Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills

[anonymous-user]

One rule for one and one for another......



Now look at the bds writing someone up.....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Flibble said:

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.

I was just making the point in general terms, re the difference in terminal speed at a given point, when doing 42 in a 30 limit. I doubt most people realise that the person you miss by a whisker at 30 gets hit at nearly 30mph when doing 42.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

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_/

- 42 in a 30
- not on emergency call
- hit and killed a pedestrian
- CCTV coverage , witnesses

results in:
- sufficient evidence for "gross misconduct" reduced to "misconduct"
- CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction for any offence

Hmm.....yeah that all sounds completely kosher.

[anonymous-user]

JimSuperSix said:

- 42 in a 30
- not on emergency call
- hit and killed a pedestrian
- CCTV coverage , witnesses

results in:
- sufficient evidence for "gross misconduct" reduced to "misconduct"
- CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction for any offence

Hmm.....yeah that all sounds completely kosher.

Officer doesn’t need to be on emergency call to speed.
Pedestrian walked out when should not have done so.
CCTV does not monitor speed.
Witness said officer did not look to be speeding.

What do you think would happen at court?

[Pica-Pica]

I imagine this will be a real-life (!) example on future Speed Awareness Courses.

[anonymous-user]

JimSuperSix said:

- 42 in a 30

From a device that doesn't prove the matter to a criminal standard.

JimSuperSix said:

- CCTV coverage

Which shows a limited view of the collision, and, I presume, offers no help in calculating / corroborating excess speed.

JimSuperSix said:

witnesses

Who say things like:

Witness said:

Mr C confirmed the traffic lights were green, in favour of the police car, at the time of the collision and he did not consider the police car to have been travelling at excessive speed.

Witness Mrs E said:

She did not consider the police car was travelling “too fast” and recalled it was not displaying its blue lights or sirens.

JimSuperSix said:

results in:
- sufficient evidence for "gross misconduct" reduced to "misconduct"

The IOPC make recommendations, they don't decide since it's an internal matter.

I like how you're willing to accept the evidential judgement of the IOPC investigator, but not the CPS or police. Easy to accept and put aside cynicism when it's what you want to read, isn't it?

JimSuperSix said:

results in:
- CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction for any offence.

It's not hard to see why that's the case.

The fact you cited witnesses who undermine the prosecution case shows you've not bothered to read about the matter. It's always obvious when people post the first thing that comes to mind and no surprise them they 'double down' on their ignorance.

[Red Devil]

La Liga said:

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.

Fair enough, but that doesn't get the workshop personnel off the hook. Who takes responsibility for failing to check it wasn't reconnected?
It's also a fecking useless poorly specced bit of kit if it doesn't have any visible external indication of whether or not it is connected and working.
How much do a couple of LEDs (power on [steady] and record [blinking]) - cost ffs? Back in the day even my crappy old VHS machine had both

La Liga said:

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.

Sure it would 'respect' that advice, but would it not also draw its own conclusions about the refusal to reply to any pertinent direct questions?

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:

Red Devil said:

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.

Do you have a link to that paragraph please? I don't recall seeing them in the report I was looking at.

In which case, maybe the device should be an approved one (Home Office?).
Glasshouses and stones come to mind. I find it hard to believe the PC didn't know what speed he was doing (an indicated 50% over the.applicable limit)
If you're in a position of power (i.e. to monitor and take me to task over my compliance), you had better be sure that you're squeaky clean.

[anonymous-user]

Red Devil said:

Fair enough, but that doesn't get the workshop personnel off the hook. Who takes responsibility for failing to check it wasn't reconnected? It's also a fecking useless poorly specced bit of kit if it doesn't have any visible external indication of whether or not it is connected and working. How much do a couple of LEDs (power on [steady] and record [blinking]) - cost ffs? Back in the day even my crappy old VHS machine had both

It should have been working. I imagine they went for the cheapest kit they could get away with. Whoever failed to connect it takes responsibility.

Red Devil said:

Sure it would 'respect' that advice, but would it not also draw its own conclusions about the refusal to reply to any pertinent direct questions?

I don't think it'd make a great deal of difference. I expect they'd have covered any area of concern in the pre-prepared statement. If it did go to court, I can't see any issue in him answering those questions for the first time if he's asked them (assuming they weren't in the statement). What happens in court isn't something I know too much about, but my overall view is that a solid prosecution shouldn't rely much on an interview.

I'd also add that the key thing at the interview stage is adopting the best method to avoid being charged (assuming that's a reasonable possibility). If that were looking likely a different approach may have been undertaken during the interview.

Red Devil said:

Do you have a link to that paragraph please? I don't recall seeing them in the report I was looking at.

It's in this summary here: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/fil...

Red Devil said:

Glasshouses and stones come to mind. I find it hard to believe the PC didn't know what speed he was doing (an indicated 50% over the.applicable limit).

He may have done, but it's down to the prosecution to prove the matter.




Edited to remove an irrelevant quote.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st July 20:16

[agtlaw]

IOPC said:

We referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for them to consider offences of causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by driving without due care and attention, driving without due care and attention, and speeding.

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.

Section 20(2) of the RTOA 1988 sets out which offences apply to section 20. Speeding is such an offence. The other offences listed above are not set out in s. 20(2) as amended. In any event, section 20 is not the only gateway to admit evidence of speed. In a death by dangerous / careless driving, or simple careless driving case, the prosecutor would likely have no difficulty adducing evidence that the IDR recorded a vmax of 42 mph. The offence of speeding is peculiar as it requires corroboration. The other offences mentioned above do not require corroboration. Unless the CPS were only considering bringing proceedings for speeding then I fail to understand IOPC’s reasoning.

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

JimSuperSix said:

- 42 in a 30

From a device that doesn't prove the matter to a criminal standard.

JimSuperSix said:

- CCTV coverage

Which shows a limited view of the collision, and, I presume, offers no help in calculating / corroborating excess speed.

JimSuperSix said:

witnesses

Who say things like:

Witness said:

Mr C confirmed the traffic lights were green, in favour of the police car, at the time of the collision and he did not consider the police car to have been travelling at excessive speed.

Witness Mrs E said:

She did not consider the police car was travelling “too fast” and recalled it was not displaying its blue lights or sirens.

JimSuperSix said:

results in:
- sufficient evidence for "gross misconduct" reduced to "misconduct"

The IOPC make recommendations, they don't decide since it's an internal matter.

I like how you're willing to accept the evidential judgement of the IOPC investigator, but not the CPS or police. Easy to accept and put aside cynicism when it's what you want to read, isn't it?

JimSuperSix said:

results in:
- CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction for any offence.

It's not hard to see why that's the case.

The fact you cited witnesses who undermine the prosecution case shows you've not bothered to read about the matter. It's always obvious when people post the first thing that comes to mind and no surprise them they 'double down' on their ignorance.

There seems to be a fair bit of solid evidence that he ran down and killed someone, and the police / CPS seem to love prosecuting people from crappy dashcam footage for trivial speeding offences, yet in this case its just not worth the CPS pursuing? Hmm.

[carinaman]

I've never heard a driving instructor say 'Be prepared for the traffic lights to change as you approach them'.

[Countdown]

JimSuperSix said:

There seems to be a fair bit of solid evidence that he ran down and killed someone, and the police / CPS seem to love prosecuting people from crappy dashcam footage for trivial speeding offences, yet in this case its just not worth the CPS pursuing? Hmm.

Genuine question - has anybody ever been done for speeding based on crappy dashcam footage? Or even prosecuted?

[carinaman]

Derek Smith said:

Look on the bright side. The death of an individual has given you something to moan about with regards the police. Not quite win:win I know, but getting there.

Hi Derek, as you've responded I thought this may be a good opportunity to inform you of some typos on your LinkedIn profile. For your police job you've five errors over the first three lines, with two errors in 'communications'.

[vonhosen]

JimSuperSix said:

There seems to be a fair bit of solid evidence that he ran down and killed someone, and the police / CPS seem to love prosecuting people from crappy dashcam footage for trivial speeding offences, yet in this case its just not worth the CPS pursuing? Hmm.

Having a fatal collision in itself isn't an offence.
They didn't have dashcam footage (crappy or otherwise) to provide evidence of any offence.

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

Having a fatal collision in itself isn't an offence.
They didn't have dashcam footage (crappy or otherwise) to provide evidence of any offence.

Why not use the IDR evidence?

[vonhosen]

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

Having a fatal collision in itself isn't an offence.
They didn't have dashcam footage (crappy or otherwise) to provide evidence of any offence.

Why not use the IDR evidence?

They can't for evidence of speeding without corroboration & they have none.
The witness evidence undermines any case of careless/dangerous driving with regard to speed the vehicle was travelling at. There doesn't appear to be any other basis on which the driving was considered careless or dangerous.

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

The witness evidence undermines any case of careless/dangerous driving with regard to speed the vehicle was travelling at. There doesn't appear to be any other basis on which the driving was considered careless or dangerous.

It’s nowhere near dangerous but he’s very lucky not to have been charged with causing death by careless driving.

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

They can't for evidence of speeding without corroboration & they have none.

That’s only correct if charged with speeding. Otherwise, incorrect.

[vonhosen]

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

They can't for evidence of speeding without corroboration & they have none.

That’s only correct if charged with speeding. Otherwise, incorrect.

That's what I was saying in respect of speeding.
In respect of a careless allegation the witnesses say the speed didn't appear inappropriate, the light was green & the pedestrian just stepped out in front of the vehicle, don't they?

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

That's what I was saying in respect of speeding.
In respect of a careless allegation the witnesses say the speed didn't appear inappropriate, the light was green & the pedestrian just stepped out in front of the vehicle, don't they?

I’d be most interested in the telemetry data. If the prosecution had evidence that D exceeded the speed limit by 12 mph at the time of the accident then that’s prima facie evidence of careless driving. P only has to prove that D’s careless driving was ‘a cause’ of death. Anything more than a minimal cause is sufficient.