Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills

Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills

Author
Discussion

LosingGrip

7,806 posts

158 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Yes - much lower standard of proof for a formal bking from your employer than for an actual criminal prosecution.

Remember, this was an Astra panda, not a traffic car. AIUI, panda drivers don't actually need any training above a normal licence.
Depends. If you have a car licence you can drive to patrol and pull people over once you have your check drive and stopping course. Next is a standard response course. This is normally three weeks, once you have passed this you are allowed to use your exemptions when justified (exceed the speed limit, treat red lights as give ways and contravene keep left/right signs). Week four is normally the pursuit side of things.

This will allow you to drive a standard 'panda' car. Normally a Astra/Focus or similar (off the top of my head, under 180BHP). After this you have advanced.

That is just my force, I don't believe its going to be much different elsewhere.

Re the black boxes...they aren't calibrated so can't be used in court, but can be used in misconduct etc.

Sheepshanks

32,535 posts

118 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
LosingGrip said:
Re the black boxes...they aren't calibrated so can't be used in court, but can be used in misconduct etc.
The Incident Data Recorder (IDS) was working and was calibrated and re-checked. Section 94: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/fil...

The 'black box' video recorder was out of action (section 95).

LosingGrip

7,806 posts

158 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Ah didn't read that bit. I was going with what we were told down here.

Flibble

6,470 posts

180 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you're doing 30, someone steps out ahead, you hit the brakes and you come to a halt 1mm from hitting them, then had you been doing 42 instead of 30, you would have hit them at over 29mph.
Based on highway code braking numbers, if they were hit at 36 mph and the car was doing 42 mph before braking, they were approximately 19.5 m from the car. Had the car been doing 30 mph, it would have hit the pedestrian at 14 mph.

If you use a slightly more realistic braking force (0.8g vs 0.67g) and thinking time (1s vs 0.67s) the pedestrian is 24.5 metres away and a car doing 30 mph would have have hit the pedestrian at 6 mph.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
For me, two of the most interesting items in the IPCC report are paragraph 99 and a bullet point in paragraph 204.
The former states that the in car video recording device had not been reconnected after the engine refit .
The latter reveals that during the 15 days after the vehicle returned to operations not one of the vehicle's drivers during that period had reported it wasn't working.

A clear breach of SYP policy (paragraph 23).
It is likely that it could have provided some useful evidence.

Mind-blowing shoddiness by both workshop and operational personnel.
What's the point of having the equipment if it isn't functioning?

Paragraph 138 caused a wry smile. I'm sure that if I made a statement like that it would be given short shrift.
I reckon a court wouldn't be impressed by my remaining silent in response to every question put to me in interview either.

But then it never got that far. The CPS declined to pursue any charges.
I wonder if it had been me in my car I would have been so fortunate.







anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You'd be in jail. Funny how it doesn't apply here isn't it....

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Ahhhh yes. Must be a conspiracy / double standards. Didn’t take long for those types to arrive in the topic.

After all, they’ve seen the evidential file and are the experts are applying the Full Test Code.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Without a dash cam, any other recording device or black box or cctv showing you wildly speeding or witnesses saying your were speeding there’s no way anyone else would be done for this incident. It would never get proven in court especially when the poor person has stepped out and the skid marks, if any don’t really show any great level of speeding.

Edited for my poor spelling.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st July 16:12

vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
JimSuperSix said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You'd be in jail. Funny how it doesn't apply here isn't it....
There are far more factors at play in deciding outcome than are available to us here.
Police officers do get charged/convicted/imprisoned for killing pedestrians where the circumstances make that a suitable course of action.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4702392.BROMLEY_SWANLEY__Former_Met_officer_jailed_for_killing_grandmother_in_police_carjoyride_/

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
For me, two of the most interesting items in the IPCC report are paragraph 99 and a bullet point in paragraph 204.
The former states that the in car video recording device had not been reconnected after the engine refit .
The latter reveals that during the 15 days after the vehicle returned to operations not one of the vehicle's drivers during that period had reported it wasn't working.

A clear breach of SYP policy (paragraph 23).
It is likely that it could have provided some useful evidence.

Mind-blowing shoddiness by both workshop and operational personnel.
What's the point of having the equipment if it isn't functioning?
I know someone who visited Humberside (who I think use the same equipment) regarding these cameras, and there's no overt way of the driver knowing whether or not the camera is connected. It doesn't have a screen displaying the footage. It literally is fixed at the top of the windscreen and, I think, has the wire running into the headlining.

So unless the wire was obviously disconnected from the camera, I'm not sure how anyone could tell.

Red Devil said:
I reckon a court wouldn't be impressed by my remaining silent in response to every question put to me in interview either.
I think a court would respect the legal advice given to the suspect, which in this case was to present pre-prepared statement.

Red Devil said:
But then it never got that far. The CPS declined to pursue any charges.
I wonder if it had been me in my car I would have been so fortunate.
It's pretty clear from the report you've read (what the witnesses said, or didn't say) and the following:

IOPC said:
Critical to the CPS charging decision was that while the Incident Data Recorder (IDR) fitted to the police car driven by PC Hazlehurst suggested that he had driven at a maximum speed of 42mph, this device was not approved in accordance with s20(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It could not, therefore, prove to a criminal standard that PC Hazlehurst was exceeding the speed limit, unless corroborated by other evidence. The witness accounts did not corroborate that the police car was being driven at excessive speed.

Sheepshanks

32,535 posts

118 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
JimSuperSix said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You'd be in jail. Funny how it doesn't apply here isn't it....
This is the case I was thinking of earlier: http://www.itv.com/news/border/2017-04-27/driver-j...

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
JimSuperSix said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You'd be in jail. Funny how it doesn't apply here isn't it....
This is the case I was thinking of earlier: http://www.itv.com/news/border/2017-04-27/driver-j...
Did that hinge around the excess speed, or was it the conditions, the circumstances and expectations of a pedestrianised town centre, and driver admitting he was distracted etc?



Sheepshanks

32,535 posts

118 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
id that hinge around the excess speed, or was it the conditions, the circumstances and expectations of a pedestrianised town centre, and driver admitting he was distracted etc?
My view would be that it hinged around him not knowing to keep his gob shut before getting legal advice and then not having access to the same quality of legal advice as the PC.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
La Liga said:
id that hinge around the excess speed, or was it the conditions, the circumstances and expectations of a pedestrianised town centre, and driver admitting he was distracted etc?
My view would be that it hinged around him not knowing to keep his gob shut before getting legal advice and then not having access to the same quality of legal advice as the PC.
It could have been an unsolicited comment, but it also may have been during interview post-legal advice.

Either way, probably significant differences in the circumstances and overall evidence.








TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
Red Devil said:
But then it never got that far. The CPS declined to pursue any charges.
I wonder if it had been me in my car I would have been so fortunate.
It's pretty clear from the report you've read (what the witnesses said, or didn't say) and the following:

IOPC said:
Critical to the CPS charging decision was that while the Incident Data Recorder (IDR) fitted to the police car driven by PC Hazlehurst suggested that he had driven at a maximum speed of 42mph, this device was not approved in accordance with s20(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It could not, therefore, prove to a criminal standard that PC Hazlehurst was exceeding the speed limit, unless corroborated by other evidence. The witness accounts did not corroborate that the police car was being driven at excessive speed.
The other very important bit is section 183.
IPCC said:
183 - The reconstruction confirmed that the colour of Mr Bingham’s clothing blended into that of the walls of the surrounding buildings, which made it almost impossible for PC Hazlehurst to have seen him as he drove along Penistone Road at 41mph.
This also proved to be the case when driving along Penistone Road at the 30mph speed limit.
Oh, yes, and the conspiracy theorists are ignoring section 199...
IPCC said:
199 - The Commission delegate may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to refer any matters to the Crown Prosecution Service. I recommend the following offences are considered:

1. Sec 2 B of the RTA 1988 Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.
2. Driving without due care and attention.
3. Exceeding the speed limit.

Sheepshanks

32,535 posts

118 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
t could have been an unsolicited comment, but it also may have been during interview post-legal advice.

Either way, probably significant differences in the circumstances and overall evidence.
I accept there isn't the same level of detail there (which may have been the Penrith lads undoing) but at a high level it sounds remarkably similar - winter, wet, dark, pedestrian wearing dark clothing, crossing at lights that were green for traffic, driver didn't see him, 50% over the speed limit (30 in a 20 in the Penrith case, but there won't have been any exact evidence of speed)….

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
Ahhhh yes. Must be a conspiracy / double standards. Didn’t take long for those types to arrive in the topic.

After all, they’ve seen the evidential file and are the experts are applying the Full Test Code.
If that is aimed at me, I never suggested conspiracy in any shape or form. As for double standards, hmmm.

The IDR evidence clearly shows the speed limit was being exceeded yet the CPS declined to purse any charges.
A driver can be prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in his/her system and convicted solely the basis of a back calculation.
But the CPS decided in this case that no evidence whatsoever would be put before a court.
It's hardly surprising that some people question its decision making.

Your faith in that body is greater than mine. Its actions, or lack of them, are sometimes bizarre,
It is woefully underfunded and this is bound to have an effect on the level and quality of its staff.

CPS website said:
The CPS works closely with the police, courts, the Judiciary and other partners to deliver justice.
Too close, maybe? Or was it just that it reckoned it would be outgunned by a better qualified/prepared defence lawyer?
The older I get,* the more cynical I become about the way the state treats the general public.

 * Which is closer and closer to my expiry date.





Blue Oval84

5,276 posts

160 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Interestingly I note that this is one of the new style ped-crossings that I complained about in the "Ask a highways engineer anything" thread. The green man isn't over the road where you expect it, but it's on the pole next to you. Depending on the angle you approach from it's sometimes utterly impossible to see it (i.e. if you're not crossing absolutely on the crossing, but slightly at an angle) Also, I've seen some crossings where the red man is obscured and the only thing you can see is a green man on the other side of the road (but that green man is actually for a different crossing).

They're ste basically. If, as the coroner suggested was possible, he was looking at a different green man, I've no doubt that the death was due to this bastardised design (and a measure of carelessness on his part, but that's what properly designed stuff should protect us against)

poo at Paul's

14,116 posts

174 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Sounds entirely normal, anyone of us here doing 42mph in a 30 and then hitting someone in the road at 36mph in the 30 would end up in exactly the same boat.
Same as doing 147mph in our company cars, and destroying roundabouts in ford focusses at 80 odd.
Pretty sure it is in the legislation. Check under "one rule for one.....".

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st July 2018
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
I accept there isn't the same level of detail there (which may have been the Penrith lads undoing) but at a high level it sounds remarkably similar - winter, wet, dark, pedestrian wearing dark clothing, crossing at lights that were green for traffic, driver didn't see him, 50% over the speed limit (30 in a 20 in the Penrith case, but there won't have been any exact evidence of speed)….
Superficially, yes, they are similarities. The law isn't about the superficial, it's about nuance and detail. Nuance and detail derived from the specific circumstances of each case.

Red Devil said:
If that is aimed at me, I never suggested conspiracy in any shape or form. As for double standards, hmmm.
It wasn't aimed at you. It was the two posts after yours. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I've always got time for people who'll actually read the reports etc.

Red Devil said:
The IDR evidence clearly shows the speed limit was being exceeded yet the CPS declined to purse any charges.
A driver can be prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in his/her system and convicted solely the basis of a back calculation.
But the CPS decided in this case that no evidence whatsoever would be put before a court. It's hardly surprising that some people question its decision making.
The issue is, and I'm deferring to the IPOC quote I quoted, is that the IDR doesn't prove the matter to a criminal standard.

It's clearly a starting point to find further corroboration, but from reading the report there isn't any. The officer has given them nothing in interview. The witnesses undermine the prosecution case, or certainly don't help support the excess speed. There's no CCTV. I imagine the margins are too fine for any forensic collision investigation to be conclusive. I also imagine the actions of the pedestrian are relevant, too.

Red Devil said:
Your faith in that body is greater than mine. Its actions, or lack of them, are sometimes bizarre,
It is woefully underfunded and this is bound to have an effect on the level and quality of its staff.
It's an unnatural death and an IOPC referral. It isn't going to be done over the phone, quickly. They'd have had the file for sometime.

It was also appealed where another lawyer reviewed the charging decision and came to the same conclusion.

CPS website said:
The CPS works closely with the police, courts, the Judiciary and other partners to deliver justice.
Too close, maybe? Or was it just that it reckoned it would be outgunned by a better qualified/prepared defence lawyer?
The older I get,* the more cynical I become about the way the state treats the general public.

 * Which is closer and closer to my expiry date.
They also work closely with the IOPC. They charge plenty of police officers so I fail to see why they wouldn't do it here if they thought there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

I think the answer is likely to be the simplest / most boring one. That being that there simply isn't sufficient evidence in this case. Perhaps fortunate for the officer involved, but that's the way it falls sometimes.