an officer to speak out like that?

Yes, it's not common, but you still can't use is as big hammer to show the CPS made the wrong decision. The question is, why would they, especially on appeal? There's all sorts of potential agendas, emotions and politics involved with speaking out with the CPS. Some officers see the relationship as a 'us and them', which is clearly the wrong way to view things. People can get very stubborn when they are shown to be 'wrong'.

You can bet this file has had another look by the CPS given the media and extra public interest.

None us have seen the collision investigators' report, or report to the CPS and their reply, but can you see how threatening to the prosecution case it is when there are two independent witnesses? Can you imagine what questions the defence barrister would be asking them in front of the jury? It wouldn't be hard work.

No, we haven't seen the collision investigators report. He did say this though:

"PC John Hayward, Dorset Police’s accident investigator, told Bournemouth Coroner’s Court: ‘The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist."

It was clear from the evidence given in the inquest that she never saw the motorcyclist because he was masked by the leading vehicle of the line of vehicles that he was overtaking. How he knows the mobile phone in her lap likely contributed to that we do not know but both independent witnesses said she was driving carefully.

[rewc]

XDA said:

Clearly the phone was a distraction, regardless of whether she was seen using it.

It was not clear to the nearest two witnesses of the accident who both said she was driving carefully. Who was it clear to?

[rewc]

XDA said:

singlecoil said:

XDA said:

rewc said:

XDA said:

Clearly the phone was a distraction, regardless of whether she was seen using it.

It was not clear to the nearest two witnesses of the accident who both said she was driving carefully. Who was it clear to?

The police accident investigator thinks otherwise. As does the Inspector.

But they weren't there, the witnesses were there.

But the accident investigators findings state otherwise, or has it just made it up?

It is his opinion. It is impossible for him or the two witnesses to say if the phone in her lap and the conversation taking place had any bearing on the accident. The two witnesses said though that she was driving competently and carefully.

[rewc]

XDA said:

rewc said:

XDA said:

La Liga said:

XDA said:

La Liga said:

We can speculate on a whole host of reasons as to why he's speaking publicly. It doesn't really mean that much factually.

Isn't it quite rare for an officer to speak out like that?

Yes, it's not common, but you still can't use is as big hammer to show the CPS made the wrong decision. The question is, why would they, especially on appeal? There's all sorts of potential agendas, emotions and politics involved with speaking out with the CPS. Some officers see the relationship as a 'us and them', which is clearly the wrong way to view things. People can get very stubborn when they are shown to be 'wrong'.

You can bet this file has had another look by the CPS given the media and extra public interest.

None us have seen the collision investigators' report, or report to the CPS and their reply, but can you see how threatening to the prosecution case it is when there are two independent witnesses? Can you imagine what questions the defence barrister would be asking them in front of the jury? It wouldn't be hard work.

No, we haven't seen the collision investigators report. He did say this though:

"PC John Hayward, Dorset Police’s accident investigator, told Bournemouth Coroner’s Court: ‘The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist."

It was clear from the evidence given in the inquest that she never saw the motorcyclist because he was masked by the leading vehicle of the line of vehicles that he was overtaking. How he knows the mobile phone in her lap likely contributed to that we do not know but both independent witnesses said she was driving carefully.

How did the phone likely contribute? Errr, it was a distraction?

Not according to the witnesses who described her driving at the time as careful and competent.